2020-F1 REGional Workshop Session Plan Overview - Preparing for 2021/2 4 LTP/NLTP Session
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
2020-F1 REGional Workshop
Session Plan Overview
Preparing for 2021/24 LTP/NLTP Session 1
Systems (1.1, 4.4, 4.5), People/Culture (2.1, 2.2), Evidence (3.2, 3.3),
Benefit Delivery (4.4, 4.5), Continuous Improvement (8.1, 8.3)
REG Foundation Projects
SMARTER TOGETHER - REALISING ENDURING EXCELLENCE
By Enabling Innovation and Leading Change
2
Enabling a step change in sector
transport leadership and capability
by December 2021.
• Improve public confidence and demonstrate greater
value for money from transport investment, by
• Providing support and resources to the sector.
REG – Realising Excellence 3
2020 REG Learning & Enabling Sector
Excellence
Development Programme
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
Evidence
Systems
Responding to your
feedback
People / Culture
REG Quality Improvement
REG Pillars
of Success
REG – Realising Excellence 4
LD Focus for 2020 – AMP Improvement for 2021/24 NLTP & LTP
2020-F1 2020-F2 2020-F3 2020-F4
Feeding back on AMP Improvements
Regional Face-to-face
Review of REG AMP 2018/21 Feedback The whole AMP Dragons Den (round 2) – Selling your
Feeding back on AMP Improvements
Point of Entry • Puling the story together AMP investment story – final feedback
Linking RLTP to LTP & AMP
Strategic context & assessment • Risks, critical assets, risk on your AMP and identification of gaps
Workshops
Programme case development
• Testing/confirming problems & management planning
• Link from strategic case to
benefits • Testing the strength of your Improvement Planning
optioneering & CLoS
• GPS, RLTP, LTP alignment investment case & identifying gaps
• Use of ONRC in differential LoS
• Gaps • Benefit realisation Moving to service Delivery
• Optioneering
• Line of sight to the programme case Developing the executive summary
• Developing your programme
optioneering & LoS Dragons Den (round 1) – selling your
case to your peers, feedback and gaps
May/Jun
Feb/Mar identified Nov
Aug/Sept
2020-W1 2020-W2 2020-W3
National Web Workshops
• One Network Framework
• Excellence Programme • One Network Framework
• Data & Asset Management Quality
• Sharing of national innovation (led • REG Excellence Programme
Reports & new guidance
by REGional Champions and RCA • Sharing of national innovation (led
• Sharing of national innovation (led
presenting) by REGional Champions and RCA
by REGional Champions and RCA
• REG & NZTA updates presenting)
presenting)
• Check in on AMP development • REG & NZTA updates
• REG & NZTA updates
progress and identification of issues • Check in on AMP development
• Check in on AMP development
• Overview of next workshop agenda progress and identification of issues
progress and identification of issues
and ALT • Overview of next workshop agenda
• Overview of next workshop agenda
and ALT
and ALT
July Oct
April
Enabling Sector
2020 REG L&D Excellence
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
Programme
Evidence
Systems
People / Culture
Quality Improvement
REG Pillars
of Success
People / Systems Evidence Communi Decision Service Benefit Continuous Competencies
REG AM Culture cating Making Delivery Delivery Improvement associated
with
Competency workshop
1 Organisational strategy 1.1
2 Organisational culture, leadership and people 2.1, 2.2
3 Knowledge management 3.2, 3.3
4 Asset management strategy 4.4, 4.5
5 Planning and decision making
6 Delivery
7 Performance management
8 Continuous improvement 8.1, 8.3
Desired Outcomes from Learning & Development Programme
Enabling the sector to successfully Shared vision and understanding of Continue the development of the
Sector gains confidence to do the deliver improvements for the 2021 how REG tools and resources fit into desired culture change in transport
right thing LTP transport systems investment decision making
• The sector shows increasing confidence in
• The sector shows improvement against their • Sector feedback indicates increased value in • RCAs indicate an increased level of buy-in and
delivering REG outcomes and improved
2018/21 AMPs. utilising the One Network Framework and BCA in willingness to constructively contribute to the
investment decision making.
their planning and delivery. success of implementation.
• The sector shows active achievement of
improvement plan actions. • The sector is supportive of REG’s change journey
and see’s increasing relevance and value in being
• RCAs show ongoing development of the AMP, part of the change.
imbedding the BCA and ONF across their
transport programmes and strategic delivery of
their programmes.
