Courtesy of Rebecca Dodder. Used with permission.

Organizations and Coordination: Implications for ITS

The San Francisco Bay Area in 1980 and 2003

Rebecca Dodder, Doctoral Candidate, TMPApril 14, 2003

1.212 Intelligent Transportation Systems, Lecture 17

Overview

ITS, Organizational Change, and Regional ArchitecturesSan Francisco Bay Area (1980)

Understanding organizations and how/why they interactCoordinating “informally”

San Francisco Bay Area (2003)ITS and the changing organizational context

Some takeaways

ITS and organizations

Implementation of ITS requires interactions among many organizations

Flows of information Flows of power and controlFlows of resources (personnel and money)Sharing of infrastructure and equipmentThese are not separate issues

Georgia Navigator’s traffic monitoring camerasNY/NJ/Conn “Distributed Virtual Transportation Management Approach” (Biggs, 2001)

Customerfocus

ConstraintsOn BuildingConventional InfrastructureITS and change

Operations Focus Technology

Organizational change is not easy

Neither is institutional change

Existing structures can be constraints or opportunities

Need forOrganizational Change

Funding Changes(Private Sector,Federal, State, Local Government)

InstitutionalChange

InformationSharing andResponsibilitySharing AmongAutonomousOrganizations

RegionalScale ofOperations

Adapted from: Human Resource Development, Reward and Incentive

Structure For Operations-Oriented Professionals

(Sussman, 2001)

Issues for Regional Architectures

Cooperation and coordination an important issue in the regional architecture

InterjurisdictionalDegree of interdependence among user servicesInstitutional requirementsDegree of intermodalism

“What level of interagency cooperation is desired and what level is feasible?”

–Rodriguez and Sussman

San Francisco Bay Area

Why it’s interesting...A very complex organizational contextHighlights different possible forms of coordination

We start with San Francisco in 1980Case study by D. Chisholm Coordination without Hierarchy“Dealing with Bay Area transit policies is like dealing with Beirut” (R. Stanley)“The Bay Area transit system displays a remarkably well-coordinated set of planning and operating arrangements”

Then we return to San Francisco in 2003How has ITS been implemented?What can we learn about organizational change?

San Francisco

Nine counties and a complex geography6 major transit operators + many smaller servicesRail, light rail, trolley, bus, cable car, ferries....MTC a key link to state & federal actors (and funds)

Views on the Bay Area (1980)

“An extensive but ill-coordinated network of services and facilities” (Jones)“Decisionmaking should be centralized, the different properties can’t get together on the simplest things”(California PUC)“Policymaking takes place in a political and administrative system that is fragmented to the point of chaos” (Yates)“Too often the policies that result are: incomplete, contradictory and ineffective” (Chisholm)

Structural “Reform”

Complaints about fragmented and poorly coordinated transportation systems are not unique to the Bay AreaCentralization and the creation of overarching authorities is the typical responseBut, centralization is not always a necessaryor sufficient condition for better coordination!Need to think about how organizations work, and how they interact with each other

Organizations

Some organizational typesBureaucracies (military)

Top-down control, rigid, hierarchical structuresRoutines and procedures important, ‘stable’technologies

Flat organizations (dot.com)Shallow hierarchy, fewer levels of managementMore flexibility at lower levels, less formal procedures and more adaptation to changing technologies

Organizational structures

Academic model

Departments

Board of Trustees

President

Faculty

Deans

Provost

Structure within organizations

Organizations differ along several dimensionsComplexityCentralizationFormalizationCoupling (loose versus tight)

Organizational charts don’t tell you everything!One organizational structure?

