University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Institutional analysis of factors critical to facilitating project management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes

(USC Thesis Other)

Institutional analysis of factors critical to facilitating project management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF FACTORS CRITICAL TO FACILITATING PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF METRO EXPRESSLANES by Yvonne Guan Zheng A Project Presented to the FACULTY OF SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT December 2014 Copyright 2014 Yvonne Guan Zheng ii Dedication To Lin and Wilson, my husband and son, for your unwavering support to my intellectual pursuit and striving to realize our dreams together! iii Acknowledgements The cheery ending of a seemly uncertain journey to the doctoral realm would not be possible without the generous time and consistent support from many remarkable people in the past eight years of my study at USC. First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee chair Dr. Genevieve Giuliano for her incredible intelligence and wisdom to guide me through on every key step in my study. While she was holding me to high standards, she leveraged my strengths, challenged me to shape my thinking, and initiated rigorous but workable guidelines during my blurring moments. She gave my study so much attention and spent countless hours to review my research proposal, survey design, and this research project with constructive suggestions throughout the entire research process. Her dedication to quality research and making accessible for a student in need will continue to inspire me to achieve the best in my future endeavors. I am privileged to have tremendous support from Stephanie Wiggins, Executive Officer of Metro ExpressLanes. It was her presentation on congestion pricing and ExpressLanes in a transportation class of fall 2011 at USC that shed a light on my long tunnel of searching a research topic. I extremely appreciate her agreeing to serve on my committee when I approached her for further guidance in my research on the ExpressLanes Project. Her extensive project management experiences, insightful knowledge of ExpressLanes Project, and leadership social capital helped me obtain key project documents and data, identify survey participants, and drum up survey responses. In addition, she has iv devoted a lot of her busy time to review and provide constructive feedbacks on my research proposal, survey questionnaire, and project writing. I am very grateful to Dr. Shui Yan Tang who agreed to serve on my committee without any hesitations and provided his full support to my study. His expertise in human subject interviews and institutional analysis helped me to recognize the importance of resolving certain institutional issues before conducting the actual survey and interview. His invaluable feedbacks on the scale of my survey design, draft proposal, and project writing contributed a great deal in facilitating the completion of this research. The arrival of Dr. Debora Natoli to the Sol Price School of Public Policy is a huge asset to the DPPD Program. As the Director of DPPD Program, Dr. Natoli has been my resource of guidance, support, and encouragement. I truly appreciate her unending support in guiding me through various issues occurred in the DPPD Program and helped me maintain emotional health during the final stage of my research effort. I am so grateful for her persistent impetus in pushing me to hit the finish line of the DPPD destination. I am greatly indebted to the team of Metro ExpressLanes Project including the project leaders, members, contractors, consultants, and project partners who generously spent their time to positively participate in my survey. Their professionalism, expertise, insight knowledge, and willingness to provide responses to my survey and interviews made the completion of this research work possible and enjoyable. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to Henry Fuks, Executive Officer of Metro Project Management, for his willingness to support my research; Kathleen McCune, Director of Metro Countywide Planning & Development, for her special comment on my survey; Elba Higueros, Metro v Transportation Manager IV; Bronwen Keiner, Metro Senior Community Relations Officer, for her valuable feedback on the survey result; Mathew Antonelli, Metro Senior Construction Manager; Robert Ferry, Metro Senior Construction Inspector; Joseph O’Donnell, Metro Contract Administration Manager; Olga Lopez, Metro Community Relations Manager; Mark Miller, Metro Project Control Supervisor; Arthur Hadnett, Stantec Vice President; Ed Salazar, Stantec Senior Principal Engineer; Roger Miramontes, Stantec Senior Project Manager; Patrick Fuller, PB Project Manager; Victoria Dewey, PB Regional Manager; John Vassiliades, Caltrans Project Manager; Eugene Leibman, Caltrans Engineer; Jesse Glazer, FHWA Engineer; Felipe Olivar, Atkinson Senior Project Manager; Fred Smith, Construction Manager; and Sam Hassoun, GLA President and Partnering Facilitator; for their prompt responses to my survey and willingness to provide further clarifications and feedbacks on my follow-up inquires. A special appreciation goes to my colleague Dr. Falan Guan, who shared her great experience at USC and wrote a recommendation letter for my application to study in the DPPD Program. I am also very grateful to my colleague Dr. Ashad R. Hamideh, who offered an insight of the preliminary stage of Metro ExpressLanes Project, which helped me to understand the dynamics and challenges of the Project. Furthermore, Dr. Hamideh spent his valuable time to critically review the draft of my survey design, test run on the survey, and provide constructive feedbacks to improve my survey questionnaire. I also would like to acknowledge the financial support from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) and appreciate Metro staff members to timely process the tuition assistance during my study at USC. vi My sincere and true gratitude goes to my DPPD fellow student Stephen Hubbard, who has been sharing his observations and perspectives of the DPPD program along the way of my study. In addition, I extremely appreciate his helpful advice and proofreading this project. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Jack H. Knott, Dean; Dr. Elizabeth A. Graddy, Vice Dean; Carol Rush, Associate Dean; Christine Wilson, Director of Student Services; Constance Rodgers, Executive Assistant; Carmen Gomez, Office Manager; Ashley Coelho, DPPD Program Coordinator; Victoria Valentine Deguzman, Assistant Director of Metrans; Dr. Peter J. Robertson, Associate Professor; and other USC faculty, staff, and fellow students who are not individually listed here for their support, assistance, and Trojan spirit in making my dream to be a reality! vii Table of Contents Page Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents vii List of Tables x List of Figures xii Abbreviations xiv Abstract xvi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Context of Metro and ExpressLanes Project 3 1.2 Importance of the Study 16 1.3 Framework of the Study 16 1.4 Research Scope and Limitation 16 1.5 Organization of the Research 17 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 19 2.1 Project and Project Management 19 2.1.1 Origin of Project Management Practice and Theory 19 2.1.2 Project Management Development 22 2.1.3 Distinction of Project and Project Management 26 2.1.4 Project Management Practices and Standards: PMBOK ® Guide 32 2.1.5 Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide 41 2.2 Public Project Management 44 2.2.1 Differences between Public and Private Sector Organizations 44 2.2.2 Uniqueness and Challenges in Managing Public Project 46 2.2.3 Techniques and Strategies in Public Project Management 49 2.2.4 Partnering as an Emerging Process in Public Construction Project 51 2.3 Main Themes and Key Points of Reference from Literature Review 60 viii Table of Contents Page CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 67 3.1 Defining the Problem 67 3.2 Research Questions 71 3.3 Research Design 71 3.4 Survey and Identifying Survey Respondents 73 3.5 Construction of Survey Instrument 74 3.6 Administration of Survey 79 CHAPTER 4: EXAMINATION OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS 82 4.1 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 83 4.2 Program Management Plan (PMP) 86 4.3 ExpressLanes Design, Build, Operate & Maintain (DBOM) Contract 97 4.4 Project Monitoring and Controlling Data 102 4.5 Documents Deliberating Other Activities and Project Closing 116 4.6 Summary of Critical Analyses on Key Documents Reviewed 132 CHAPTER 5: COLLECTION AND ANALYSES OF SURVEY RESPONSES 138 5.1 Respondents’ Involvement in Metro ExpressLanes Project Management 140 5.2 Overall Assessment of Metro ExpressLanes Project Management 142 5.3 Challenges Unique to Metro ExpressLanes Project Management 144 5.4 Project Management Practices Adopted by Metro ExpressLanes 151 5.5 Key Factors Critical to Facilitating Metro ExpressLanes Project Management 154 5.6 Post-Survey Interviews and Email Feedbacks 157 CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 158 6.1 Summary of Survey Findings and Analyses 159 6.2 Research Conclusions 170 6.3 Recommendation for Future Studies 172 ix Table of Contents Page REFERENCES 174 APPENDICES 184 Appendix A. Survey Invitation Message 185 Appendix B. Survey Instrument 186 Appendix C. Raw Data of Survey Responses 193 x List of Tables Page Table 1 Top Ten Most Congested Corridors in the United States 9 Table 2 Generations of Project Management Conceptualization 25 Table 3 Summary of Internal Assessment on ExpressLanes Project Management 69 Table 4 Topics Covered by PMP & Referenced to PMBOK ® Knowledge Area 90 Table 5 Work Completion Schedule of Metro ExpressLanes 100 Table 6 Master Schedule of LACRD Program 104 Table 7 Sampled Key Milestone Schedule on Monthly Project Status Report 107 Table 8 Sampled Key Milestone Schedule on Quarterly Project Status Report 108 Table 9 Schedule of LACRD Program Cost Status 111 Table 10 Schedule of Quantities and Prices on DBOM Contract 114 Table 11 Challenges and Recommended Solutions Related to Safety and Quality Project 118 Table 12 Challenges and Recommended Solutions Related to Environmental Compliance and Public Acceptance 119 Table 13 Challenges and Recommended Solutions Related to the Completion of Project Within Budget and On Time 120 Table 14 Metro ExpressLanes Project Partnering Goals Evaluation 121 xi List of Tables (Continued) Page Table 15 Funding Agreements and Project Completion Status 122 Table 16 Sampled Media Articles Published at Project Early Stage 127 Table 17 Sampled Media Articles Published at Project Completion Stage 128 Table 18 List of Awards Metro ExpressLanes Project Received 129 Table 19 Chronology of Metro ExpressLanes Project Events 130 Table 20 Mean Score of Average Ratings on Challenges Unique to Metro ExpressLanes Project Management 146 Table 21 Mean Score of Average Ratings on Techniques and Strategies Adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project 152 Table 22 Key Factors Critical to Facilitating Metro ExpressLanes Project Management and Implementation 155 xii List of Figures Page Figure 1 Metro Revenues by Sources 4 Figure 2 Metro Expenditures by Program 7 Figure 3 Metro Transit Capital Program 8 Figure 4 Metro ExpressLanes Locations 12 Figure 5 Federal ExpressLanes Grant Allocation 13 Figure 6 The Impact of Puritanism on Project Management 22 Figure 7 Project Life Cycle 35 Figure 8 Typical Cost and Staffing Levels across Project Life Cycle 37 Figure 9 Process Groups Interact in a Phase 39 Figure 10 Project Management Process Groups 39 Figure 11 Nine Project Management Knowledge Areas 40 Figure 12 Typical Phases of a Government Construction Project 42 Figure 13 Seven Core Competencies in Partnering 57 Figure 14 Lifecycle of Project Partnering 58 Figure 15 Metro ExpressLanes Public Outreach Meetings and Presentations 125 Figure 16 Metro ExpressLanes Corridor Advisory Group (CAG) Meetings 126 xiii List of Figures (Continued) Page Figure 17 Screenshot of Survey Links and Reminders Sent 139 Figure 18 Respondents’ Roles in Metro Expresslanes Project 141 Figure 19 Overall Assessment of Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Practices 143 Figure 20 Challenges Unique to Metro ExpressLanes Project Management 145 Figure 21 Ratings on Techniques and Strategies Adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project 153 Figure 22 Respondents Selection of Key Factors Critical to Facilitating Metro ExpressLanes Project Management and Implementation 156 xiv Abbreviations BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAG Corridor Advisory Group CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CMS Changeable Message Signs CPM Critical Path Method CRDP Congestion Reduction Demonstration Program DBOM Design, Build, Operate and Maintain EIR Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (NEPA) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FONSI Finding of No Significant Impacts FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year HOT LANE High-Occupancy Toll Lane HOV LANE High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) MPH Miles Per Hour MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act xv Abbreviations (Continued) PERT Program Evaluation and Review Technique PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge PMI Project Management Institute PMP Program Management Plan RFP Request for Proposal SCAG Southern California Association of Governments STA State Transit Assistance Fund TDA Transportation Development Act TTI Texas Transportation Institute USDOT United States Department of Transportation xvi Abstract Metro ExpressLanes Project was one of the first six Congestion Reduction Demonstration Programs to receive federal funding to convert existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in the United States. In the early stage of the construction, the completion of the project was estimated to be one year in delay. However, the project was eventually completed as planned. Given the high project failure rate of over 60% discussed in literature and the unique burden that Metro was required to return the grant to the federal if the specified requirements were not met, the objective of this research was to determine how the project team overcame various obstacles and completed the project within the constraints. To achieve the research objective, this research was framed to answer two questions: What were the