Maintenance Quality in Maintenance Quality in North America:North America:

Teresa Adams

University of Wisconsin-Madison

State of the PracticeState of the Practice

Maintenance Quality Maintenance Quality Assurance (NCHRP 422)Assurance (NCHRP 422)

• Quality assurance (QA) in highway maintenance is the process of verifying that the maintenance provided meets requirements based on available resources and customer expectations.

• The primary goal of a maintenance quality assurance (MQA) program is to improve quality while maximizing the effectiveness of resources.

2

Quality and PerformanceQuality and Performance

•• QualityQuality - (1) The degree of excellence of a product or service; (2) The degree to which a product or service satisfies the needs of a specific customer; or (3) The degree to which a product or service conforms with a given requirement.

•• PerformancePerformance - The degree to which infrastructure provides the services that a community expects of it. Performance is a function of effectiveness, reliability, and cost.

2

Measures of effectiveness, Measures of effectiveness, reliability, and costreliability, and cost

• Effectiveness Measures – Technical output, quantity delivered– Quality of Service to users– Regulatory Concern– Community Concern

• Reliability Measures – Statistical, Probabilistic – Steady state condition– Resiliency

• Cost Measures– Investment, Replacement– Recurrent or O&M cost – Timing and Source

4

Generalized infrastructure Generalized infrastructure performance assessment process performance assessment process

1. Identify problem, demand, or need.2. Identify decision level, stakeholders, and

type of decision.3. Identify the boundaries and character,

objectives and vision, and constraints and regulations.

4. Select performance measures.5. Measure performance.

6. Make decision and take action.7. Obtain feedback.

5

Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance, National Research Council, 1995.

Motivations for measuring Motivations for measuring maintenance performancemaintenance performance

• Set goals and standards• Detect and correct problems• Manage and improve processes• Document accomplishments• Motivation leads to defining the goal:

– Ability to justify budgets– Ability to show accountability– Ability to set priorities and allocate funds– Ability to communicate program needs,

expectations, and outcomes

6

Relating Measures to GoalsRelating Measures to Goals

7

MethodologyMethodology

• Review the performance measures of maintenance features, as well as their standards and thresholds.

• Identify commonly cited standards and measures per segment to portray the greater trends in MQA programs.

Program ReviewsProgram Reviews2008 vs. 20042008 vs. 2004

2004 - 26 States

2008 - 23 States

‘04 & ‘08 - 18 States

6 Common Maintenance 6 Common Maintenance CategoriesCategories

6

Category % of States

Fewer Measures per Category Fewer Measures per Category per stateper state

7

States are refining their measures, but with greater variety among states. Divergence rather than convergence.

……with greater variety among with greater variety among states. states.

• Divergence rather than convergence• Measures per Category

– Pavement (36 features)– Traffic management (30 features)– Drainage (29 features)– Rest Areas (24 features)– Vegetation (21 features)– Shoulders (20 features)– Bridges (13 features)– Snow and Ice (11 features)– Roadsides (9 features)

PavementsPavements

* Includes features being measured by at least three programs

PavementsPavements• The dominantly measured features in 2004

(potholes, rutting, and cracking), remained the most frequently measured features in 2008.

• 79% (15 of 19) of the programs measure potholes.

• 74% (14 of 19) measure rutting. • The least commonly measured features are

specific distresses such as longitudinal cracks and slab failure. These features are measured in 16% of the programs (3 of 19).

ShouldersShoulders

* Includes features being measured by at least three programs

ShouldersShoulders

• States measured, on average, slightly fewer shoulder features in 2008 than in 2004.

• Two types of drop-off : mainline to shoulder, and shoulder to ground.

• Drop-offs, cracking, and potholes are the most commonly measured shoulder feature in both 2004 and 2008.

DrainageDrainage

* Includes features being measured by at least three programs

DrainageDrainage

• In 2004 and 2008, the most commonly measured drainage features are ditches, catch basins, drop inlets, and culverts.

• 96% (22 of 23) of the states use drainage measures.

• A few states measure specialized drainage features: side drains, paved ditches, outfall ditches, drains, and ditch erosion.

RoadsidesRoadsides

* Includes features being measured by at least three programs

RoadsidesRoadsides• 87% (20 of 23) of the states have at

least one roadside measure.• 70% (14 of 20) of states measure litter

and debris, the most common measures.

• Least common measures are for roadkill and graffiti at 15% (3 of 20).

Vegetation ControlVegetation Control

* Includes features being measured by at least three programs

Vegetation ControlVegetation Control

• 83% (19 of 23) of the states use vegetation control measures.