2020 REG L&D Programme
People / Systems Evidence Communi Decision Service Benefit Continuo
REG AM Competency Culture cating Making Delivery Delivery us
Improve
ment
1.1 Apply organisational strategic plan to asset management
2.1 Provide organisational leadership to deliver asset management outcomes
2.2 Enable people to perform well
2.3 Develop and champion an organisationally defined culture
3.1 Conceptual knowledge
3.2 Factual knowledge
3.3 Expectational knowledge
3.4 Methodological knowledge
4.1 Define the scope of an asset management system
4.2 Identify stakeholders and their requirements
4.3 Identify risks and opportunities
4.4 Define asset management objectives
4.5 Identify investment needs and constraints
4.6 Define an asset management system performance framework
4.7 Define the planned approach to procurement
5.1 Define processes and methods employed in managing assets over their life
cycles
5.2 Define methods and criteria for decision-making and prioritising activities
and resources
5.3 Define options analysis
5.4 Determine resource requirements
5.5 Financial and non-financial implications of an asset management plan
5.6 Development of long-term works programmes (3, 10 and 30 years)
5.7 How assets are operated and maintained
5.8 Decide how the results will be evaluated
2020 REG L&D Programme
People / Systems Evidence Communi Decision Service Benefit Continuo
REG AM Competency Culture cating Making Delivery Delivery us
Improve
ment
6.1 Design assets
6.2 Create, acquire and dispose of assets
6.3 Carry out inspections and defect management
6.4 Develop short-term works programmes
6.5 Prepare and deliver works programmes
6.6 Implement quality management (includes quality, environment, and
health and safety management)
7.1 Design and develop performance measures that effectively drive
performance improvement
7.2 Evaluate and report on the effectiveness of the processes for
managing risks and opportunities
7.3 Evaluate performance against asset management objectives
7.4 Evaluate performance of the asset management system
7.5 Manage an improvement plan
8.1 Create a continuous improvement environment
8.2 Identify and develop improvement opportunities
8.3 Evaluate and prioritise improvement opportunities
8.4 Implement continuous improvement initiatives
8.5 Monitor results and sustain improvement
L&D Links to REG Strategy REG FOCUS 2021
9
L&D Links to REG Programme
F1
REG FOCUS 2021
10REGional Workshop 2020-F1
Purpose
• RCAs understand the priority focus
areas for AMP improvements &
NZTA investment assessment
requirements.
To support RCAs in • RCAs understand the improvement
the improvement of areas identified through the REG
2018/21 AMP review and potential
their AMPs for the collaboration areas within their
2021/24 LTP & NLTP region.
• RCAs understand and can apply
improvement opportunities to
improve their strategic case and
connections to the programme case.
REG – Realising Excellence 11Agenda Item Description
1 Welcome & Introductions
2 Leadership Moment – What is your stretch vision & how far does it look into the future?
3 Working together for the next NLTP (RIA Update)
4 Outputs from REG 2018/21 AMP Reviews
• Review RCA feedback reports
• Interactive session
• Share and discuss their reports with others (small groups/plenary) and test regional themes
• Identify where they can help each other
• Action plans reviewed and improvement priorities confirmed
• Choosing the top 3 improvement items to report back on next time
5 Closing AMP sector knowledge gaps for 2021/24 LTP
• Continuous improvement focus
• Testing/confirming strategy, problems & benefits
• Top down strategy connection
• GPS, RLTP, LTP alignment, strategies
• Bottom up testing
• Testing line of sight to the programme case optioneering, LoS, to delivery
• Evidence, data and CLOS – use, gaps, linking to strategic case (problems / benefits) and programme case.
• Interactive exercise – bottom up assessment and testing/developing your response
• Setting the scene for F2 – linking to your programme business case
Lunch
Closing AMP sector knowledge gaps for 2021/24 LTP (continued)
6 Regional Forum & Innovation Nation Discussion
7 Review & Close
8 Opportunity for further regional issues discussion
ONE NETWORK FRAMEWORK PROJECT 12Leadership Minute What is your vision for your AMP?
Insight from Dilbert THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 14
Why are we doing this? – At 2019-F6 we noted . . .
A key attribute of leaders is they have “Vision” and
• Can reveal and impart Vision; and,
• Continue to develop Vision
Do you have a vision? - Video
A good vision can help keep the whole
organisation heading in the right direction!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksrItPfz6A0
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 15Group Discussion:
1. What do you consider a vision to be?
2. Are there any commercial vision
statements that appeal to you?
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 16“Vision” - some further thoughts
About 3000 years ago King Solomon wrote
"Without a vision the people perish"
"Vision" in this text literally means "an unfolding revelation"
A vision can reveal the “WHY” and convey a sense of purpose
A good vision is something your team can “catch and run with”
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 17Discuss at your table – Your Vision 1. What are the three key aspects you want your AMP to deliver? 2. Do you want your vision to be for Asset Management in general or specific to your plan? 3. Can you string your three key aspects into a simple sentence that conveys your vision for asset management or your AMP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 18
Some simple tests for your Vision 1. Does it convey "WHY" you have an AMP? 2. Is it brief and easily understood? 3. Will it engender confidence that your AMP is a useful document? 4. Will it inspire those involved to “Catch the Vision and run with it”? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 19
Some other considerations for your AMP vision 5. Does it incorporate elements that you aspire to beyond your current business practices? 6. Will asset users’ expectations (level of service) be met? 7. Does it convey financial efficiency/value for money concepts? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 20
Working together for the next NLTP
REG Workshop NZTA Update AMP Exemplar link https://nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/learning-and-resources/business-case-approach- guidance/how-to-use-the-business-case-approach/activity-management-plan-example-tool/ PoE for AMP’s RAG Meetings & RLTP’s Safe Network Programme Pipeline Tool Procurement - Focus on H&S and Broader Outcomes
REG Workshop NZTA Update NLTP Timeline
REG Workshop NZTA Update Arataki
REG Workshop
NZTA Update
GPS
Strategic Priorities New Work Categories
• Road to Zero: Safety Infrastructure, Road Policing,
Safety: developing a transport system where no- Automated Enforcement, Road Safety Promotion
one is killed or seriously injured (a key target of
• Rail: Investment to enable a reliable and resilient rail
New Zealand’s Road to Zero safety strategy, but network.
not limited to road travel).
• Coastal Shipping: Investment in Coastal Shipping.
Better travel options: providing people with
better transport options to access social and
economic opportunities.