challenges unique to the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? Which of the strategies adopted by the project team were perceived as the most critical factors to facilitating the implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? A survey aimed at answering the two research questions with nine challenges and thirteen strategies synthesized from literature review and analyses of project documents was conducted among the survey participants who were involved in the implementation of the project. The result of the survey revealed that the top five rated challenges faced by Metro ExpressLanes Project were: had specific deadlines to meet; under political and media scrutiny; required to adhere to various laws and regulations; involved in multiple xvii stakeholders with different interest; implemented under an overlapping oversight structure. The top five rated strategies adopted by the project team were: established a project team with qualified and committed leaders; hired qualified and committed contractors and consultants; defined scope of work with specified delivery due dates; adopted “partnering” collaborating approaches; and developed a comprehensive project management plan. Post-survey interviews and emails seeking feedbacks on survey result were carried out among sampled survey respondents. While most feedbacks indicated that the survey result was consistent among most if not all public mega projects, one pointed out that in addition to the challenges identified in this research, Metro ExpressLanes Project encountered another unprecedented challenge that there were no or few prior lessons for the project team to draw or learn because the project was not only the very first public project to implement the tolling technology in the Los Angeles County, but also one of the first six federal funded HOT lane conversion projects in the United States. Overall, almost all feedbacks agreed that the top rated strategies adopted by ExpressLanes project team may serve as lessons learned for future similar public projects. In conclusion, the result of this research supports the literature argument that a public project encounters unique challenges that a private project may rarely come across. Enhanced and adaptive project management strategies such as the ones identified by this research will help facilitate the management and implementation of a public project. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Research found that many large construction projects experienced a high project failure rate of 60% or more. A project is often considered a failure if it has not met the requirements of budgeted cost, scheduled due date of completion, or quality anticipated by project stakeholders (Robertson & Williams, 2006; Flyvbjerg, et al., 2009; KPMG, 2013; & Kusek et al., 2013). Literature discusses that many factors can lead to project failure. But the true causes of failure appear very difficult if not impossible to determine because the nature and complexity of each project are different. For example, Black (1996) revealed that the top reasons for project failure include poor planning; changes in management, specifications, and scope of work; incompetent project manager; deadlines overly optimistically established; lack of top management support; inadequate funding; insufficient resources; poor information management; and failure to utilize penalties and rewards. Pinto (1997) argued that ignoring the project environment, not building fallback options, not conducting feasible studies, and never admitting failure are some of the contributing causes of project failure. Fretty (2006) cited a survey result of top rated reasons for project failure: project team’s skill sets are inconsistent; the requirements management process is overwhelming; requirements are not realistic and cannot be implemented as defined; requirements are clear to the project team but not to stakeholders; and stakeholders don’t mean what they say. 2 To help reduce the chances of project failure, most project management theorists and practitioners suggest that well-developed models or best practices including the PMBOK ® Guide be adopted in the management and implementation of a project. In practice, some argue that the assumption that a model applicable to a private project can be simply adopted by a public project is a fallacy (Wirick, 2009; Holzer, 2010; & Kassel, 2010). They suggest that adapted approaches or additional techniques be adopted to achieve the efficiency and effectiveness in managing a public project because the purpose and nature of public- and private- projects are different (Wirick, 2009; Holzer, 2010; & Kassel, 2010). In reality, how a project team adapted or adopted different strategies when a public project encountered unique or more challenges than originally anticipated became the key question I sought to answer. In 2008, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) awarded the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) $210 million federal grant to implement Metro ExpressLanes by converting existing HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes on the I-10 and I-110 corridors to initiate congestion pricing strategies in the Los Angeles County. Metro ExpressLanes was not only a public project that arguably would face unique challenges that a private project never encountered, but also one of the first six Congestion Reduction Demonstration (or HOT lane conversion) projects in the United States. In addition, based on the funding agreement, Metro was required to pay back $210 million to the USDOT if the conversions and other related projects had not been completed by the dates specified. 3 Since the HOT lane conversion is a relatively new concept and practice in the United States, literature seems lacking sufficient empirical evidence to support certain claims on which techniques and strategies may be effective in the management and implementation of this type of project. It was the aim of this research to determine how the project team overcame various obstacles and completed the project within the constraints. In particular, this research was designed to build on existing project management knowledge and perform a case study on Metro ExpressLanes Project with the objective to identify key factors critical to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project. 1.1 Context of Metro and ExpressLanes Project Metro ExpressLanes Project was led by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) and implemented with the assistance of several supporting agencies including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and other participating agencies: the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), Foothill Transit, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (source: U.S. DOT, 2012). Metro is a regional transportation planner and public transportation operating agency for the Los Angeles County. It was created by State of California Assembly Bill 152 4 through the merge of the two agencies: Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission ( LACTC) in February 1, 1993. After the merge, Metro has been the second largest public transportation agency in the United States that develops and oversees short-term and long-range transportation plans as well as serves as planner, coordinator, designer, builder, and operator in one of the country’s largest and most populous counties with approximately 10 million people live, work, and play within its 1,433-square-mile service area (adapted from metro.net). Metro Revenue Sources Metro’s operations in fiscal year 2014 were funded by three major categories of sources: (1) sales tax, State Transit Assistance (STA), and Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, which were combined to make up 52% of the revenues; (2) capital financing, which provided 39% of the revenue; and (3) operating fares, which contributed 9% of the revenue. Figure 1 shows Metro basic revenue categories in fiscal year 2014. Figure 1: Metro Revenues by Sources Source: Metro Adopted Budget FY2014, p. 18 5 Based on Metro website (metro.net), Proposition A, C, and Measure R local sales taxes provide majority of the funding sources for Metro’s operations. Thus, the following session offers some insights about these sales taxes. Proposition A Proposition A is an ordinance adopted by voters in 1980 to establish a one-half of 1% sales tax on most retail sales in the Los Angeles County for public transit purposes [LACMTA Admin. Code Title 3 3-05 (1980)]. Metro website discloses that Metro returns 25% of the Proposition A tax to the cities in the Los Angeles County for transportation purposes. The balance of the Proposition A tax is restricted 35% for rail development and 40% for discretionary purposes. Almost all of the discretionary portion is used to fund bus service provided by Metro and 16 other municipal bus operators within the County (from source: metro.net). Proposition C Proposition C is an ordinance adopted by voters in 1990 to establish an additional one-half of 1% tax on retail sales in the Los Angeles County for public transit purposes [LACMTA Admin. Code Title 3 3-10 (1990)]. Metro website reveals that Metro returns 20% of the Proposition C tax to the cities in the County for transportation purposes. The balance of the Proposition C tax is restricted 40% for construction and operation of the bus transit and rail system; 5% to expand rail and bus security; 10% for commuter rail, construction of transit centers, park and ride lots and freeway bus stops; and 25% for transit-related improvements to freeways and state highways (source: metro.net). 6 According to Metro, an initiative affecting the Proposition A and Proposition C sales taxes in the form of the Act of 1998 was submitted and approved by the voters of Los Angeles County on November 3, 1998. Pursuant to the Act of 1998, Metro is no longer allowed to expend Proposition A or Proposition C sales tax on the costs of planning, design, construction or operation of any “New Subway.” New Subway is defined to mean any rail line in a tunnel below the earth’s surface, except for the existing segments of the Metro Red Line. The Act of 1998 does not limit in any way the collection of the Proposition A or the Proposition C sales taxes (source: metro.net). Measure R Measure R is an ordinance approved by 2/3 of the Los Angeles County voters in 2008 to authorize an additional ½ of 1% sales tax to fund traffic relief and rail expansion according to an expenditure plan contained in the ordinance. The Measure R sales tax became effective July 1, 2009 and will remain in effect for 30 years (source: metro.net). Metro Expenditures Metro budgeted its expenditures based on anticipated revenues to be received for the year. In fiscal year 2014, Metro classified its expenditures in three ways: (1) by program itemized by capital, bus & rail operations, regional subsidy funding programs, highway programs, debt service, general planning and programs, and congestion management; (2) by type itemized by labor, capital & operations, subsidies, and debt; and (3) by department such as operations, planning, highway project, transit project, communications, economic development, administration, financial services, audit, board 7 of directions, and chief executive office. Figure 2 shows Metro used “by program” to depict its spending of approximately $5 billion revenues on seven categories: (1) Metro Capital (32.1%), (2) Metro Bus & Rail Operations (26.9%), (3) Regional Subsidy Funding Programs (21.4%), (4) Highway Programs (8.9%), (5) Debt Service (6.7%), (6) General Planning & Programs (2.6%), and (7) Congestion Management (1.4%). Figure 2: Metro Expenditures by Program Source: Metro Adopted Budget FY2014, p. 22 Further examination of Figure 2 shows that a large portion of the revenue ($1.6 billion) was budgeted for Metro capital. According to Metro FY14 budget book, Metro capital is also referred as “Transit Capital Program”. Because my study was based on Metro ExpressLanes Project budgeted under Metro Transit Capital Program, the following section reviews major components under the Transit Capital Program. 8 Metro Transit Capital Program According to Metro budget book, Transit Capital Program is a portfolio of projects and programs that are classified under two asset categories: Measure R Transit Program and Operations Capital Maintenance (OCM) Program. Figure 3: Metro Transit Capital Program Source: Metro Adopted Budget FY2014, p. 36  Measure R Transit Program starts as a Transit Planning Project and is transitioned into a Transit Construction Project.  Operations Capital Maintenance (OCM) Program consists of three major components: (1) Operations Capital Safety & Security, (2) Operations Capital Deferred Maintenance, and (3) Operations Capital Improvements & Infrastructure. 9 Metro ExpressLanes Project falls into the Operations Capital Improvement & Infrastructure category. In fiscal year 2014, Metro had a total of 211 capital projects in progress. These projects are designed to maintain, enhance and improve Metro transit system. Metro ExpressLanes Project According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s study along 328 specific freeway corridors in the United States in 2010, seven of the ten most congested highway corridors in the Unites States are located in the Los Angeles County. See Table 1 for details. Table 1: Top Ten Most Congested Corridors in the United States Source: 2011 Congested Corridors Report by Texas Transportation Institute, p. 19 Of these seven most congested corridors, four are found on the I-10 and I-110 freeway corridors. Many transportation research and studies, e.g., Chen and Varaiya (2001) reveal that on a section of westbound I-10 general lanes in Los Angeles, vehicle flow measured in vehicles per hour (vph) decreases from 2,100 vph moving at 60 miles per hour (mph) at 5:10 10 am to 1,300 vph moving at a stop-and-go 15 mph by 7:00 am. Although the demand starts to decrease after 8:00 am, the I-10 freeway does not recover its full efficiency until 11:30 am. While the traffic on Los Angeles freeways has been regarded as one of the worst, congestion in fact is an increasingly pervasive problem that affects travel time, freight deliveries, air quality, and overall quality of life, especially in major metropolitan areas of the United States. A study performed by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) concludes, “The root causes of congestion have long been understood, and there is now broad consensus that congestion generally reflects a fundamental imbalance of supply and demand” (USDOT, 2006). As one of the broad context of transportation policies to tackle the congestion problem, the USDOT announced a multi-mode Congestion Initiative in partnership with major metropolitan areas in May 2006 to implement toll pricing strategies on selected existing highways to balance demand with available capacity. Toll pricing, as USDOT (2006) explained, is a strategy to manage traffic congestion by varying the price of the toll to use the highway facility based on the time of day or traffic volume level. The Congestion Initiative was instituted through the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) and Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) Program specified in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU) (2005). It stipulated that 15 demonstration projects were authorized nationwide from 2005 through 2009 to allow States, public authorities, or public or private entities to collect a toll from motor vehicles at an eligible toll facility. 