Most organizations are hybridsThere can be different structures for different organizational activities and goals Ex: R&D, accounting, and manufacturing

Structure with many organizations

Structure of inter-organizational relationshipsCan be hierarchical/flat, loosely/tightly coupled, formalized, centralized...We will focus on formalization

May also be hybrid relationshipsFrom ad hoc groups to formalized agreementsDepends on the nature of the problem (simple data sharing agreements or adoption of common standards)

Relationships evolve over time, usually toward greater formalization

Why organizations interact

Organizations have relationships with one other

.... whether they like it or notOrganizations are “autonomous”, therefore, we need to look at why they interact

Perceived organizational interdependencies The goal attainment for a decision-maker in one organization depends upon a decision-maker in another organization

Ex: SF transit connected at the level of the passengerCreates uncertainty for individual organizationsNeed for coordination or “mutual adjustment”

Managing interdependent systems

Looking at SF as an interdependent systemAll transit agencies linked at the level of the passengersSharing of streets, bus stops, terminals, funds...

How to manage this interdependence?What is the “optimal” or “feasible” structure?“Conventional response” is more formal and centralized authority But, formal, centralized authority is not always necessary according to Chisholm

Informal Coordination in SF

Evidence of substantial informal coordination between the transit operators, and with MTC

Sharing of information (often sensitive) and expertise

Expediting planning and grant application processes

Vivid example: The Transbay Tube Fire in 1979AC saves the day with buses and expertise

Evolves into longer term arrangement

More routine but important areas of coordinationShared terminals (Transbay Terminal)

BART and Muni FastPass in 1983

Signaling devices for late night BART trains

Formal communication channels

Informal communication channels

The nature of informal channels

Typically based on personal relationshipsDevelop “as-needed” in a self-organizing mannerFlexible, adaptive, effective devices for coordination (ex: busbridges) Can transmit sensitive information (ex: Polaris)

Formation and maintenance of informal networks

Norms of “reciprocity” (tit for tat)Formal activities can foster informal networks Personnel movementsNeighbors

2’s company, 3’s a crowd....

In informal coordination, it’s easier to deal one on one

A problem between AC and BART, and between BART and Muni, does not necessarily indicate a problem between AC and MuniTherefore, “voluntary” interdependence (busbridge agreement) is better than “artificial”interdependence (MTC forces coordination)

Decomposability of “multilateral” relationshipsIsolate bilateral interdependenciesReduce spillovers created by unnecessarily linking issues

Decomposing a system

E

F

C

E

D

A B

F

FF

F

E

E

CD

D

F

C

ED

A

B

Outcome of informal coordination in SF

Despite the absence of a formally integrated and coordinated organizational structure, the Bay Area transit system displays a remarkably well-coordinated set of planning and operating arrangements that address the interdependencies.... most of those agreements were worked out through informal channels and founded on informal norms

–Chisholm (1985)

Does this still all work in an ITS environment?

Revisiting SF

9 counties, 100 cities, 6 million people8 major transit operators, but up to 29 incl. smaller operatorsMTC has bigger budget, and the Bay Area Partnership works “behind the scenes”

20 years later....

In general, do we still see the same patterns of informal cooperation?

Has there been increasing formalization or centralization?If so, what caused this?

How has ITS been deployed in San Francisco?How has ITS fit into this?

Pressures for greater formalization?Create new opportunities for cooperation?Reduce the cost of cooperation?

ITS as a lens to see how these inter-organizational relationships are working today

Some things change, some don’t

Chisholm’s 1980 analysis still seems to holdSame transit operators in placeCoordination still functioning well, and often without formal structuresKey to this is the Bay Area Partnership

But, signs of increasing “formalization”Funding: Role of MTC, and its linkage to ISTEATechnological change: ITS creating challenges and opportunities on the organizational level

Informal coordination in BAP

Describing the Bay Area Partnership“Non-hierarchical institution without walls, thriving on mutual interest and cooperation”“Requires that players coordinate services where their systems intersect or overlap”“Integration depends on connections that are as much financial, institutional and information as they are physical”“Nothing more and nothing less than a forum for communication, and much of it face-to-face”

www.mtc.ca.gov/about_mtc/partner.htm

ITS in the Bay Area

TranslinkUniversal transit “smart-card”Stores cash value and transit passes6 transit agencies (eventually 28?)

