“If a job is worth doing,  it is worth doing right!”

There is much literature available on the topics of pavement management and available computer software programs.  However, very little information is available about how to successfully implement a pavement management system.  Hopefully, this article will provide some basic information that will prove helpful in trying to institute a new pavement management system or improve an existing system.
 

Part 1 of the four part series on pavement management systems (PMS) discussed the importance of a PMS. It stated that a PMS, if properly implemented, would allow a community to maintain its street system as efficiently as possible by providing a rational, systematic approach to managing pavement maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction (MR&R).  Although the benefits of a PMS are well documented, public works personnel often find it very difficult to convince elected officials of the wisdom of implementing a PMS.  Even when the council members mandate the use of a PMS, many times the PMS is not properly implemented.  If the PMS does not influence the MR&R budget decisions, then the system is not working.  Therefore, if the PMS is to be successful, an implementation plan must be developed and followed through upon.

Implementation of the PMS process can be divided into several phases.  Depending upon the size of the municipality and the amount of resistance from the board, any of the following steps may need to be modified or deleted, or additional steps may be necessary:

Phase I - GETTING STARTED

The first phase of implementing a PMS is similar to the old saying about stepping off a cliff, “the first step is a big one.”  This is so true because the first phase will usually determine whether or not the board decides if a PMS should be mandated.  Additionally, first impressions can have a long lasting effect on how the council members will embrace a PMS, if it is ultimately adopted and implemented.  Therefore, it is imperative that this step be planned in detail and carefully executed.

Before the concept of pavement management can be presented to the elected officials, it first must become part of the agenda at a board meeting. This task can possibly be the most difficult step of all and may require considerable effort and time.  For many agencies, having a council member become an advocate on the board can be crucial to getting pavement management on the agenda.  An advocate will most likely be someone who considers public works or highway issues and funding a major priority.  An advocate can be extremely helpful in obtaining board approval and in succeeding with the board over the long haul.  

Introduction Meeting:

At this first meeting, the main goal is to convince the board that the current pavement maintenance budgeting process needs to be changed and explain how a PMS can provide the needed help.  A general overview of the PMS process should be presented with a focus on the potential benefits.  Successful implementation will not occur unless everyone understands the basic concepts behind pavement management and how it will benefit the community. Therefore, this is a very critical step in the implementation process.

When presenting the PMS process, a suggested plan of action should be available for discussion.  The plan of action should contain:

• Time frame for completing the PMS process 
• Identification of key points where board input is needed 
• Plan for public communication
• Creation of a board steering committee.  

A PMS steering committee could be the full board, a standing committee, or a special committee created specifically for the PMS process.

One key component of this step is to communicate with other municipal departments and the public.  This can take a variety of forms from notices in the town newsletter or an informal public information meeting to a full-blown citizen participation process.  A number of communities have benefited from the support and insight that the general public has provided when informed about PMS activities.
 

Phase II - LIMITED TEST RUN

In general, it is a good idea to implement a limited PMS that will cover only a small portion of the overall network. This may be especially beneficial for a large roadway system that requires a significant investment in time or in situations where the board is skeptical.  By limiting the investment, board members will be more likely to approve a limited test run. 

This step is important for two reasons.  First, the job of selling the benefits of PMS should be easier because elected officials have a set of tangible reports to see exactly what information is generated.  Also, the reports will be much smaller than if the entire network was analyzed. This will make it easier for board members to review information without becoming bogged down in volumes of raw data.  Second, it allows the personnel who will be doing the work to get their feet wet before plunging headfirst into the entire network.  Typically, the smaller the scope of work, the easier it is to plan and execute the work, as well as, to trouble shoot any problems.  This will be of great benefit when trying to implement PMS for the entire network.
 

Phase III - DETERMINE OVERALL NETWORK NEEDS

In this phase of the implementation process, the bulk of the data collection and analysis takes place.  The steps will be very similar to those of phase II, except that the scale of this phase is much larger.  As such, much care should be taken to ensure that the process is unfolding correctly since problems or errors can increase greatly in magnitude as compared with phase II.

If available funds are inadequate to allow for complete implementation, then staging phase III may be necessary.  The segments to be included in each stage can be based on importance.  For example, the first stage would include all major collector streets. The second stage would include minor collectors and the third stage would include the local residential streets.  In order to improve efficiency, this approach may be recommended for larger agencies even though the municipality has sufficient funds to survey all streets at once.