Improving freight connections: improving
freight connections to support economic
development.REG Workshop NZTA Update IDMF Low cost / Low risk, changing the threshold? Right Sizing the Business Case, ‘Single Stage Business Case Lite’ Assessment design changes: non-monetised benefits Monetised benefits: tourism-related impacts Benefits realisation Discount rate 6% to 4% and Analysis Period 40 years to 60 years More info https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and- investment/planning/investment-decision-making-
Outputs from 2018/21 REG AMP Review
What is excellence – the sectors thoughts…
What is excellence in activity management planning?
• Looks ahead – i.e. today’s excellence is • Short, simple, logical, easy to read and
tomorrow’s norm understand with a clear ‘line of sight’
• Outlines everything you do; e.g: decisions from strategy to delivery
made and why • Informs the procurement strategy, can
• The ‘activity’ is at the forefront not the be used in service delivery and is
‘asset’ understood by contractors
• Guidance/framework to achieve value for • Systems and processes lead to
money over whole of life; i.e, to deliver delivering great services to our current
the right thing, at the right time, to the and future communities/users.
right value, • Fit for purpose for RCA and community
• Supports meeting the promises made to • Owned by the RCA as a single source of
the community/users information
• Is credible, i.e. has sound evidence base
supporting recommendation and
programme
REG – Realising Excellence 280.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
As
hb
u rto
n
Au
c kla
nd
Bu
lle
Ce Ca r
nt rte
ra r
lH to
aw n
ke
Ce sB
nt ay
ra
Ch lO
at ta
ha go
m
Is l
an
Ch ds
ris
tc
hu
rch
Cl
ut
ha
DO
C
Du
ne
di
Fa n
rN
or
th
Gr
ey
Gi
sb
or
ne
Go
re
Ha
m
ilt
on
Ha
sti
ng
s
Ha
ur
Ho ak
ro i
w
he
nu
a
Hu
ru
nu
Hu i
tt
Ki Ci
ak
ou In ty
ve
ra rca
(n rg
ot ill
as
se
ss
ed
)
Ki
ap
ar
a
Ka
pi
ti
Ka
we
ra
M u
ac
ke
nz
M ie
an
aw
M at
ar u
lb
or
ou
gh
M
M as
at te
REG 2018 AMP Reviews
am rton
at
a-
Pi
ak
o
Na
pi
er
Ne
Ne ls o
w n
Ply
Average score (TIO)
m
ou
th
Op
ot
Investment Assessment Criteria for co-funding
ik
Ot
ra i
Pa ha
lm un
er ga
sto
n
No
rt
h
Qu Po
ee r ir
ns u
to a
wn
La
ke
Average score (Pillars of Success)
Ra s
REG Excellence - Assessment of 2018 AMPs
ng
iti
ke
• 68 AMPs assessed (to include DOC & State Highways)
i
Ro
to
ru
a
Ru
ap
eh
u
So Se
ut lw
he y
rn n
Ta
ra
na
So k i
So ut
ut hl
h W a nd
ia
So ra
ra
ut p
hW a
ai
ka
St to
at
• REG completed assessments based on the REG Pillars of Success
e St
ra
Hi tfo
gh
wa rd
y(
NZ
TA
Th )
am Ta
es ra
Co ru
ro a
m
an
de
l
Ta
sm
an
Ta
up
o
Ta
ur
an
ga
Tim
ar
Up u
pe
rH
ut
t
W
aik
W at
o
aim
ak
ar
ir i
W
aim
at
e
W
air
oa
W
ait
ak
i
W
aip
W a
ait
om
• NZTA investment assessments were completed by Regional Investment Advisors following the
W o
el
lin
W g to
es n
te
rn
Bo
W P
ha
ka
ta
W ne
ha
ng
an
W ui
ha
ng
ar
ie
W
es
tla
ndREG 2018 AMP Assessments
National Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
NZTA Investment Assessment 2.04
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
Average score
Evidence
Systems
REG Pillars of Success Average 1.99
Score
REG Highest Score 2.74
REG Lowest Score 0.96
People / Culture
Number of RCAs >= 2 average 37 (54%) Quality Improvement
REG score
Number of RCAs >= 2 average 46 (68%) REG Pillars
NZTA IAC score of Success
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 30What did we see? – the good (National)
• All RCAs have utilised business case principles in their AMPs
• All RCAs have embedded the ONRC into their AMPs
• All RCAs AMPs have shown improvement over previous years (some more than
others)
• Not having a template has shown some great critical thinking and and
development of some good examples of embedding the business case and ONRC
• AMPs are moving to a more ‘customer’ focused approach
• Sectors appetite for striving for excellence has increased
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 31What did we see? – areas to improve (National)
• Executive summaries are not usually written as a high level summary and do not show the
investment case clearly
• Line of sight is weak, especially how the programme connects to the strategic case and service
delivery
• Problems and benefits are weak and not well defined (a lot of ‘laundry lists of issues’ and outcomes
not defined)
• Optioneering and identification of intervention strategies are weak
• AMPs still need more work on utilising the ONRC, especially in considering the customer outcomes,
performance gaps, and how LoS are considered in the programme development
• The data that the evidence is based on is not always good
• Analysis and interpretation of the evidence tends to be weakly linked to the problems/benefits and
rationale for the programme (both in the assessment of options and the recommended programme)
• Improvement plans are mainly focused on ‘assets’ and do not consider the wider improvements for
better activity management
• Poor linkages to service delivery, procurement and procurement strategies
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 32RCA Performance Report (Concept v0.4)
Current Network Performance
Investment Performance Network Customer Outcomes Performance
(Sources: NZTA) (Sources: Network level from PMRT (5 PM’s) and Other)
ONE NETWORK FRAMEWORK PROJECT 33RCA Performance Report (Concept v0.4)
NZTA Investment Assessment (TIO: Operations & Maintenance)
Network Technical Outputs Performance Measures
(Sources: Network level from PMRT (4) and Other)
REG Pillars of Success Procurement Smart-buyer Self-
assessment
Activity / Asset Management Performance
(Other Sources TBD, NZTA Technical & Procedural Audits
results)
Scale: 0 (Poor) - 3 (Excellent)
Data Quality ONRC Data Quality
Annual Achievements, Expenditure
and Cost Efficiency
Asset Management Data Quality (TIO & PMRT)
ONE NETWORK FRAMEWORK PROJECT 34RCA Performance Report Philosophy
The philosophy is as follows:
• The report is focused on demonstrating a RCAs performance at a network and
organisational level. It is not focused on comparison with others or by different road
classes, although several elements would involve a comparison against national
results and / or trends for context.
