How is Utah’s Operations Management

System (OMS) really working?

20

10

WA

SH

TO

CO

MM

ITT

EE

ON

M

AIN

TE

NA

NC

E

UDOT Organization• 1,750 employees• 5,887 miles of road• 16,520 lane miles• 24,700 surface

areas

• Central Office• 4 Regions, each split

into 2 Districts• $1.5 billion in

construction this year

Maintenance Organization• 580 employees• 85 maintenance stations statewide• Central Maintenance

– Maintenance Engineer and 14 core staff• Trans-Tech (construction/maintenance)• Approx $97 million in maintenance budget (fy10)

– $21 million in snow removal– $17 million in hard surface

• Zero Based Budget process to develop budgets

Maintenance System Upgrade• Replace existing MMS system

– Originally launched in 1993– Mainframe/Desktop application

Maintenance System UpgradeKey Business system

– 21 interfaces

OMS RFP Development• Began preparing RFP in 2004• Advertised in 2005• 4 companies responded, two start

from scratch, and two with COTS software.

• Refined questions and sent out a second RFP.

• Again same four vendors.• Contract awarded to AgileAssets in

2006

Implementation Project• Kicked off November 2006• Exercised contract options

– User Familiarization Area– On-site project manager– Train-the-Trainer approach to training

• Visited Wyoming July 2007 to get their input on what worked and what didn’t.

• “Go Live” November 2008

Rolling our System Training

• “Train-the-Trainer” approach– Adult teaching skills

• Three weeks of system training– Week 1: System Basics

• Practice after training

– Week 2: Advanced features• Practice after training

– Week 3: Review

• 28 trainers in two groups

Go-Live

• “Flip the Switch”– November 15, 2008– End of Pay Period

One Year Later2

01

0 W

AS

HT

O

CO

MM

ITT

EE

ON

M

AIN

TE

NA

NC

E• Feature Inventory

– Still an Achilles Heel for complete system integration.

• MMQA– Realizing our need to tie condition

assessment to feature inventory– Re-evaluate what we measure

• Understanding the implications of Owning vs. Renting the code

• Pavement Management Module implemented

How are we going forward? (1 of 2)

• Most employees accept the system, but don’t use it to its full potential

• Better integration with other business data. (State Financials, GIS)

• Field Data Collection Pilot project– LiDar vs. handheld

• GPS equipped mobile workforce– True cost reporting and performance

measurement

• Reporting to Legislature/Taxpayer

20

10

WA

SH

TO

CO

MM

ITT

EE

ON

M

AIN

TE

NA

NC

E

• Hired a retired maintenance analyst– Focus on getting system operating to its full

potential.– Help with training.– Lucky to have been able to hire the best of the

best.

• Develop our Zero Based Budget Process– Improve MMQA reporting– Complete Feature Inventory– Develop local Activity Standards– Work with Construction to update changes.

• Better GIS/GPS tools– Some in OMS, some in-house developed.

How are we going forward? (2 of 2)

• Feature Inventory– Finding the right methodology, and getting

resources for it– Link to MMQA, and to work order creation– Using feature inventory in budgeting process

• MMQA– Making it useful for station supervisors– Making snow log reporting easy and useful

• System enhancements– Weaning ourselves from AgileAssets– Creating our own reports

• Cost of support and maintenance

Outstanding Issues

Questions?Lloyd Neeley, P.E.Deputy Maintenance Engineer

801-965-4789

lneeley@utah.gov