• The most commonly measured vegetation features in 2004 and 2008 are mowing and noxious weeds.

• Mowing (or grass height) is measured by 74% (14 of 19) of states.

• 42% (8 of 19) of the programs measure levels of litter in the vegetation control category.

Traffic ManagementTraffic Management

* Includes features being measured by at least three programs

Traffic ManagementTraffic Management• The % of states measuring traffic

management features increased from 85% in 2004 to 96% in 2008.

• The most commonly measured feature is guardrails at 77% (17 of 22).

• Regulatory signs is the 2nd most common, with 68% (15 of 22) of the programs.

• The measurement of line striping decreased from 78% of states in 2004 to 45% in 2008.

BridgesBridges

BridgesBridges

• 78% (18 of 23) states do not include bridge maintenance into their MQA programs.

• As in 2004, bridge railings, joints, and graffiti are most commonly measured.

• In 2008, new measures focus on bearings, cracking, and decks.

Common Measures?Common Measures?• Common measures ≠ common standards

Measures quantifyStandards define a threshold

• States have different MQA goals• Lack of overarching federal program

– Would federal funding align state goals?– Could state MQA programs meet

requirements of a “systematic process”for eligibility of federal funding for maintenance

• How about standard measures?

19

Standard Measures for Standard Measures for PavementPavement

• There were changes in measures from 2004 to 2008.

• In 2004, the predominant measures for surface distresses were areas and for linear distresses, percentages of area.

• In 2008, predominant measures for spalls, popouts, and faulting, are percentage ratings and for linear distresses are linear measures.

Standards for ShouldersStandards for Shoulders

• In 2008, relaxed standards for defining maintenance needs on shoulder features.

• Shoulder-to-ground drop-off limits were significantly higher in 2008 than in 2004.

• The standards for allowable width in surface-edge raveling more than doubled between 2004 and 2008.

Standards and Measures Standards and Measures for Traffic Managementfor Traffic Management

• In 2008, MQA programs refined their focus on traffic management features.

• Effectiveness is more important than condition. • No longer are regulatory and non-regulatory signs

designated deficient by improper height, alignment, or worn message.

• 2004’s standards for signs got simplified to nighttime effectiveness in 2008.

• Some features such as pavement markings, delineators, and barrier walls / concrete barriers, saw the inclusion of a percentage tolerance threshold to indicate when maintenance is needed.

Qualitative shift in measurements Qualitative shift in measurements and standards settingand standards setting

– “General effectiveness” “original function”

– Increasing use of rubrics - offers more of a spectrum of compromise, but muddles explicit

– Simplifying the data collection process. Streamlines efficiency without compromising the quality of end-result

Sample Rating Rubric Sample Rating Rubric Rest Areas Rest Areas

Louisiana DOT, 2006Louisiana DOT, 2006Condition

Rating Janitorial ServicesBuilding and

Appurtenances Landscape1 – Excellent Restrooms are clean and sanitary. Room smells freshly sanitized. No graffiti or litter is visible. Walls, countertops,

and floors are clean and dry. Soap and paper supplies are full. Trash containers are less than one-quarter full.

Building is in good repair. Partitions, doors, dispensers, and hand dryers are in place without defects. Walls, roof, and skylights are functional and free of defects. RV dump station is functional and clean.

Landscape planting is healthy, lush, and free of weeds. Lawns are mowed. Sidewalks and parking areas are clean and free of defects. Picnic tables are clean and free of defects. Site is free of noticeable litter.

2 – Good Restrooms are clean and sanitary with no undesirable odor. No graffiti or litter is visible. Walls, countertops, and floors are clean but may have minor water spots. Soap and paper supplies have adequate supply. Trash containers are less than one-half full.

Building is in good repair with some minor surface defects. Functional partitions, doors, dispensers, and hand dryers are in place. RV dump station is functional.

Landscape plantings are healthy but may have a minor amount of weeds. Lawns are mowed. Sidewalks and parking areas are clean but exhibit some minor defects. Picnic tables are clean with minor defects. Site is free of noticeable litter.

3 – Fair Restrooms appear clean with no undesirable odor. Minor graffiti is visible. Walls, countertops, and floors are clean but may have a significant amount of water spots. Floors contain a minor amount of litter. Soap and paper supplies have adequate supply. Trash containers are two-thirds full.

Building has some moderate surface and minor functional defects. One partition door may be missing, and one dispenser or hand dryer may be nonfunctional. A light may be out and mirrors may be missing. RV dump station is functional.