11 To be eligible to participate in the CRD program, an agency or entity was required to submit information listed on the SAFETEA-LU (2005) and application by the deadline of December 31, 2007 (USDOT, 2010, p. 1-2). In 2007, Metro Board approved a one-year study to identify recommendations on where to initiate toll pricing in Los Angeles County. The study was completed by PB Americas and Metro’s expression of interest to participate in the Express Lanes Demonstration Program was submitted to the USDOT for consideration. For the period from 2007 to 2009, the USDOT selected eight potential urban partners for the CRD program: Miami, Minnesota, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta. However, due to the fact that the New York State Assembly declined to take a formal vote on April 7, 2008 to provide needed legislative authority to implement the proposed New York City congestion-pricing project, New York City was dropped out from the program. In addition, Chicago was also removed from the program because the deadlines for pricing legislation were not met (USDOT, 2010, p. 1-2). On April 24, 2008, Metro Board unanimously voted to permit Metro CEO to negotiate a congestion reduction demonstration agreement with USDOT. As a result, Metro together with its partner agencies was competitively selected by USDOT as one of the six demonstration programs in the United States to develop innovative projects to reduce congestion through the implementation of congestion pricing. Specifically, Metro and its partner agencies were selected to receive $210 million federal grant to implement Los Angeles County Congestion Reduction Demonstration 12 (LACRD) Program, in which the I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes were to be converted to HOT lanes, also called Metro ExpressLanes that locate between the I-605 to Alameda Street (Union Station) on the I-10 El Monte Busway with approximately 14 miles; and between Adams Boulevard and Artesia Transit Center on the I-110 Harbor Transitway with approximately 11 miles, as illustrated on Figure 4. Figure 4: Metro ExpressLanes Location Source: metro.net Metro ExpressLanes were intended to initiate a “congestion pricing” strategy to provide an opportunity to sell some of the additional capacity on the existing I-10 and I-110 corridors to drivers who are willing to pay a toll and maximize efficiency of the entire freeway. Tolls on the ExpressLanes are based on real-time traffic conditions and vary according to the level of congestion on the ExpressLanes. The toll is higher when there is more traffic on the ExpressLanes and lower when traffic is lighter (Metro, July 2011). 13 In addition to the congestion pricing to be implemented on I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes, improving transit facilities and operations as well as implementing an intelligent parking management system in downtown Los Angeles are also part of the LACRD Program, which are known as the 4Ts complementary strategies: Tolling, Transit, Telecommuting/Travel Demand Management (TDM), and Technology that aimed at reducing congestion, promoting throughput, and enhancing mobility. Figure 5 shows the allocation plan of $210 million USDOT grant. Figure 5: Federal ExpressLanes Grant Allocation Source: metro.net As one of the six Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) projects in the United States, Metro ExpressLanes has been considered by transportation planners through the nation as the most significant project of its type due to the magnitude of issues, stakeholders, and multiple agencies involved. Furthermore, if the requirements of the federal grant 14 deadlines related to State Tolling Authority and revenue operations were not met, Metro had to re-pay the $210 million grant to USDOT (Vassiliades, 2013). A public document related to Metro ExpressLanes disclosed, “The project entailed significant redesign of more than 100 miles of State Highway lanes to be realigned and make space, to convert the existing 14 miles on the existing HOV lane on the I-10 from Interstate 605 to Alameda Street to two Express Lanes and 11 miles on the two existing HOV lanes on the I-110 from 182nd Street to Adams Blvd. to ExpressLanes. A redesign of this magnitude takes a herculean effort to make each member of the team agreeable to the adopted solution. At the same time a number of projects were underway by the State posing impediments in many areas where the work was overlapping with these projects” (Vassiliades, 2003). The following parties were identified as the key players of this project:  USDOT (FHWA) – major funding agency  Metro – lead and implementation agency  Caltrans – oversight agency  California Highway Patrol – responsible for construction zone enhanced enforcement program (COZEEP)  Atkinson – prime contractor  AECOM – design  Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) – design support during construction  Stantec – construction management  Xerox – toll system integrator 15  G&C Equipment Co. – material & equipment procurement  Steiny & Company – electrical installation  Seville Construction – quality control and assurance  Psomas – surveying  Abratique & Associates, Inc. – 3 rd party coordinator  Mars Services, Inc. – utility coordination  Dias Yourman & Associates – geotechnical  City of Los Angeles – 3 rd party  SCRRA – 3 rd party  Global Leadership Alliance, Inc. – project partnering facilitator My review of Metro ExpressLanes document found that the project team had overcome numerous challenges and completed the project according to USDOT specified requirements. Tolling on the I-110 began November 10, 2012 and on the I-10 began February 23, 2013. Therefore, $210 million federal grant was successfully utilized by Metro and partner agencies to help improve the congestion in the Los Angeles County, and the danger of paying back the grant to the United State Department of Transportation no longer existed. 16 1.2 Importance of the Study This study contributes to the growing literature on project management, creating one of few case studies on public project management and implementation of HOT lane conversion. In addition, given the fact that Metro undertakes approximately 200 projects every year, the result of the study may serve as lessons learned for Metro management and staff for their future public project management. 1.3 Framework of the Study This study is within the framework of organizational theory and modern project management including public project management on HOT lane conversion. 1.4 Research Scope and Limitation Per discussion in Section 2.3, literature cautions that the goal of a project is often different from the goal of project management. The goal of a project may include certain business or service objectives that a project attempts to achieve. But the goal of project management may be set to ensure that a project is managed and implemented as planned. For Metro ExpressLanes, the goal of the project is to improve the mobility and provide congestion relief on I-10 and I-110 corridors in the Los Angeles County. To determine whether the goal of improving the mobility and congestion relief is achieve, certain methods and criteria need to be developed to gather, measure, compare, calculate, and determine the traffic flow and other related data before and after the ExpressLanes in operation. The goal of project management of Metro Expresslanes convert the I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes to HOT 17 lanes, however, is to evaluate whether the conversions are completed within the timeframe, budget, and other constraints. The focus of my study was on the management and implementation process of Metro ExpressLanes that converted the I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes to HOT lanes. The assessment of Metro ExpressLanes Project to determine whether the project goal to improve the mobility and provide congestion relief on I-10 and I-110 corridors in the Los Angeles County is achieved was not within the scope of this study. In addition, other public projects undertaken by Metro were not examined. 1.5 Organization of the Research This study is organized into six chapters as below: Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter provides background information to bridge some knowledge of Metro as the second largest transportation agencies in the United States including its revenue sources, budgeted expenditures, transit capital program, and ExpressLanes Project subject to this research. In addition, this chapter discusses the importance of the study, framework of the study, and research scope and limitation. Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter contains the review of related literature discussing the history and development of project management; distinction of project and project management; modern project management practices and standards; differences between public and private sector 18 organizations; uniqueness and challenges in managing public projects; and techniques and strategies including the concept of partnering in public project management. Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology This chapter defines the research problem and formulates research questions. Methodology and procedures to gather data aiming at answering the research questions are also explained. Chapter 4: Examination of Project Documents This chapter highlights my review of Metro ExpressLanes existing documents and data, which are organized approximately along with the five project management processes that are widely classified by literature and PMBOK ® Guide published by Project Management Institute: project origination, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing. Chapter 5: Collection and Analysis of Survey Responses This chapter presents a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the primary data that I gathered from survey. Chapter 6: Research Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter contains research conclusions. In addition, a summary of collections and analyses of data gathered from existing documents and records as well as survey responses is presented. At the end of the chapter, recommendations for future studies are suggested. 19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review covers two major topics related to my research focus: (1) project and project management, and (2) Public Project Management. 2.1 Project and Project Management This section reviews issues important to my understanding some of the key concepts and backgrounds relevant to my study: origin of project management practice and theory; project management development; distinction of project and project management; project management practices and standards; and Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide. 2.1.1 Origin of Project Management Practice and Theory Project management is not new. It can be traced back nearly 5000 years when the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt was built. In the analysis of project management history, authors such as Ireland (2006), Verzuh (2008), and Kozak-Holland (2012) observes that construction might be the seed for the evolution of project management. As the first unique and enormous construction piece on earth, The Great Pyramid of Giza has generated huge research interest. Despite the fact that the terms “project management” might not exist during the construction of pyramid, many historians believe that the project had undeniably applied certain sophisticated project management techniques and skills such as planning, organizing, and monitoring to build this magnificent project. There are many pictures shows that slaves are whipped to perform various tasks such as carrying rocks, cutting stones, assembly, and construction in this project. Ireland (2006) 20 argues that this action could not have been the typical “management method” for the project. He states, “There had to be some team organization and project management to accomplish the feat of building the pharaoh’s tomb whose actual planning and construction remains a secret from modern society today” (Ireland, 2006, p.1). To explore the root of project management theory, Weaver (2007) traced the development of project management back to the protestant reformation of the 15 th century. In his opinion, the ideas and processes of modern project management are essentially based on the earlier worldviews of “reductionism”, “individualism” and the “protestant work ethic” (PWE) that were initiated by the Protestants and later the Puritans. Weaver (2007) explained that reductionism was an approach to breaking a complex thing into simpler or smaller parts in order to understand how it worked; individualism believed that people were active, independent, and able to manage risks and create ideas; and PWE focused on the intrinsic (natural, built-in) value of work. These ideas appeared to have a great influence on two of the key philosophies in history: Liberalism and Newtonianism. Weaver (2007) found that “Liberalism included the ideas of capitalism (Adam Smith), the division of labor, and that an industrious lifestyle would lead to wealthy societies” (p.2). Based on Whitty & Schulz (2007, p. 9), “Liberalism marks the era from where the reformed teachings of Protestantism would ignite a work ethic that would drive the economic traits of capitalism…. Newtonianism marks the era of scientific enquiry”. Newtonianism stemmed from Newton’s belief that applying scientific observations to parts of the whole would help 21 us understand a complete whole because he perceived the world as a consonant apparatus