• A brief visual report. Design is limited to two pages, with the focus of page 1 is
generally on transport and customer outcomes/outputs/physical network
performance, whereas page 2 is on technical outputs/inputs and indicators of
organisational performance/capability.
• The report would draw on pre-existing nationwide data sources, that are in theory,
readily available, easily obtainable, OK to use and publish. Presentation/visualisation
of the data or results will probably be required in some cases to present results in a
consistent manner.
ONE NETWORK FRAMEWORK PROJECT 35Southland & Otago 2018 AMP Review
37
REG 2018 AMP Review – Southland/Otago
Southland/Otago
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Central Otago Clutha Dunedin Gore Invercargill Mackenzie Queenstown Lakes Southland Waitaki
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Southland/Otago
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
Evidence
Systems
NZTA Investment 2.03 2.04
Assessment Average Score
REG Pillars of Success
2.02 1.99
Average Score
REG Highest Score 2.61 2.74 People / Culture
Quality Improvement
REG Lowest Score 1.61 0.96
Number of RCAs >=2 37
5 (56%) REG Pillars
average REG score (54%) of Success
46
Number of RCAs >=2 7 (78%)
(68%)
average NZTA IAC score
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 38Canterbury 2018 AMP Review
40
REG 2018 AMP Review - Canterbury
Canterbury
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Ashburton Chatham Islands Christchurch Hurunui Kiakoura (not assessed) Selwyn Timaru Waimakariri Waimate
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Canterbury
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
Evidence
Systems
NZTA Investment Assessment 1.95 2.04
Average Score
REG Pillars of Success Average 1.74 1.99
Score
REG Highest Score 2.00 2.74
People / Culture
Quality Improvement
REG Lowest Score 1.39 0.96
Number of RCAs >=2 average 1 (12.5%) 37 (54%) REG Pillars
REG score * of Success
Number of RCAs >=2 average 4 (50%) 46 (68%)
NZTA IAC score *
* Kaikoura was not assessed, so the asterisked figures are based on 8 RCAs, not 9.
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 41Top of South/ West Coast 2018 AMP Review
43
REG 2018 AMP Review – Top of South/West Coast
Top of South/West Coast
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Buller Grey Marlborough Nelson Tasman Westland
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Top of South / West Coast
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
NZTA Investment
Evidence
Systems
Assessment Average 2.17 2.04
Score
REG Pillars of Success 2.28 1.99
Average Score
REG Highest 2.35 2.74 People / Culture
Quality Improvement
REG Lowest 2.00 0.96
Number of RCAs >=2 6 (100%) 37 (54%) REG Pillars
average REG score of Success
Number of RCAs >=2 3 (50%) 46 (68%)
average NZTA IAC score
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 44Wellington 2018 AMP Review
46
REG 2018 AMP Review – Wellington
Wellington
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Carterton Hutt City Kapiti Masterton Porirua South Wiararapa Upper Hutt Wellington
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Wellington
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
NZTA Investment
Evidence
Systems
Assessment Average 2.30 2.04
Score
REG Pillars of Success 1.62 1.99
Average Score
REG Highest 2.04 2.74 People / Culture
Quality Improvement
REG Lowest 1.17 0.96
Number of RCAs >=2 37
1 (12.5%) REG Pillars
average REG score (54%) of Success
Number of RCAs >=2 46
8 (100%)
average NZTA IAC score (68%)
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 47Gisborne/Hawke’s Bay 2018 AMP Review
49
REG 2018 AMP Review – Gisborne/Hawke’s Bay
Gisborne/Hawke's Bay
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Central Hawkes Bay Gisborne Hastings pier Wairoa
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Gisborne/Hawke’s Bay
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
NZTA Investment
Evidence
Systems
Assessment Average 2.13 2.04
Score
REG Pillars of Success 2.07 1.99
Average Score
REG Highest 2.70 2.74 People / Culture
Quality Improvement
REG Lowest 1.65 0.96
Number of RCAs >=2 3 (60%) 37 (54%) REG Pillars
average REG score of Success
Number of RCAs >=2 4 (80%) 46 (68%)
average NZTA IAC score
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 50Taranaki/Manawatu/Rangitikei 2018 AMP Review
52
REG 2018 AMP Review – Taranaki / Manawatu /
Rangitikei
Taranaki/Manawatu/Rangitikei
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Horowhenua Mawatu New Plymouth Palmerston North Rangitikei Ruapehu Southern Taraki Stratford Tararua Whanganui
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Taranaki / Manawatu / Rangitikei
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
NZTA Investment
Evidence
Systems
Assessment Average 2.17 2.04
Score
REG Pillars of Success 2.38 1.99
Average Score
REG Highest 2.74 2.74 People / Culture
Quality Improvement
REG Lowest 1.70 0.96
Number of RCAs >=2 37
9 (90%) REG Pillars
average REG score (54%) of Success
Number of RCAs >=2 46
10 (100%)
average NZTA IAC score (68%)
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 53Northland/Auckland 2018 AMP Review
55
REG 2018 AMP Review – Northland/Auckland
Northland/Auckland
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Auckland Far North Kaipara Whangarei
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Northland/Auckland