Landscape plantings exhibit some stress with a moderate amount of weeds and damaged or dying branches. Lawns are dry and infrequently mowed. Sidewalks and parking lots are clean with noticeable defects. Picnic tables are clean with minor defects. Site has minor amount of noticeable litter.

4 – Poor Restrooms appear dirty and unsanitary, and may exhibit an undesirable odor. Significant graffiti may be visible. Countertops are wet and water spotted, floors are wet and dirty. Soap and paper dispensers may be empty. Substantial litter is visible.

Building has some significant surface and moderate functional defects. More than one partition door may be missing, more than one dispenser or hand dryer may be nonfunctional, a light may be out, and mirrors may be missing. RV dump station is temporarily out of order.

Landscape plantings contain noticeable weeds and damaged or dying branches. Lawns are not mowed. Sidewalks and parking lots are noticeably dirty with major defects. Picnic tables need cleaning and exhibit major defects. Site has significant noticeable litter.

5 – Not acceptable

Restrooms are unsuitable for use. Trash containers are full.

Building and/or appurtenances are unsuitable for use.

Landscape plantings have significant weeds and damaged or dying branches. Lawns are dry and not mowed. Sidewalks and parking lots are significantly dirty with major defects. Picnic tables need cleaning and exhibit major defects. Site has extensive litter.

Program EvolutionProgram Evolution

• The number of features being measured has decreased

• User surveys are more common• Field manuals and rating sheets are

becoming simpler – less quantitative• Program goals are fuzzy• Weak or missing connection between

goals and measures – disconnected business functions

18

No Consistent TerminologyNo Consistent Terminology3

Most states build upon the terms Most states build upon the terms defined in NCHRP Report 422defined in NCHRP Report 422

Level of Service (LOS)Level of Service (LOS)

• A specific threshold value that triggers the requirement of a maintenance activity

• A written description that states the maintenance effort authorized for a specific activity

• A defined frequency of a maintenance effort or a predetermined number of inspections in a specified time

• A policy of replacement of the missing, repair of the damaged, or elimination of the undesirable

35

Current StatusCurrent Status

Evidence that MQA is being used to:

• Identify and prioritize maintenance needs• Link highway conditions to budget requests and

allocations• Set organizational performance goals• Communicate with administrators and

politicians

20

Challenge Challenge –– Connecting with Connecting with Business Functions and GoalsBusiness Functions and Goals

• Link to program goals– Network level MQA

• Link to the customers• Links to management systems

– Bridge Management Systems– Pavement Management Systems– Sign Management Systems

MQA Document LibraryMQA Document Library4

2004 - 26 States

2008 - 23 States

‘04 & ‘08 - 19 States

Sampling Strategies for Sampling Strategies for Field RatingField Rating

11

State # of samples Segment How are the samples selected?WI 1200 0.1 mile 240 from each region

MO2,587 (1,293 major 1,294 minor) 0.1 mile

Weighted % of major & minor highways

CA 2,0320.5 - 1 mile

10% randomly selected segments per district

LA 2,423 0.1 mile

95% confidence that LOS is within 7% of true value if pass/fail rate is 80% for Interstate and 70% for non-interstate

TX > 4,000 1 mile10% of interstate highways, 5% of other roadways

SC 1,443 0.2 mile1% of total inventory randomly selected

MN 2,340 0.1 mileRandomly selected to provide a 95% confidence interval with 7% precision.

AK 500 0.1 mile Randomly selected

Rating SheetsRating Sheets

• Field Manuals translate to a one-page rating sheet

9

Visual Field ManualsVisual Field Manuals10

• Simpler compared to 2004

• Includes description of measure

• Image heavy with textual description

13

Customer SurveysCustomer Surveys

How satis

fied are yo

u with

How satis

fied are yo

u with

snow and

ice remova

l?

snow and

ice remova

l? Indicate your level

of satisfaction with

pavement markings.How would you rate the level of service

How would you rate the level of servicefor paved highway surfaces?for paved highway surfaces?

Communicating ResultsCommunicating Results• Audiences

– Public– Administrators– Politicians

14

• justify budgets• show accountability• to set priorities and

allocate funds• communicate program

needs, expectations, and outcomes

MQA ResourcesMQA Resources

• MQA Resource Librarywww.mrutc.org/outreach/MQA/library/

• MQA Listserv at:www.mrutc.org/outreach/mqa/mailing.html

21

http://www.mrutc.org/outreach/MQA/library/http://www.mrutc.org/outreach/mqa/mailing.html

21