controlled by a “universal law” (adapted from Weaver, 2007). Weaver (2007) observed that Liberalism and Newtonianism significantly influenced Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915). Taylor is widely recognized as the father of modern management and his scientific management theories are often referred as Taylorism, which as Whitty & Schulz (2007) put it, “consists of four components: efficiency as the primary value guiding managers’ actions and decisions; faith in the tools and techniques of management; a class consciousness among managers; and a view of managers as moral agents” (p. 9). Cameron and Pertuze (2009) revealed that Frederick W. Taylor began to apply scientific theories and systemized the shop management to reduce costs and increase production while employed at Midvale Steel Co. during 1878 to1884. Taylor found that labor could be analyzed, unnecessary processes could be deleted, and productivity could be improved by providing appropriate incentives. Before then, the only way to increase production was to extend laborers working hours or demand them to work harder. At the same time, Taylor’s associate, Henry Gantt (1861- 1919), conducted a study on the orders and sequences of operation and manufacturing. Soon after, Gantt invented Gantt charts that outlined the sequence and duration of all tasks with task bars and milestone markers in a process, which greatly helped managers to monitor the progress of a project. Since then, the application of project management could be identified by such activities as breaking down work into tasks, making plans, building teams, assessing risk, and 22 monitoring spending (adapted from Shenhar & Dvir, 2004; Mule & Susara, 2004; and Whitty & Schulz, 2007). Figure 6 summarizes the discussion of the impact of Puritanism on the project management. Figure 6: The Impact of Puritanism on Project Management Source: adapted from Weaver, 2007 Although the roots of modern project management may remain a topic for continuous debate, most authors, e.g. Shenhar and Dvir (2004), Mule and Susara (2004), Weaver (2007), Verzuh (2008), Kozak-Holland (2011), Azzopardi (2012), and Gul (2012) agreed that people rarely talked about the terms “project management” until the 1940s when the concept of modern project management began to emerge. 2.1.2 Project Management Development To deal with the cold war conflicts, the United States launched various defense projects during and after the World War II. Shenhar & Dvir (2004) and Mule & Susara (2004) observed that these defense endeavors were so enormous and complicated, the informal management techniques such as using Gantt charts to monitor individual project Puritanism Influence on Project Management Project Management Newtonianism Puritanism Liberalism Taylorism 23 progress or managing a project on ad-hoc basis proved inadequate and ineffective. Thus, there was an imperative need to develop new approaches to address these new challenges to manage these defense programs. Based on literature, there were two dominant models developed in parallel in the 1950’s that extensively improved the controls over massively engineered and extremely complex projects. One of them was called Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), which was invented in 1958 as part of the Navy Polaris missile submarine program. PERT was later extended into Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Another was called Critical Path Method (CPM), which was invented by the Dupont Corporation mainly for construction projects (Shenhar & Dvir, 2004; Mule & Susara, 2004). Aguanno (2002) explained that PERT was to apply a probability theory to evaluate the odds that a project would be completed by a given date and CPM was to provide a data analysis for a decision making related to the tradeoff between cost and schedule. PERT and CPM became the basic planning tools after they were developed and often served as synonymous terms with project management (Shenhar & Dvir, 2004; Mule & Susara, 2004). As a result, the 1950s were arguably considered as the beginning of the modern project management era. Since then, the theory and practice of modern project management continued to evolve. There have been various debates on how to categorize the development of modern project management. Kwak (2003) viewed the development based on the main theme of the period: “craft system to human relations administration (prior to 1958); application of management science (1958-1979); production center: human resources (1980-1994); and 24 creating a new environment” (p.2). Bredillet (2008) recapped the study performed by his colleagues that the development should be classified according to the interactions among the nine schools of project management thought: behavior, marketing, contingency, governance, success, optimization, modeling, decision, and process. Shenhar and Dvir (2004), on the other hand, categorized the modern project management development into five generations corresponding with distinct views and trends, challenges faced, and means applied for each of the five decades. According to their study, the introduction of the PERT and CPM models focused on coordination of sequential or parallel activities in the late 1950s and emerged during the 1960s could be considered as the first generation of modern project management or the scheduling era. In the 1970s, as organizations began to face challenges to manage complex projects defined by different disciplines, a new approach evolved to ensure that integration and teamwork were in place to function as a unified entity. This decade, as Shenhar and Dvir (2004) implied, was the second generation of modern project management or the teamwork era. The third generation of modern project management started in the 1980s when the main trend was to reduce an uncertainty to a manageable level. During the 1990s, the concept of just-in-time and simultaneity were broadly adopted in business that focused on making products time-to-market and integrating tasks and people while differentiating between them at the same time. The 1990s was considered as the fourth generation of modern project management or simultaneity era. The fifth generation of the development covers the period from the 2000s to present. Shenhar and Dvir (2004) identified three new views and trends in 25 the development for this period: “adaptation”, “strategic thinking”, and “globalization”. For adaptation, Shenhar and Dvir (2004) explained since projects differ, the practice of project management must be adapted to project type. They emphasized that “one size does not fit all” (Shenhar & Dvir, 2004, p. 4). For strategic thinking, they suggested that project management be linked to business strategy. The views of globalization reflect the fact that more and more project management are implemented at different parts of the world. Compared with others, although the classification of modern project management development by Shenhar and Dvir (2004) was at the conceptual level, it perhaps provided a clearer view of the evolution for the past 60 years. Table 2 shows the conceptualization of modern project management developments and trends perceived by Shenhar & Dvir (2004). Table 2: Generations of Project Management Conceptualization Period Eras and Trends Challenges Means 1960s Scheduling Coordination of Sequential or Parallel Activities PERT and CPM Models Information Technology 1970s Integration and Teamwork Cooperation between Participants Process Facilitation Role Definition 1980s Uncertainty Reduction Making Stable Decisions Search for Information Selective Redundancy Risk Management 1990s Simultaneity Interaction Orchestrating Contending Demands Responsiveness Collaboration 2000s Adaptation Strategic Focus Globalization One Size Does Not Fit All Connect Project Management to BusinessStrategy Off-Shore Projects Adaptive Approach Building Project Strategies Virtual Coordination Source: Adapted from Shenhar & Dvir (2004, pp. 3-4) 26 Since project management has become an integral part of many organization operations, constant evolution and new development in project management theory and practice are expected to grow continuously to meet the ever-changing challenges in business and government operations. 2.1.3 Distinction of Project and Project Management To explore the process of project management, it is important to understand what constitutes a project first. Literature and various sources have been attempting to define the term “project” for many years. Yet, the issue of what constitutes a “project” and what doesn’t seems still the subject for debates among the researchers and practitioners. Prabhakar (2008a) explains that many tasks that people frequently work on but do not usually work together can be considered as part of a project regardless of occupation, discipline, or location in an organization. Kerzner clarifies that a project can be considered as any series of activities and tasks that contain the key elements of a specific objective to be achieved; scope to work to be completed; defined start and end dates; budget to spend; and human and nonhuman resources (adapted from Kerzner, 2001, p. 2). In business, people often use the terms “project”, “operation”, “program”, and “project management” interchangeably. In theory, they are different. The following section provides some clarifications among these terms. 27 Project vs. Operation Project management literature cautions us that the term “project” should not be confused with the term “operation” because they are fundamentally different in terms of their nature and time. Prakash (2014) explains that operations are permanent initiatives in nature that produce repetitive and mostly pre-defined results, in which their existence goes along with the existence of businesses or departments of an organization such as budgeting, accounting, human resources, information system, communication, and lines of authority. Projects, as discussed in prior sections, are temporary and unique in nature with definite start and end dates. In Heagney’s words (2011), “a project is done only one time. If it is repetitive, it’s not a project”. Project vs. Program Kerzner (2003, p.71) explains that the terms “project” and “program” may be found in use interchangeably, especially for government organizations because they often carry out their activities as a program, led by a program manager. For business firms, Kerzner points out that an endeavor is more likely to be called as a project, led by a project manager. In practice, Chandler (2012) states, “many efforts may have been called ‘projects’ but eventually become programs as they extend indefinitely and cover broader, less specific business objectives” (p.2). Thus, Chandler provides the key characteristics of a project as below:  It has boundaries, so its extent is defined.  It is a one-time effort, usually requiring finite resources. 28  It has distinct start and end dates. (p.2) Since the Project Management Institute (PMI) is considered as the worldwide project management professional organization that develops and publishes project management standards and guidelines via A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide), it is prudent to review its definition and explanations of the term “project” and “program” shown below: A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result. The temporary nature of projects indicates a definite beginning and end. The end is reached when the project’s objectives haven been achieved or when the project is terminated because its objectives will not or cannot be met, or when the need for the project no longer exists (PMI, 2013, p. 3)…. A program is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually. Programs may include elements of related work outside the scope of the discrete projects in the program. A project may or may not be part of a program but a program will always have projects (PMI, 2013, p. 9). Based on the above discussions and particularly in lines of the definition provided by PMI (PMBOK ® Guide, 2013), a project can be defined as possessing the following characteristics for the purpose of this research on Metro ExpressLanes Project: • A defined beginning and end (Metro ExpressLanes construction started in 2011 and completed early 2013) 29 • A specific goal or a set of goals (To improve traffic flow and provide enhanced travel options on the I-10 and I-110 Freeways in Los Angeles County) • A series of complex or interrelated activities (To convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes; improve transit service and other alternatives to driving; update transit facilities; and improve parking in downtown Los Angeles) • A limited financial budget or funding (Overall budget for the project was $210 million) With a common understanding of what a “project” pertains to be, our next step should be naturally oriented toward the topic of project management. Project Management Olsen (197) found, “the terms ‘project management’ did not come into popularity until after 1954 when Colonel Bernard A. Schriever put together a team of men to manage a crash project for the U.S. Air Force’s missile program…. Because of PERT’s success, there developed a natural association between the PERT technique and project management” (p.13) during the 1950’s and 1960’s. In addition to defense projects, Olsen found that other fields of business also began to adopt project management techniques in their projects during the period. Despite of this broad application of project management in the 1950’s and 1960’s, Olsen (1971) revealed, “There was no universal agreement on how to define project management” (p.13). Drawing from diverse definitions and perceptions in the 1950’s and 1960’s, Olsen proposed the definition of project management as follows (Olsen, 1971, p. 14): 30 Project management is the application of a collection of tools and techniques (such as the CPM and matrix organization) to direct the use of diverse resources toward the accomplishment of a unique, complex, one-time task within time, cost and quality constraints. Each task requires a particular mix of these tools and techniques structured to fit the task environment, and life cycle (from conception to completion) of the task. Although the above definition provided by Olsen in the early 1970’s was not as comprehensive as the current ones, it appeared general enough to address most project management methods and techniques adopted in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In the next few decades, scholars and practitioners continued their efforts to define and re-define the terms “project management”. The following highlights views from some leading authors in defining project management. Kerzner (2003) observes that project management is the planning, organizing, directing, and controlling of company resources for a relatively short term objective that has been established to complete specific goals and objectives. In a recent study, Verzuh (2008) provides a comprehensive explanation of what the project management pertains to be: Project management is a discipline that includes a set of methods, theories and techniques that cover a range of topics such as communicating with team members and stakeholders from project conception through completion; estimating the effort, cost, and time it will take to deliver a project, and evaluating whether the benefits of 31 the project will justify the forecasted costs; rapidly building cohesive project teams that are highly productive even though team members have not work together before; coordinating the actions of a diverse workforce, assembled specifically for a project, to achieve the goal for the least possible expenses and in a reasonable time frame; accounting for progress and productivity to provide accurate forecasts of project completion dates and budget amounts; and managing the varying staffing needs that result from constantly running multiple projects concurrently, all of which share a common pool of personnel. (pp.3-4) The Project Management Institute (PMI), however, offers a more concise definition as below: Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements. Project management is accomplished through the appropriate application and integration of the 47 logically grouped project management processes, which are categorized into five Process Groups. These five Process Groups are initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing (PMBOK ® Guide, 2013, p. 5). 