TravInfo (511)Real-time information on traffic, parking availability, public transit (TransitInfo) and carpooling optionsWeb accessible and single phone number

TransitInfoInformation on all transit operators (mostly static)Web-based trip planner (transitinfo.org)

Highway Call Boxes and Freeway Service Patrol

TransLink deployment

Six month pilot program for the smart cardIncluded six of the operators (BART, Muni, AC, Caltrain, Golden Gate, Santa Clara)

Initial test proved successful (about 3,000 users)

Process “hung up” on the BART fare gatesSoftware not ready for new gates coming in

Wanted permission to discontinue program

BART stayed on boardNegotiated with MTC, agreed to work with TransLinkdevelopers on new fare gates

Did the informal networks keep BART in the system?

Threat of BART strike in 2001

Union talks with BART broke down

Needed to fill in with emergency servicesAC would handle most demand as before

Additional support from SamTrans, Caltrain, others

ITS facilitated planning of additional servicesMTC emphasized use of TravInfo (511) and transitinfo.org

Caltrans would add extra support with Freeway Service Patrol

Strike was averted, but “extent of agency cooperation was remarkable”

ITS and the changing organizational context

Enabling tool for coordination of operations and services, generation of data for better planningMore customer-driven focus, highlighting the key source of interdependencies – passengersNew demands for multi-organizational coordination

Can ITS applications be applied on a bilateral basis?Are informal mechanisms still appropriate?

Who pays and who benefits?Goals of the individual organization or broader goals?Creation of artificial interdependence a “necessary evil” if it achieves broader social goals?

Insights from Chisholm’s analysis

Formal structures for coordination are not always necessary or most effectiveA regional architecture depends not only on needs of the technical architecture, but the existing organizational relationshipsAttempts to introduce organizational and institutional change needs to take into account existing, if “hidden”, inter-organizational networksCareful when introducing “artificial” interdependenceDecomposing the multi-lateral problem into several bi-lateral problems may simplify coordination issues

...some qualifications to Chisholm

Formal structures for coordination may be better for certain types of activitiesIntroducing “artificial” interdependence may be a good thingFor many ITS issues, solutions need to be multi-lateral

Everyone needs to be on the same pageEx: BART and TransLink

Informal networks, although they may provide a good basis for establishing coordination, can create other problems (J. Innes)

Introduces a “clubby” atmosphere resistant to change, introduction of new interests, or broader public participation Informal networks can lead to “favors” and “back-scratching”

There is a diversity of organizational structures that may be appropriate for a regional architecture!

Abbreviations

MTC: Metropolitan Transportation CommissionRTA: Regional Transit AssociationBAP: Bay Area Partnership The operators

BART: Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictAC: Alameda-Contra Costa Country Transit DistrictMUNI: San Francisco Municipal RailwayGG: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation DistrictSanta Clara: Santa Clara Country Transportation DistrictSamTrans: San Mateo Country Transit DistrictCaltrain: entity of CaltransCCCTA: Central Contra Costa Country Transit Authority

SourcesJoseph Sussman (2001) Transportation Operations: An Organizational and Institutional Perspective. Valerie Biggs (2001) “Operations in a Regional Transportation Organizational Environment”ITE JournalDonald Chisholm (1985) Coordination without Hierarchy: Informal Structures in Multiorganizational Systems. Berkeley, University of California PressJudith Innes and Judith Gruber (2001) “Planning Styles in Conflict at the San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission” Working Paper 2001-09, University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional DevelopmentMetropolitan Transportation Commission www.mtc.ca.govJonathan Gifford and Odd Stalebrink (2002) “Remaking transportation organizations for the 21st century: consortia and the value of organizational learning” Transportation Research Part A, 36, pp. 645-657MTC (2002) Project Performance ReportFHWA (2002) Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination www.itcsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13686.htmlDaniel Rodriguez and Joseph Sussman (1997) Framework for Developing a Regional System Architecture for Intelligent Transportation Systems” Transportation Research Record 1588, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.