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
NZTA Investment Assessment Average Score 1.98 2.04
Evidence
Systems
REG Pillars of Success Average Score 2.09 1.99
REG Highest 2.61 2.74
REG Lowest 1.65 0.96
People / Culture
Quality Improvement
Number of RCAs >=2 average REG score 2 (50%) 37 (54%)
Number of RCAs >=2 average NZTA IAC score 2 (50%) 46 (68%) REG Pillars
of Success
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 56Bay of Plenty 2018 AMP Review
58
REG 2018 AMP Review – Bay of Plenty
Bay of Plenty
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Kawerau Opotiki Rotorua Tauranga Western BoP Whakatane
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Bay of Plenty
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
Evidence
Systems
NZTA Investment Assessment Average Score 1.66 2.04
REG Pillars of Success Average Score 1.78 1.99
REG Highest 2.39 2.74
People / Culture
REG Lowest 0.96 0.96 Quality Improvement
Number of RCAs >=2 average REG score 3 (50%) 37 (54%) REG Pillars
of Success
Number of RCAs >=2 average NZTA IAC score 1 (17%) 46 (68%)
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 59Waikato 2018 AMP Review
61
REG 2018 AMP Review – Waikato
Waikato
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Hamilton Hauraki Matamata-Piako Otorohanga South Waikato Thames Coromandel Taupo Waikato Waipa Waitomo
Average score (TIO) Average score (Pillars of Success)REG 2018 AMP Assessments – Waikato
Summary of results
Enabling Sector
Excellence
Regional National
Decision Making
NZTA Investment Assessment Average Score 1.89 2.04
Service Delivery
Communicating
Benefit Delivery
Evidence
Systems
REG Pillars of Success Average Score 1.81 1.99
REG Highest 2.30 2.74
REG Lowest 1.13 0.96
People / Culture
Number of RCAs >=2 average REG score 5 (50%) 37 (54%) Quality Improvement
Number of RCAs >=2 average NZTA IAC score 5 (50%) 46 (68%)
REG Pillars
of Success
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 62Closing AMP sector knowledge gaps for 2021/24 LTP 1. Evidence, data and CLOS – use, gaps, linking to strategic case (problems / benefits) and programme case. 2. Testing/confirming problems & benefits 3. GPS, RLTP, LTP alignment 4. Line of sight to the Strategic Case optioneering & LoS 5. Exercise: Bottom-Up test of the problem statements
Business Case Approach Activity Management Planning
Point of
Reflecting back Start Here 1
Entry 1
Discussion about what you already have or don’t have. Agree approach
Maintenance, Operations, Renewals & Minor Improvements
on what you need to do to complete the BCA AMP. Early engagement
to our roadmap
meeting between RCA & NZTA.
Strategic
Case 2 Defines the ‘why’, provides information on the RCAs operating
environment, strategic issues, and future aspirations. Identifies the case
for change or maintaining the status quo. Contains the strategic context
to developing
and assessment. Early engagement with key stakeholders.
Strategic
Takes into account the assumptions of the future,
objectives, and underlying or umbrella strategic
Context
documents. Helps position desired outcomes
against the wider local, regional, and national outcomes.
Activity
an AMP utilising Strategic
Assessment
Clearly defines the problems, benefits, and consequences.
Ensures these are well understood and
identifies the outcomes that will be achieved
by addressing it.
Management
Programme
business case Business
Case
3
Provides the strategic response of the planned future state. Identifies a
programme of works or activities that deliver on the strategic case.
Asset management information identifying maintenance, operations,
renewals and improvement/new works programmes. Plan
principles
Provides robust evidence that a decision to invest in a programme of
works represents best value for money. Identifies a long list of
alternatives, options, potential costs and identifies a preferred
programme of activities to progress.
Depending on the complexity of the RCA, portfolios may be created
containing multiple programmes or activities. An activity strategic case
may be required depending on the information contained in the BCA
AMP. Helps develop useful groupings of activities to tell a more cohesive
story (i.e. portfolios based on geography, modes, or asset classes).
Agree approach and starting point in the business case approach
process for identified capital projects. Meeting between RCA & NZTA.
Point of Entry
New &
New & Improvement
4 Capital projects not identified in the BCA AMP may require the
development of a strategic and programme case.
Projects
The point where individual activities are progressed. Provides the basis
Indicative 5
for telling the investment story on the long list of options, risks, and
trade offs on risk verses benefits. Allows decision makers an early
opportunity to choose a preferred option to progress for further
investigation in the detailed case.
Improvement
Business
Case Detailed analysis of costs, risks, and benefits on the preferred option.
Provides decision makers with evidence that the preferred option is the
best feasable solution, addresses the problems and delivers the
Capital Projects
outcomes identified in the strategic case, and is afforable.
Detailed 6
Business
Case
Improvement
Learning &
Delivery of maintenance and operations.
Delivery
Delivery of capital projects/activities.
7 Review performance and delivery
against the strategic case.