32 2.1.4 Project Management Practices and Standards: PMBOK ® Guide In the above sections, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) has been mentioned many times. In this section, Project Management Institute (PMI) and the key features of PMBOK ® Guide are briefly reviewed because the following sections would continue to refer the standard terms used by PMI and its PMBOK ® Guide. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) is widely recognized as the global standard for project management professionals and is developed and updated by project management practitioners worldwide through Project Management Institute (PMI). PMI is one of the largest professional organizations with more than 650,000 members in more than 185 countries (http://www.pmi.org). PMI explains, “A standard is a formal document that describes established norms, methods, processes, and practices evolved from recognized good practices by professional practitioners”. As a consensus among project management professionals, the PMBOK ® Guide is considered as a good practice applicable to most projects and most of the time. Therefore, this research planned to use this standard as a reference point to determine whether and how Metro ExpressLanes Project team applied the standard to implement the Metro ExpressLanes Project. Thus, it is beneficial to review key issues addressed in the PMBOK ® Guide while performing literature reviews on similar concepts to facilitate cross reference in this study. 33 Overview of PMBOK ® Guide The PMBOK ® Guide contains three key sections: (a) project management framework, which focuses on issues related to project life cycle; (b) project management process, which describes five process groups in project management: (1) initiating, (2) planning, (3) executing, (4) monitoring and controlling, (5) closing; and (c) project management knowledge areas, which map five process groups into nine project management knowledge areas: (1) project integration management; (2) project scope management; (3) project time management; (4) project cost management; (5) project quality management; (6) project human resource management; (7) project communications management; (8) project risk management; and (9) project procurement management. Since project life cycle, process groups, and project management knowledge areas are the key concepts in project management, each of them will be examined in more detail below. Project Life Cycle The term “project life cycle” has been widely used in project management. However, according to Kerzner (2001) and Prabhakar (2008a), there is no identical definition of the term or lack of agreement on what phases should be included in the project life cycle. Review of literature found that the concept of life cycle is not new. O’Rand et al. (1990, pp. 242-243) traced the view of life cycle to the nineteenth century and found that the life cycle ideas were mostly discussed in social science of three areas: biology, social philosophy, and psychology. They concluded that “the idea of life cycle emerged at the end of the century as 34 a complex notion incorporating earlier ideas at the organism or individual level about inheritance and development and at the species or population level about adaptation, survival, and extinction” (O’Rand et al., 1990, p. 243). Subsequently, scholars and researchers adapted this bio-ecological concept to the study of the processes of organizational change including the project management practices. Prabhakar (2008b) observes that most of the definitions of project life cycle have four or five phases, but some have nine or more. Sub-projects within projects may also have distinct project life cycles. Furthermore, Prabhakar (2008b) points out that these phases are not always consecutive in nature but are more simultaneous. Among others, the following provides two of the leading authors’ views on this concept. Kerzner (2001, pp.77-81) applies the definitions of the five life-cycle phases of a system to a project, which include: conceptual, planning, testing, implementation, and closure. A system, according to Kerzner and some practitioners, is defined as a group of elements, either human or nonhuman, organized and arranged in such a way that the elements can act as a whole toward achieving come common goal, objective, or end. Based on the definition, a system sounds similar to a project. However, Kerzner explains that they are different because a system tends to imply an infinite lifetime with constant upgrading, but a project, as discussed in prior sections, refers to an undertaking with a defined beginning and ending. For each of the five phases of life cycle, Kerzner explains below:  Conceptual phase includes the preliminary evaluation of an idea of the project including a preliminary analysis of risk and the resulting impact on the time, cost, 35 and performance requires, as well as the potential impact on company resources. This first phase also includes a “first cut” of the feasible studies.  Planning phase serves as the refinement of the elements identified under the conceptual phase. In particular, this phase should prepare all preliminary documentation necessary to support the project.  Testing phase is predominantly a testing and finalizing all documentation that the implementation phase can refer and use.  Implementation phase is to take actions to implement the project according to the documentations approved in the first three phases.  Closure phase is to finalize the project including the evaluation of the new project and the reallocation of resources. Thus, Kerzner’s project life cycle is considered as the five-phase model. Verzuh (2008, p. 23) argues that a project life cycle is intended to represent a linear progression that consists of four phases of a project from defining the project through making a plan, executing the work, and closing out the project as illustrated in Figure 7. Figure 7: Project Life Cycle Source: adapted from Verzuh, 2008 He explains that each phase boundary represents the four decision points. The first one is to define. This phase begins when a project and a project manager are named in a Define Plan Execute Close Out Project Initiation 36 project charter. It ends when the project rules are approved. Approval of project rules means that all interested parties agree on the project goals, approach, and cost-schedule-quality equilibrium. The second one is to plan. This phase begins after the project rules are approved and the project manager starts to work on the project plan, which includes changes and updates to the project rules that were approved in the first phase. Therefore, the “define” and “plan” phases are often referred as the project initiation phase, which usually represent 10 percent or less of the total efforts. The third one is to execute. This phase begins when the actual work is performed according to the approved plan. This phase may take 90 percent or more of the project’s effort and ends when the goal of the project is reached. The last one is to close out. This is the smallest phase of the project. However, Verzuh emphasizes that it is not less important than the other phases because close-out activities have to perform three functions: (1) making transition to the next phase, either operations or another product development phase; (2) establishing formal closure of the project; and (3) evaluating project successes and failures with recommendations to the future projects. In comparison of Kerzner’s five-phase model and Verzuh’s four-phase model, we may find that these two models are very similar in that Verzuh appears to combine Kerzner’s testing and implementation phases into his execute phase. In fact, all projects vary in size and complexity. Thus, an attempt to precisely define “project life cycle” may not be necessary. Perhaps for this reason, Project Management Institute only provides a high-level review of a generic life cycle for a project that comprises of (1) starting; (2) organizing and preparing; (3) carrying out; and (4) closing the project as 37 shown in Figure 8. Figure 8: Typical Cost and Staffing Levels across Project Life Cycle Source: PMI, 2013, p. 39 Project Management Institute suggests that this generic life cycle structure be used as a common frame of reference when communicating with upper management or other entities less familiar with details of the project, or for comparing projects even if they are dissimilar in nature (PMI, 2013, p. 39). Project Management Processes PMBOK ® Guide defines that “A process is a set of interrelated actions and activities performed to create a pre-specified product, services, or result” (PMI, 2013, p. 47). PMI categorizes the project management processes into the five process groups of: (1) Initiating, (2) Planning, (3) Executing, (4) Monitoring and Controlling, and (5) Closing. PMI clarifies that the initiating process group defines a new project or a new phase of 38 an existing project by obtaining authorization to start the project. The planning process group establishes the scope of the project, refines the objectives, and defines the course of action required to attain the objectives of the project. The executing process group is to complete the work defined in the project management plan to satisfy the project specifications. The monitoring and controlling process group serves to track, review, and regulate the progress and performance of the project; identify any areas in which changes to the plan are required; and initiate the corresponding changes. The closing process group addresses the issue to finalize all activities across all process groups to formally close the project or phase (adapted from PMI, 2013, p. 49). PMI further explains that the five process groups of project management are presented as discrete elements with well-defined interfaces. In practice, these processes may be repeated during the project implementation and some of these elements are often overlapped and interact. Thus, the integrative nature of project management requires the monitoring and controlling process group interact with the other process groups as illustrated in Figure 9. 39 Figure 9: Process Groups Interact in a Phase or Project Source: PMI, 2013, p. 51 As we discussed in the previous sections, the management of a project is a finite effort. Therefore, the initiating process group begins the project and the closing process group ends it as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10: Project Management Process Groups Source: PMI, 2013, p. 50 40 Project Management Knowledge Areas To facilitate project management professionals to apply the skill, tools, and techniques in their project, PMI maps the five process groups of (1) initiating, (2) planning, (3) executing, (4) monitoring and controlling, and (5) closing as discussed in last section into nine knowledge areas of (1) project integration management; (2) project scope management; (3) project time management; (4) project cost management; (5) project quality management; (6) project human resource management; (7) project communications management; (8) project risk management; and (9) project procurement management. Each of the nine knowledge areas includes certain key processes and activities as summarized in Figure 11. Figure 11: Nine Project Management Knowledge Areas Source: Summarized and Adapted from PMI, 2008, pp. 411-415 Integration Management Nine Project Management Knowledge Areas Project Integration Management Develop Project Charter Develop Project Management Plan Develop and Manage Project Execution Monitor and Control Project Work Perform Integrated Change Control Close Project or Phase Project Scope Management Collect Requirements Define Scope Create Work Breakdown Structure Verify Scope Control Scope Project Time Management Define Activities Sequence Activities Estimate Activity Resources Estimate Activity Duration Develop Schedule Control Schedule Project Cost Management Estimate Costs Determine Budget Control Costs Project Quality Management Plan Quality Plan Quality Assurance Perform Quality Control Project Human Resource Management Develop Human Resource Plan Acquire Project Team Develop Project Team Manage Project Team Project Communications Management Identify Stakeholders Plan Communications Distribute Information Manage Stakeholder Expectations Report Performance Project Risk Management Plan Risk Management Identify Risks Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis Perform Quantitative Risk Analysis Plan Risk Responses Monitor and Control Risks Project Procurement Management Plan Procurements Conduct Procurements Administer Procurements Close Procurements 41 PMBOK ® Guide provides the body of knowledge to manage projects in the public and private sectors in general. To address the characteristics unique to public sector projects, PMI developed “Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide” to establish a framework to help project managers to manage public projects more efficiently and effectively. 