As stated earlier, a major benefit of phase II is that it serves as “dress rehearsal” for full implementation.  The lessons learned from phase II must be used to modify the implementation process.  This may include changing the initial procedures for collecting and inputting data, how reports are generated, what information is needed, etc. 

After all the necessary data has been entered into the PMS software program, reports are generated stating how each street should be repaired and the associated cost to repair each street.  This will include a prioritized list of streets to be repaired based on factors such traffic, importance and condition of the pavement.
 

Phase IV - DEVELOPING A MULTI-YEAR INVESTMENT PLAN

Upon review of the cost estimates for repairing each street, most municipalities will not be able to fund the total cost of repairing all streets.  As such, the municipality will have to develop a list of streets to be repaired in the first year.  In developing this list, it is highly recommended that the elected officials look at the long-term picture.  For example, an agency may have $2 million dollars in repair needs, but only wants to appropriate $50,000 in repair funds.  In this case, the level of funding will certainly not meet the long-term needs of the community.  They are simply allowing the infrastructure system to continue to deteriorate resulting in more expensive repairs being needed in the future. 

For most agencies, a very expensive state-of-the-art multi-year forecasting computer system is not practical, nor is it needed.  A simplified approach of using the prioritized repair list, plenty of common sense and some negotiation should provide a reasonable three to five year picture of the agency’s needs.    

Typically, the prioritized repair list established by RSMS will require some adjustments.  Many times it will be difficult to schedule a particularly large project within a given year.  In this case, it may be necessary to hold money in reserve from one year to accomplish this large project the next year.  In some cases, substantial money can be saved by scheduling improvements on two or more adjacent street segments in the same year even though a sequential use of the RSMS repair list would put the improvements in different years.  For similar reasons agency officials may want to adjust the prioritized list to achieve important work crew, equipment or timing efficiencies that the RSMS software does not capture.
 

Phase V – FEEDBACK PROCESS

After phase IV has been completed and the agency has developed its first long-term road maintenance budget, the work is not over.  Any successful management system is an ongoing process that requires continuous feedback.  Pavement management is a structured approached that requires a long-term commitment to improve the decision-making process.  For pavement management to become truly effective, everyone must work together in an effort to improve the system, not tear it apart.   PMS must become a part of the routine management process and affect the decisions being made.  The purpose of this phase is to “institutionalize” the pavement management process within the managing organization.
 

SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS

The annual budget is the central planning document in most local governments.  In many communities it is the only significant planning activity. Without a structured approach based upon a rational decision making process, the quality or objectives of the budget can be questioned.  PMS is a tool that can help you to positively impact the quality of public planning by clarifying objectives and targeting investment in a cost-effective manner.

Improving the budget and planning process does not depend upon good information alone.  Budgeting is a negotiation process.  A PMS provides better information and therefore a sounder basis to negotiate from.  This kind of information allows the public works department to negotiate “on the merits” rather than positional bargaining.  “On the merits” means that there is a sound basis for the goals behind the budget proposal and documentation for the dollars needed to accomplish the previously agreed upon goals for the local road system.  This is a much stronger and “less stressful” approach than both sides merely picking positions to bargain from and haggling until a compromise can be reached.  Negotiating on the merits will push the governing board to consider whether or not their goals for the road system and for revenue raising are realistic.

Keep in mind that budgeting is a well-established local process.  Implementing a PMS will require that this well-established process change.  Expect and anticipate resistance.  Organizations don’t like change.  Look for ways to communicate early and affirm and assure others that your efforts are aimed at doing a better job, collecting accurate information and improving public investment.  Don’t be discouraged if it takes more than one attempt to improve the budgeting process.

A major benefit of a properly implemented PMS that is often overlooked is that it requires a municipality to closely examine how it manages its roadway network.  This includes:

• Types of repair treatments used
• Timing of the treatments
• Cost-effectiveness of treatments
• Levels of funding for maintenance
• Prioritization process 

If an agency truly puts the proper amount of time and energy needed to adequately answer these questions, the taxpayers of that community will truly benefit from a well thought out roadway investment plan that truly strives to maximize the utilization of limited tax dollars.

In closing, developing an implementation plan can take considerable effort and time, and must involve all parties.  This planning is essential if the system is to be properly implemented.  Failure to involve all parties in the process can be a recipe for failure.