Implementation
&
Post ImplementationNZTA Training
Resource
https://www.pikb.co.nz/home/amp-continuous-improvement-
cycle/planning-improvement-cycle/1 Point
The BCA overlay of Entry
Strategic
2 case
Post 7a Today’s Focus Strategic
Implementation 2a context
Activity
Management
7 Implementation Continuous
Improvement 2b Strategic
Cycle Assessment
Overview
Detailed 6
Business Case
Programme
Indicative 5 Business
Business Case 4 PoE New & 3 Case
Improvement
ProjectsSetting the Context
Strategies – Programmes – Delivery
1. The current Strategic Case has now been in place for half of the existing
funding round
2. The Strategic Case for the next 3 years is expected to evolve from this
3. Today we will test the relevance of the current Strategic Case by how well
it is aligning with the emerging needs of the network – i.e. practical delivery
Definitions (Strategy – Programme – Delivery)
Strategy (Synonym – Master Plan)
– “A general direction set for the company and its various components to achieve a
desired state in the future.”
– a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty
Programme
– a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim.
Delivery – What gets done
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 68Line of Sight – How it fits together
Strategic direction Strategic Operational Implement- Outcome
Planning planning ation
Com.
GPS
30 Year Procurement Outcomes
Infrastructure LTP Problems
Strategy Service Solved
Delivery Benefits
RLTP AMP realised
Safety
Community Outcomes Line of sight from Direction to Outcomes thru AMP Access
Purpose Strategic Case Programme VfM
Purpose of of Local
Local Government
Government
meet current and future needs Problems Defined Business Environ-
to communities
of promote the social, economic,
for good-quality Benefits Identified
environmental, and. cultural well- Case ment
local infrastructure . . in a way
being
that is of communities
most in the
cost-effective for ONRC
present and for the future.
households and businesses NZTA IAF
Asset
Sustainability
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 69Line of Sight through the Strategic Case
Strategic Strategic Operational Implement- Outcome
direction Planning planning ation Com.
Outcomes
GPS
Problems
30 Year Solved
Infrastructure AMP Delivery
by work
Benefits
Strategy realised
Strategic Case Programme categories
Problems Defined Business Safety
RLTP Benefits Identified under the
Case approved
Access
Community programme VfM
Outcomes
Environment
Purpose of
ONRC
Local
Government
Today’s Focus Asset
Sustainability
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 70Top-Down vs Bottom-Up planning
Identify
Desired Bottom-Up
Top-Down Outcomes
First assesses if
Identifies the what’s being done
desirable Develop delivers the
outcomes. Then Strategy desirable
develops from outcomes. Then
top to bottom. Develop works back from
Finally loops Programme bottom to top.
back up to Finally loops back
confirm. Deliver down to confirm.
Favoured by Works Favoured by
those with a those with an
planning focus Check if operational focus
Desired
Outcomes
Achieved
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 71Strategic Delivery
Another Response PBC
through
Optioneering
way of to problem Activity Class
statement
Looking
❑ Interventions ❑ Pavement
at it ❑ Programme ❑ LoS adjustments Maintenance
adjustment ❑ Different Use ❑ Drainage
❑ Policy ❑ Risk ❑ Reseals
Problem ❑ Demand ❑ Managing ❑ Traffic Services
Statement ❑ Funding demand ❑ LCLR
❑ Risk ❑ ONRC variance etc
etc etc
etc
Top-Down
Bottom-Up
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 72AMP “Top-Down” checking prompts – examples • Any significant changes in the City/District since last AMP? • Do the existing problem statements catch the pressing issues? • Any new evidence or data? Has urgency changed? • Has council changed its strategic goals? • Is the appropriate level of service being delivered? • Are there new national/regional strategies you need to consider? • Any new risks? Has your supply market changed? A more comprehensive list of prompts are included in the ALT 2020-F2 exercise which you will receive later today THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 73
Bottom up Feedback – example
Bottom up
Feedback
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 74GAP ANALYSIS
1. Identify the desirable outcomes (Target)
2. Measure the current state (Actual)
3. The difference is the Gap
Target
Performance
GAP
Actual
Time
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 75Good Problem Statements
• Quickly and clearly communicate in a compelling way, the
underlying issues that could be addressed by investment
• Help to answer the ‘why?’ questions:
• Why are we considering this investment?
• Why does something need to be done, and why now?
• Why is this issue happening in the first place?
• Include Clear
• Root Cause (that is; not symptom)
• Consequence
• With the Root Cause and Consequence logically connected into
a compelling statement that says “we need to do something!