2.1.5 Overview of Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide In the consideration of the complexities and uniqueness of government projects, PMI developed a Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide to provide additional information on managing a public project. PMI cautions that Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide should be used in conjunction with PMBOK ® Guide in dealing with public project management. Similar to PMBOK ® Guide, Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide contains three key sections: the framework, standard, and knowledge areas of public project management. The framework provides a basic structure for understanding project management in the government sector and discusses project life cycle, organization, and the environment in which government projects operate. The standard discusses five project management process groups to manage a government project. The knowledge areas map the forty-four project management processes from the five project management process groups into nine knowledge areas of integration management, scope management, time management, cost management, quality management, human resource management, communication management, risk management, and procurement management (adapted from PMI, 2008, pp. 411-415). 42 While the purpose of the Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide is to establish a framework to manage public projects efficiently and effectively, PMI clarifies that the extension to the PMBOK ® Guide “does not, however, provide practices or guidance that should be uniformly applied on all projects”. PMI emphasizes, “The project management team is ultimately responsible for determining what is appropriate for any given project” (PMI, 2006, p. 3). In PMBOK ® Guide, Project Management Institute (PMI) categorizes the process for managing a project regardless the size and complexity into five process groups: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing. Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide points out that a public project may also utilize the same project management process groups in managing the project. However, due to the unique environment in which public projects and project management are carried out, a government construction project may include the typical phases of origination, planning and design, and procurement shown in Figure 12 (PMI, 2006, pp. 13-21). Origination 1. Origination document, used to obtain funding. Planning and Design 1. Alternative selection (planning), which is often controlled by environmental law. 2. Bid document (design), controlled by public law. Procurement 1. Property acquisition, using eminent domain law. 2. Construction, controlled by public contract law. Figure 12: Typical Phases of a Government Construction Project Source: Adapted from Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide, p.13 43 Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide also explains, “Government projects are determined by the government’s agenda, and have to be approved and budgeted in advance. In the public sector, not only is there a higher percentage of projects that are part of programs than in the private sector, but project interdependencies are more clearly identified and documented ” (PMI, 2006, p. 7). In practice, some public projects are often called a “program” instead of “project” when the public project is to intend to have an ongoing operation after the project is completed. For example, the public project I studied is Metro ExpressLanes Project that implemented the construction of converting the Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes to HOT lanes. After the construction completed in 2012, the Metro ExpressLanes Project became part of the Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) Program. In this case, government generally appropriate funds to programs rather than to individual projects. PMI emphasizes that the body of knowledge discussed on the PMBOK ® Guide and Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide is generally recognized as a good practice applicable to most projects and most of the time. Thus, my research project intends to use the above knowledge as a reference point to determine whether or how Metro ExpressLanes Project team applied the above knowledge. 44 2.2 Public Project Management Metro ExpressLanes Project that I studied is a public project managed by public sector organizations. Before discussing techniques and strategies in managing a public project, it is necessary to understand the differences between public and private sector organizations. 2.2.1 Differences between Public and Private Sector Organizations Generally speaking, a business or organization falls into one of the two categories: public and private. Public sector includes government agencies and nonprofit service organizations. Private sector is normally referred to profit-making firms. In other words, the public sector usually refers to the government agencies including federal, state, and local offices as well as any other organizations that are owned by government or funded by taxes to provide public services such as health care, education, transportation, and policy services. While public organizations may have certain service objectives to achieve, profit seeking is normally not an ultimate goal in their operations. Private sector, on the other hand, is dominated by private business operators and funded by private capitals. Profit maximizing is the ultimate goal for most of the private sector organizations. Businesses, corporations, profit and non-profit organizations, and charities are considered to be part of the private sector. In theory, the topic on how to define public and private sector organizations has long been debated in public administration and organizational literature. Mitchell (2002) revealed that it was the last three decades that significant progress was made in defining and refining what constitutes a public or private sector organization although there was some noteworthy 45 research prior to 1970 that attempted to compare public and private sector organizations. Mitchell (2002) found that one of the earliest historical analyses had used four approaches to describe public and private organizations: a common sense approach; a practical definitions approach; a denotative approach; and an analytic approach. For these four approaches, Mitchell (2002) cited a research by Rainey et al, 1976 as below: The common sense approach describes an organization as either public or private without using explicit definitions, assuming that the audience can distinguish between the two. The practical definitions approach uses “unsubtle rules of thumb” to describe an organization as either public or private. The denotative approach describes an organization as either public or private based upon the sub-organizations under its control or by the activities with which it is involved. Finally, the analytic approach describes an organization as either public or private based upon “defining factors or sets of factors” (Rainey et al., 1976) (pp. 8-9). In reference to a research by Rainey (1983), Mitchell (2002) revealed that three dominant approaches based on the organization’s internal structure had been developed to classify organizations as either the public or private sectors. These three approaches were the generic approach, the core approach, and the dimensional approach. The generic approach emphasizes the similarities based on “management functions, organizational processes, managerial values, and decision making processes” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 10) but downplays the differences among public, private, and hybrid organizations. For the core approach, Mitchell (2002) explains that it “classifies 46 organizations as either distinctly public or distinctly private based on their formal legal status (Bozeman and Bretscheider, 1994). Formal legal status refers to an organization’s structure as well as how it is funded and owned” (p. 10). In terms of the dimensional approach to classify organizations as either public or private, Mitchell (2002) states, “distinctions between the two can be made based on how an organization is constrained or influenced by external political and economic authority” (pp. 12-13). Mitchell (2002) contends that although the above three approaches may not be able to classify every organization, they help “easily address the vast majority of organizations as either belonging to the public or private sector” (p. 9). In his opinion, the core approach is a preferable method because it “provides a simple standard for quickly classifying organizations based upon a few key factors” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 11) such as legal status and funding sources. Mitchell (2002) also perceives that “public sector organizations are more influenced and constrained by judicial systems, congressional legislation and budgeting, federal oversight agencies, lobbyists, and public scrutiny than are private sector organizations” (p. 11). 2.2.2 Uniqueness and Challenges in Managing Public Projects The discipline and practice of project management in public sectors has been around for many years. As discussed in Section 2.1.2, public project management was originally practiced within the defense programs in the 1950s. In the United States, the federal government usually provides funding to the state and local governments to undertake various public project works such as in transportation infrastructure, education facilities, and water 47 systems. Although the application of project management techniques is very similar between private and public projects, significant differences exist in the management process of these two sector projects because of the profit motive in private projects and the unique factors in public projects (Opfer and Kloppenborg, 2001; Wirick, 2009; and Kassel, 2010). Compared to the same issues related to private projects, literature appears to have less coverage on public projects. Holzer (2010) argues that the lack of research on this subject may be the result of the false assumption that the business model to manage the private projects can be directly applied to the public projects. According to Wirick (2009), although public and private sector projects may have many management processes in common, the following five key issues appear unique to the public sector projects at higher level and warrant public project managers’ attention: (1) Public-Service Purpose. Most public-sector organizations operate to serve the public at large such as constructing a highway or building a public health care facility. Due to the fact that the public may have various opinions towards a project, the objectives of the project are often very difficult to define and achieve. In addition, unlike private sectors that have simple and concrete measures of performance such as gross sales, net sales, and return on investment (ROI), the performance of public sectors is often hard to measure or can be directly attributed to a given intention such as reducing pollution and improving people’s quality of life. These and other factors definitely complicate the management of public agencies and public projects. 48 (2) Overlapping Oversight Mechanisms. By law, statutes, rules, and executive orders, a public-sector organization may be constrained by overlapping oversight structures. This mechanism is to ensure the operations of a public-sector organization are in checks and balances to the effect that its management power is limited within the bounds of public authorization. Therefore, in addition to the fact that a public project may need to reserve or use additional resources to ascertain that the management of a public project is run in compliance with various constraints, monitoring and oversight controls are also required to be in place to determine the compliances. These overlapping oversights increase public project stakeholder population, which further complicates the process of managing a public project. (3) A Short Decision-Making Horizon. Compared to the private sector organizations that can establish substantially longer time horizons for their decisions in business and investment, public sector organizations often have a shorter decision-making horizon due to the electoral cycles. In other words, as Wirick (2009) put it, “public-sector organizations cannot count on the commitment to the strategic goals beyond the term of current political officeholders and their appointees” (p. 6), which makes the management of public sector projects much harder to plan than their counterpart of private sector projects. (4) A Contentious Environment. While all projects either public or private are subject to different opinions and objections, a public project may encounter oppositions beyond its own organization that are much harder to resolve. In addition, failed public projects may 49 make a better story for media reporting purpose. Thus, most public project managers may try to avoid negative exposures at the expense of costs. (5) Overlapping Service Delivery Mechanisms. To provide public services such as transportation, healthcare, housing, and education in the United States, public organizations often receive funding for their operations from various levels of governments, e.g. federal, state, and local agencies. Thus, public sector organizations have to ensure that their public projects are delivered according to the funding agreements with various levels of the governments. The above issues provide evidence that public projects are implemented in an environment much larger than a private project. In Wirick (2009) words, “public-sector projects require the management, not only of the project team, but of an entire community” (p. 9). Thus, it is imperative to develop or adapt certain enhanced techniques and strategies to the management and implementation of public projects. 2.2.3 Techniques and Strategies in Public Project Management Numerous factors may influence the success of public project management. A study by Poister et al. (2002) found that strategic management process is one of the critical factors that impact the outcome of public project management. Poister and his co-authors suggest that strategic management process be integrated with public organization’s mission, vision, and value to achieve the success of public project management in an organization. Many scholars and practitioners believe that adopting best practices can increase the probability of project success. Based on research and studies by Ransome (1995); Opfer & 50 Kloppenborg (2001); Blake (2002); Wirick (2009); and Kassel (2010), the following techniques and strategies are recurrently identified as the critical factors to the success in managing public projects: (1) Start with a well-defined project plan, which includes identifying the objectives to be achieved by the project team and the scope of work for the project; (2) Develop a project management methodology that fits the needs of the public project based on the evaluation of project risk; (3) Provide top management support to the project team; (4) Build a competent and cohesive project management team with capable project managers who have both hard and soft skills including the ability to envision the project as a community endeavor and obtain support from various groups in the community; share credit for success; manage the entire management process to ascertain the project is implemented in compliance with laws, rules, and regulations; respond quickly and positively to adversity; cope with conflict among stakeholders and recognize the interests of those who might oppose the project; and properly deal with the press and media (adapted from Wirick, 2009, p. 24); (5) Enter clear agreements among team members and stakeholders internally and externally to enumerate lines of authorities, duties, and responsibilities in the implementation of the public project; 51 (6) Monitor and control the execution of a public project to ascertain that the project is compliant with the legal requirement, stakeholders are satisfied with the project progress, and the project objectives are met; (7) Maintain active involvement in the project after the project execution is closed to ensure that the project is transferred to the operation team smoothly. While the above seven aspects are identified to be the critical factors to the success in managing the public projects, since not all projects are the same, Shenhar (2001) and Wirick (2009) suggest that application of the above techniques and strategies be carefully evaluated and practiced based on each public project parameters and situations. Wirick (2009) emphasizes that the goal to establish project management processes is to provide a cost- effective method to reduce project risk. Thus, he proposes, “not all projects require detailed project management methods, and unnecessary processes that are a burden to project managers should be avoided” (Wirick, 2009, p. 26). 2.2.4 Partnering as an Emerging Process in Public Construction Project Last three decades have witnessed a growing interest in adopting the partnering process in construction project management. Comparing with other terms in project management, partnering as a specific concept seems relatively new. Based on literature, although the concept of partnering has been received considerable attention since the late 1980’s, the practice of the partnering began to gain its momentum and popularity only after Michael Latham Report titled “Constructing the Team” was published in 1994 (Moore, et al, 1995; Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; and Simpson, 2001). 52 Despite the increasing use of partnering approach in public construction project for the past 30 years, many authors agree that the debate about the concept, efficacy, and feasibility of a partnering approach is still unsettled (Moore et al, 1995; Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Simpson, 2001). Since Metro ExpressLanes Project that I studied also embraced the concept of partnering, this section provides some perceptions about this topic based on my review of the literature. Background of Partnering Due to overwhelming conflicts, claims, and litigations in the UK construction industry in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the United Kingdom government commissioned Michael Latham to perform a study on how to improve the performance of construction industry. In “Constructing the Team”, Latham (1994) identified the construction industry’s inefficiencies, ineffectiveness, fragmentation, incapable of delivering for the clients, and lacking respect for the employees. He made 53 recommendations to change the construction industry practices that had been impeding the economic growth as a whole in the United Kingdom. Among the recommendations, he particularly urged a reform of the existing practices and advocated partnering and collaboration among project partners in the construction industry. King (1996) observes that the problems identified in Latham report are universal in nature in the mid 1990’s. According to Larson and Drexler (1997) study, the North American construction industry also experienced a setback in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s with similar issues and problems found in the Latham report. As a potential effective tool claimed to reduce the oppositions among construction contract parties and encourage 53 better integration and cooperation between contractual partners, the partnering movement has emerged in the North America in response to construction project mismanagement, conflicts, disputes, and high volume of claims and litigations. According to Moore et al (1995), the Army Corps of Engineers was the first to adopt partnering process on a public works project in the United State in 1988. Since then, the Amy Corps has adopted the partnering process in 200 construction projects, which has been alleged no claims to proceed to litigation. California of Department of Transportation (Caltrans), one of Metro ExpressLanes Project partner agencies, began to embrace the concept of partnering before 1992 and has been promoting the formation of partnering relationships on its construction projects since then. Based on past twenty years’ experience, Caltrans now requires that a Caltrans project with a total bid of more than $10 million and 100 or more working days be mandatorily to have a professionally facilitated project partnering in place. In addition, Caltrans makes it mandatory that project team training in partnering skills is needed on all projects with a total bid for more than $10 million and 100 or more working days (Caltrans, 2013, pp.1-5). Definition of Partnering In referring what “partnering” is, Simpson (2001) explains, “Partnering is not a term invented by construction’s spin doctors to paper over the industry’s problems. Neither is it a new form of construction contract. In fact, Partnering is a rigorous and structured procedure designed to create improved business relationships in the construction procurement process” (p.1). 54 Despite a lack of a uniform definition of “partnering” in literature, many scholars and authors have presented their perspectives on the concept. For example: Moore et al (1992) indicates, “Partnering is an alternative management process that seeks to produce organizational change to resolve these traditional problems. The objective of the partnering process is to design for each project an effective problem-finding/problem- solving management team composed of personnel from both parties, thus creating a single culture with one set of goals and objectives for the project” (p. 18). Cowan et al (1992) states, “Project partnering is a method of transforming contractual relationships into a cohesive, cooperative project team with a single set of goals and established procedures for resolving disputes in a timely and effective manner.” Cowan and his co-authors further explains that partnering is not just a set of goals and procedures, but a state of mind to recognize the need to get help from other organizations to complete a project. Latham (1994) perceives, “Partnering includes the concepts of teamwork between supplier and client, and of total continuous improvement. It requires openness between the parties, ready acceptance of new ideas, trust and perceived mutual benefit” (p. 62). Moore et al (1995) put it, “The objective of the partnering process is to create an informal management team composed of key personnel representing all organizations involved in the project. This informal management team creates a single culture with a common set of objectives and goals, mutual trust and respect, and a method for resolving 55 issues at the operational level. An effective partnership will recognize and honor the objectives of all parties and recognize that risks are shared by all.” Larson & Drexler (1997) observes, “Partnering attempts to break the adversarial gridlock between owners and contractors by replacing deception with open communication, delays with timely decisions, factionalism with synergy, litigation with joint problem- solving, and win/lose with win/win.” In consolidation of the above discourses and key points discussed in “Field Guide to Partnering” (Caltrans, 2013), partnering can be defined as the process to encourage cooperation among contractual partners to reduce conflicts, mitigate claims, avoid law suits, increase job satisfaction, maintain higher project quality and safety, and complete a construction project on time and within budget. Three Key Issues in Adopting Partnering Approach The first issue is related to the principles of partnering, which have been widely discussed in literature for the past thirty years. Simpson’s study (2001, pp. 2-3) and Caltrans “Field Guide to Partnering” (2013, p. 2) appear to represent majority of the views on this subject. Between the lines of their discussions, they support the idea of focusing on three principles in partnering: mutual objectives, problem resolution, and continuous improvement. The key element of mutual objectives is to open communications and set a long-term realistic goal with a target of sustainable and reasonable profit for all partners in the project. This element can be implemented through a formal partnering agreement to be signed by all parties. The second principle, problem resolution, is to encourage all parties to have a 56 fundamental change in their mindset to develop solutions that are agreeable and meet the needs of all parties involved; eliminate problems before they occur; seek solution instead of blaming others when conflicts occur; and have equal rights among parties to resolve the problems at the lowest level and as soon as possible. Simpson emphasizes that since partnering benefits tend to be cumulative, it is advantageous to carry forward lessons learned on one project to the next for a continuous improvement on the future projects (adapted from Simpson, 2001; Caltrans, 2013). The second issue deals with the competencies in partnering. In her study of facilitating over 1,000 partnering projects, Sue Dyer, the founder and president of the International Partnering Institute (IPI), observes that it is not easy to achieve a success in partnering. To make partnering process work, she suggests that seven core competencies be in place as illustrated in Figure 13. 57 Figure 13: Seven Core Competencies in Partnering Source: The Severn Core Competencies for Partnering (Dyer, 2007) These seven core competencies are: (1) select a trusted leader to effectively lead a team to achieve project objectives successfully; (2) choose a non-adversarial/interdependent negotiator to seek fair and justifiable solutions; (3) apply skills to transform conflicts into a productive change; (4) create an atmosphere that allows team members to have open communications to share the “truth”; (5) facilitate identifying key issues and motivating team members to co-create solutions; (6) develop synergies between you and others and move to achieve the team’s common goals; and (7) establish processes, procedures and policies to unleash team members talents for the success of the project (adapted from Dyer, 2007). 58 The third issue concerns the lifecycle of the partnering in practice. Caltrans (2013, p. 2) emphasizes that “partnering is not a one-time event. It must last for the duration of the project. Partnering has a ‘lifecycle’ that starts with the kick-off partnering workshop and continues with quarterly follow-up partnering sessions” as illustrated in Figure 14. Figure 14: Lifecycle of Project Partnering Source: Field Guide to Partnering (Caltrans, 2013) During the lifecycle of project partnering, Caltrans explains that if a conflict occurs, a facilitated dispute resolution (FDR) process may help in lieu of a follow-up partnering session. Caltrans also emphasizes that partnering is to be incorporated into weekly and daily activities beside the pre-scheudled partnering workshops, sessions, and monthly evaluations. As the project approaches to its completion, a close-out partnering workshop should be held to ensure the project ends well and capture all lessons learned during the project (adapted from Caltrans, 2013). 59 Debate on Partnering Approach Partnering represents a “paradigm shift” in construction industry on how to approach the process of managing a project (Larson & Drexler, 1997). Despite the increasing use of partnering process in the past 30 years, the approach is still subject to significant debates. Advocates argue there is a growing body of evidence although it is small to suggest that partnering can work. The success of partnering depends on tailoring the process to the needs and requirements among project partners. Larson and Drexler (1997) recognize that “much more research is needed to validate the efficacy of partnering and to identify the conditions under which it should be applied.” In their earlier study, Bresnen and Marshall (2000) suggest that the development and implementation of partnering emerge only the complexity of both organizational and inter- organizational issues and problems are fully understood. In their late research, Bresnen and Marshall (2002) observe that the practice of partnering in construction project management often focuses on the formal mechanisms of collaboration but underplays the impact of social dynamics on the development of the relationship. Their study on two very different partnering projects provides empirical evidence that the success or quality of the partnering approach depends upon a complex and dynamic interplay of formal integrative mechanisms and informal social processes. They state that the purpose of their study is not to disregard the role of formal mechanisms to facilitate the partnering, but rather to counteract the very formalistic and formulaic prescriptions often found in the literature on partnering. They point out, “rather than being simply a case of applying certain tools and techniques, 60 developing an effective partnering approach results from a complex and dynamic process in which informal processes are just as important as formal mechanisms” (Bresnen & Marshall, 2002). Regarding the current practices of partnering, Bresnen and Marshall concludes: (1) it is not simple and easy to determine whether partnering process has played a key role for the project success or failure; (2) there is no single strategy or template for the effective or successful partnering; (3) partnering is a dynamic process that requires short-term learning and mutual adjustment; (4) broader organizational structures and cultures often have an impact upon partnering relationships; (5) partnering does not necessarily resolve project problems at source (adapted from Bresnen & Marshall, 2002, pp. 503-504). In other words, they emphasize while partnering has been proven a great way to improve the project management, it is important to understand not only the strengths but also the limitations of this approach. 