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 76Example problem statement
Cause
Ad hoc responses to growth pressure
are creating
communities disconnected from Consequence
services, amenities and employment
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/bca-practice-notes/BCA-practice-notes-
2-How-problem-statements-are-used.pdf
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 77Todays Group Exercise
– a “Bottom-Up” test of the Strategic Case
(identifying gaps in the Strategic Case by looking at performance)
Testing the Problem Statements by Work Category delivery;
and Identifying the Strategic Response
We are starting with the issue on the ground and working
back to see whether it is covered by the problem statementTesting Problem Statements – this exercise will 1. Use the ALT 2020-F1 Factsheet you compiled & Worksheets to test your problem statements and 2. Use a Strategic Response flow chart to identify options for refining the problem statements and Strategic Case 3. Use a simple Decision Hierarchy and Multi Criteria Tool to optioneer the Strategic Response First of All Some background guidance and an example THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 79
At our last workshop we looked at THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 80
Strategic Response Optioneering
Options Considerations/ Useful tools
Target
Drivers
❑ Programme adjustment ❑ GPS • Multi Criteria Analysis
▪ Remove/reduce (MCA)
❑ RLTP
Outcomes delivered
projects/activities
❑ Problems • PMRT Customer
Benefits realised
Problems solved
❑ Policy approach Outcomes and
▪ Adjusting level of ❑ Benefits
Performance reports
Service ❑ Community Outcomes
• dTims
❑ Demand management ❑ Customer Outcomes
▪ Managing use – (CLOS)
up/down ❑ Performance impacts
❑ Funding adjustment. ❑ Environmental Impacts
▪ Increase/decrease ❑ Cultural Impacts
❑ Risk based – e.g. ❑ Cost
▪ Hold Assets longer
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 81Last Workshop Strategic Response Optioneering
Recommended
Application
Use as often as
necessary to
ensure
programme and
Strategies are
aligned
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 82Strategic Response: Strategic Case test by WC
NB: Assume the practitioners assessment
Needed Delivery Start here of what needs to be done on site to provide
by Work Category
the required service levels is correct.
Will More
Adjust or Problems Yes Will Benefits Yes Sufficient Yes No
funds than
Rewrite be be delivered? Funds? required?
Solved?
Problem
No No No Yes
Statements
Declare Surplus
Test all three – one may be more effective More Yes
funds
Yes Yes Yes available?
Adjust No Adjust No Adjust No
by managing by changing by Policy
Risk? Demand? change?
No
Rewrite Strategic Case:
Adjust - New Problems Strategic
Programme - Adjusted benefits
- Revised time frames
Case
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 83Problem
statement
Strategic
response
adjustment:
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 84We will also use simple
and
to optioneer our
Strategic Case
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 85Preferred Strategic Response
Strategic Case Multi Criteria Option Analysis, RCA:
Example Problem No. ________________
Determine Short list up to 3 options from the following - Can we make-----
Preferred 1 Programme adjustment
Option
eg, Remove/reduce projects/activities
Yes/No Reason Rank
Option by; 2 Policy approach eg, Adjust level of Service
• Short listing 3 Demand management
4 Funding adjustment.
eg, Manage use – up/down
eg, Increase/decrease
using a 5 Risk based eg, Hold Assets longer
How good is this option
decision Criteria
Weighting
(Importance) Raw
Option 1
Score Raw
Option 2
Score Raw
Option3
Score
hierarchy Meets GPS
Meets RLTP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Addresses Problems
• Followed Will realise Benefits
Will meet Community Outcomes
0
0
0
0
0
0
Will meet Customer Outcomes (CLOS) 0 0 0
by Multi Provides high Performance impacts
Provides high Environmental Impacts
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criteria Provides Cultural Impacts
How Costly
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other 1 0 0 0
Analysis Other 2
Other 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other 4 0 0 0
Totals 0% 0 0 0
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 86Initial Analysis Problem 3
This is an example from a
Queenstown Lakes workshop
Problems Key finding in What was our Strategic Response? Status 21-24
identified Strategic Case Is problem still relevant?
A risk adverse Decisions, especially Regular RAPTs with NZTA, QLDC and • Expand what partners means.
around renewals chosen contractors, collaborative decisions to push (contractors, consultants) (What
culture by our
high cost treatments the network, especially on a heavy has changed … how do we take
partners and us more risk? (crown range)
maybe not appropriate maintenance strategy to avoid rehabs – with
means we are not • Choosing treatments –renewals
level of service when differing levels of success.
optimising the life compared nationally yes – how about maintenance?…
of our assets Use of P17 contract form for reseals to push talk to Contracts Team and
risk around treatment selection? (BEN) Contractor
• How aware is everyone of AMP
problem statements? Changed
Maintenance risks?
contract managers both
client/contractor -
Prepared by staff member ▪ Trying to sweat the assets, seeing
failures on the network now due to
in advance of workshop risk taking – so maybe not relevant
• If still relevant …. What is the
action? (Contract meeting
actions?)Initial Analysis Problem 3
This is an example from a
Queenstown Lakes workshop
Problems Key finding in What was our Strategic Response? Status 21-24
identified Strategic Case Is problem still relevant?
A risk adverse Regular RAPTs with NZTA, QLDC and • Expand what partners means.
Original Evidence (contractors, consultants) (What has
culture by our contractors, collaborative decisions to changed … how do we take more
partners and us Decisions, especially push the network, especially on a heavy risk? (crown range)
around renewals maintenance strategy to avoid rehabs – • Choosing treatments –renewals yes –
means we are not
chosen high cost with differing levels of success. how about maintenance?… talk to
optimising the life treatments maybe Contracts Team and Contrcator
of our assets Use of P17 contract form for reseals to
not appropriate level • How aware is everyone of AMP
push risk around treatment selection? problem statements? Changed
of service when (BEN) contract managers both
compared nationally client/contractor –
Maintenance risks? Current Evidence
Trying to sweat the assets,
seeing failures on the network
now due to risk taking – so
Evidence suggests Problem Statement No longer Relevant maybe not relevant
• If still relevant …. What is the action?
(Contract meeting actions?)Factsheet Several WCs linked to
Problem 2 Only part of it
example is being addressed.
Problem remains but
(part only) may need tweaking.
Remember: In this case the Problem
did exist and is being
For this exercise we addressed. It may no
are assuming the longer exist at the time of
practitioners’ the next AMP.
assessments of The assessment of the
what needs to be relevance of the Problem
done on site to Statements involves
considering a combination
provide the required of services being delivered
service levels is on a case by case basis.
correct
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 89Group Exercise - Testing Problem Statements
1. Use the ALT 2020-F1 Factsheet you compiled & Worksheets
2. Identify the Problems that each Work Category is addressing
3. Based on your local knowledge and/or feedback you have received, reflect
on any current issues for that work category and whether each problem is
being adequately addressed by the work being carried out
4. Reflect on and test the problem statement Note: this workshop
– does it adequately express the situation? we are focussing on the
– is it still relevant – is it still required? relevance of the
Problem Statements.
– can it be expressed better?
– are there now new problems? Next workshop we will be
focussing on adjusting the
5. Does it align to the GPS, RLTP, LTP? programmes
6. Use the Strategic Response flow chart to identify responses that can be used
to better align the Problem Statements to the required work
7. Finally, use the hierarchy and MCA excel spreadsheet to select you preferred
approach.
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 90Strategic Case bottom-up review exercise debrief 1. Will you be tweaking any of your problem statements as a result of today's exercise? 2. If so which ones? 3. Have any current or future network issues lead to new problem statements 4. Do you seek feedback from your operations and delivery staff often enough? THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 91
Next Workshop ALT 2020-F2 Involves two components 1. A top-down review of the Strategic Case using the thinking prompts provided (and reporting back at the workshop). 2. Gathering information for refining our Programme Business Cases THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 92
Optioneering Options Next Workshop
Strategic Response PBC Delivery
Target
Optioneering Optioneering Optioneering
❑ Programme adjustment ❑ Intervention response timing ❑ Delivery model selection
▪ Remove projects ❑ LoS adjustments ❑ Procurement methods
Outcomes delivered
❑ Policy approach ❑ Use existing assets differently ❑ Intervention timing
Benefits realised
Problems solved
▪ Adjusting level of ❑ Blending Work Categories - Proactive vs Reactive
Service differently ❑ LoS adjustments
▪ ❑ Risk - Hold Assets longer ❑ Improved planning
❑ Demand management ❑ Managing demand ❑ Risk Allocation
▪ Managing use – ❑ Route Management ❑ Managing demand
up/down ❑ Alternative approaches – ❑ Alternative approaches
▪ different solutions – different solutions
❑ Funding adjustment. ❑ Maintenance vs Renewal ❑ Maintenance vs Renewal
▪ Increase/decrease adjustments adjustments - Work
❑ Risk based – e.g. ❑ Extended temporary Categories mix
▪ Hold Assets longer management ❑ Grouping work
▪ ❑ ONRC Classification variance ❑ Extended temporary
management
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 93Optioneering – Next Workshop
Considerations/Drivers
Strategic Response PBC Delivery
Target
Optioneering Optioneering Optioneering
❑ GPS ❑ Community Outcomes ❑ Delivery model selection
❑ RLTP ❑ Problem solving – Client Culture
Outcomes delivered
effectiveness – Supply Chain Culture
❑
Benefits realised
Problems solved
Problems
❑ Benefits realised ❑ Life Cycle Impacts
❑ Benefits
❑ Environmental impacts ❑ Cost effectiveness (vfm)
❑ Community Outcomes ❑ Value for Money ❑ Response choice and
❑ Customer Outcomes ❑ Customer and Technical future impacts (next
(CLOS) LoS gaps and impacts intervention required)
❑ Performance impacts ❑ ONRC Performance ❑ Secondary outcomes
❑ Environmental Impacts gaps
❑ Asset preservation and ❑ Performance/ LoS
❑ Cultural Impacts impacts
sustainability
❑ Cost ❑ Total Cost of Ownership ❑ Benefits
(whole of life Costs) ❑ Environmental impacts
❑ Life Cycle Management
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 94Next workshop – PBC optioneering
PBC Multi Criteria Option Analysis, RCA:
Activity ________________
Short list up to 3 options from the following - Can we make-----
Option Yes/No Rank Reason
❑ Intervention response timing change
❑ LoS adjustments
❑ Use existing assets differently
❑ Blending Work Categories differently
❑ Risk - Hold Assets longer
❑ Managing demand
❑ Route Management
❑ Alternative approaches – different solutions/technology
❑ Maintenance vs Renewal adjustments
❑ ONRC Classification variance
❑ Extended temporary management
Weighting
How good is this option
(Importance) Option 1 Option 2 Option3
Criteria (Total to 100%) Raw Score Raw Score Raw Score
Community Outcomes Achieved 0 0 0
Problem solving effectiveness 0 0 0
Benefits realised 0 0 0
Good Environmental impacts 0 0 0
Value for Money 0 0 0
Closing Customer and Technical LoS gaps and impacts 0 0 0
Closing ONRC Performance gaps 0 0 0
Asset preservation and sustainability 0 0 0
Total Cost of Ownership (whole of life Costs) 0 0 0
Life Cycle Management 0 0 0
Totals 0% 0 0 0
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 95Regional Forum & Innovation Nation Discussion
THANK YOU!!
REG FOCUS 2021Erik Barnes David Fraser Chris Olsen
10 Bayview Drive 16 Solway Place
PO Box 2764, Waiuku 2123 Papakowhai
Wakatipu, Porirua 5024
Queenstown 9349 P: +64 9 2357245
M: 027 4739493
P: 04 2339697
M: 021 997 863 M: 0274 477098
david@amsaam.co.nz
erik@auxilium.co.nz chris@coconsulting.co.nz
THE ROAD EFFICIENCY GROUP 98You can also read