2.3 Main Themes and Key Points of References from Literature Review Sections 2.1 and 2.2 reviews two major topics in literature related to my research study: (1) project and project management, and (2) Public Project Management. This section recaps main themes and key points of references from my review. Project management, as one of the oldest human organized activities, can be traced back nearly 5000 years when the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt was built (Ireland, 2006; Verzuh, 2008, and Kozak-Holland, 2012). 61 The ideas and processes of modern project management, according to Weaver (2007), are essentially based on the earlier worldviews of “reductionism”, “individualism” and the “protestant work ethic” (PWE) initiated by the Protestants and later the Puritans in the 15th century. These worldviews had a notable impact on two of the key philosophies: liberalism and Newtonianism, which in turn significantly influenced Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915), father of Taylorism. Cameron and Pertuze (2009) revealed that Taylor’s initial application of scientific theories and systemized the shop management while he was employed at Midvale Steel Co. during 1878 to1884 led to a conclusion that labor could be analyzed, unnecessary processes could be deleted, and productivity could be improved by providing appropriate incentives. Taylor’s associate, Henry Gantt (1861- 1919), also conducted a study on the shop operations with the focus on the orders and sequences of the processes. Soon after, Gantt invented Gantt charts that greatly helped managers to monitor the progress of a project. In analyzing modern project management development, authors found that there were two dominant models developed in parallel in the 1950’s, which extensively improved the controls over massively engineered and extremely complex projects. One of them is called Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), which was invented in 1958 as part of the United State Navy Polaris missile submarine program. PERT was later extended into Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Another is called Critical Path Method (CPM), which was invented by the Dupont Corporation mainly for construction projects. PERT and CPM became the basic planning tools for the next 20 years and often serve as synonymous terms 62 with project management (Shenhar & Dvir, 2004; Mule & Susara, 2004). As a result, the 1950s are generally considered as the beginning of the modern project management era. The terms of “project”, “program”, “operation”, and “project management” are found to be used interchangeably in business. In theory, they are fundamentally different in terms of the nature and time. Based on the literature and particularly in lines of the definitions provided by PMI (PMBOK ® Guide, 2013), the terms of “project”, “program”, “operation”, and “project management” are defined or possess the following characteristics for the purpose of this research. A project is defined to possess: (1) a defined beginning and end (construction of Metro ExpressLanes started in 2011 and completed early 2013); (2) a specific goal or a set of goals (to improve traffic flow and provide enhanced travel options on the I-10 and I-110 Freeways in Los Angeles County); (3) a series of complex or interrelated activities (to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes; improve transit service and other alternatives to driving; update transit facilities; and improve parking in downtown Los Angeles); and (4) a limited financial budget or funding (overall budget was $210 million). A program is defined as a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually (adapted from PMI, 2013, p. 9). For example, the Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Demonstration (LACRD) is a program that has a group of four related projects needed to be managed coordinately to ensure each of the four projects are implemented successfully: Toll Technology & Infrastructure (or: ExpressLanes), Transit Operations, Transit Facility, and 63 Express Park. Chandler (2012) clarifies that many efforts may have been called “project”, but eventually become a program as it extends indefinitely and covers broader, less specific business objectives. For the project I studied, Metro ExpressLanes became part of the LACRD program as well as Metro’s operations after the construction of toll facilities were completed. An operation is defined as an activity that exists along with businesses or department of an organization and produces repetitive and mostly pre-defined results (Prakash, 2014). Human resources management, budgeting and accounting, communications, bus operations, rail operations, and lines of authority are examples of Metro operations. The key difference between projects and operations is that projects are temporary and operations are ongoing. Project Management is defined as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” (PMBOK ® Guide, 2013, p. 5). Based on literature, it is important to understand that the goal of a project is often different from the goal of project management. The goal of a project may include certain business and service objectives that a project attempts to achieve. But the goal of project management may be set to ensure that a project is managed and implemented as planned. For example, the goal of Metro ExpressLanes Project is to improve the mobility and provide congestion relief on I-10 and I-110 corridors in the Los Angeles County. To determine whether the goal of improving the mobility and congestion relief is achieved, certain methods and criteria need to be developed to gather, measure, compare, calculate, and verify the traffic flow and other related data before and after the ExpressLanes in operation. However, 64 if we want to determine whether the conversions of I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes to HOT lanes are completed within the timeframe, budget, and other constraints, the target matter would be considered as the goal of project management of Metro ExpressLanes. Thus, it is necessary to clarify that my research of the Metro ExpressLanes Project was focused on assessing the project management practices adopted by the project team rather than evaluating Metro ExpressLanes project itself. All projects vary in size and complexity. To improve the communication of project management related issues among project stakeholders, Project Management Institute (PMI) suggests that all projects, regardless large or small, simple or complex, be mapped into a generic life cycle structure of starting, organizing and preparing, carrying out, and closing of a project. Based on the project generic life cycle, PMI further conceptually divides project management process into five process groups of initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing of the project. This study uses the five process groups as reference points to examine Metro ExpressLanes project management processes. Generally speaking, there are two types of business in our economy: public and private. In its simplest distinction, government agencies or nonprofit service organizations are often referred as the public sector and profit-making firms are normally referred as the private sector. Due to the distinct differences between public and private sector organizations, it appears that in addition to adopting PMBOK ® Guide and Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide, applying enhanced strategies that are tailored to the uniqueness of a public project may increase the probability of project success. 65 According to studies by Ransome (1995); Opfer & Kloppenborg (2001); Blake (2002); Wirick (2009); and Kassel (2010), seven frameworks and methods are recurrently identified as the critical factors to the success in managing public projects: (1) start with the right project plan; (2) develop a project management methodology that fits the needs of the public project based on the evaluation of project risk; (3) provide top management support to the project team; (4) build a competent and cohesive project management team; (5) enter clear agreements among team members and stakeholders internally and externally; (6) monitor and control the project execution to ascertain that the public project is compliant with various laws and regulations; and (7) maintain active involvement in the project after the project execution is closed to ensure that the project is transferred to the operation team smoothly. In addition to the above best practices, literature discusses that the last three decades have witnessed a growing interest in adopting the partnering process in construction project management. In line with discussions presented by Moore et al (1992, p. 18), Cowan et al (1992), Latham (1994, p. 62), Moore et al (1995), Larson & Drexler (1997), and Caltrans (2013), partnering can be defined as the process to encourage cooperation among contractual partners to reduce conflicts, mitigate claims, avoid law suits, increase job satisfaction, maintain higher project quality and safety, and complete a construction project on time and within budget. While various techniques and strategies have been discussed as best practices to help improve the management and implementation of a public project, since not all projects are the same, Shenhar (2001) and Wirick (2009) suggest that application of recommended 66 techniques and strategies be carefully evaluated and practiced based on each public project parameters and situations. Wirick (2009) emphasizes that the goal to establish project management processes is to provide a cost-effective method to reduce project risk. Thus, he proposes, “not all projects require detailed project management methods, and unnecessary processes that are a burden to project managers should be avoided” (Wirick, 2009, p. 26). Furthermore, it is important to understand that the PMBOK ® Guide published by Project Management Institute (PMI) is a standard that provides general guidelines for project management only. It should be used adaptively in each project. In other words, the PMBOK ® Guide and other best practices such as “partnering” proposed in literature should not be considered as a “one size fits all” solution to the management of any projects. 67 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY As discussed in Section 1.1, to improve mobility and provide congestion relief on the I-10 and I-110 corridors in Los Angeles County, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) awarded a federal grant of $210 million in April 2008 to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) as the leading agency, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and other mobility partners to implement Los Angeles County Congestion Reduction Demonstration (LACRD) Program. The LACRD Program consists of four projects: (1) ExpressLanes Project to convert High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on I-10 and I- 110 corridors; (2) Transit Operations Project to improve transit service and other alternatives to driving; (3) Transit Facility Project to improve Metro transit facilities; and (4) Express Park Project to implement an intelligent parking management system in downtown Los Angeles (adapted from Metro, 2013). The focus of this study was on the ExpressLanes Project. 3.1 Defining the Problem Since the inception of the LACRD program in April 2008, the ExpressLanes project encountered more challenges than initially expected. According to the funding agreement, also called Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the conversions of HOV to HOT lanes 68 on I-10 and I-110 (Metro ExpressLanes) were expected to be completed and in revenue operation by December 31, 2010. However, in 2009, it was estimated that the completion of Metro ExpressLanes would be one year delay. The threat of the delay if not approved by the USDOT was that the already awarded $210 million federal grant had to be paid back to the funding agency according to the MOU. While Metro began to take actions to address the challenges including re-organizing the project team under new leadership, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) also requested Metro internal audit department to perform an audit of the project based on agreed-upon procedures to identify concerns or risks in the management of the project and identify significant gaps between the current project management practices and industry recommended best practices. The agreed-upon audit procedures were developed to focus on the assessment of four project management areas of Metro ExpressLanes: (1) planning and organization including the management of project integration, time, and scope; (2) acquisition and implementation including procurement management; (3) delivery and support including the management of cost and resource; and (4) monitoring, communication and evaluation including the management of risk, communications, and performance measurement. The audit team used the industry best practices including Project Management Practices and Standards (PMBOK ® Guide) as primary sources to evaluate or benchmark the project management practices adopted by the ExpressLanes project team. Based on the agreed-upon procedures focusing on seven areas of project management, the audit found that Metro ExpressLanes generally implemented procurement management 69 with well-defined procurement processes. However, the audit disclosed that Metro ExpressLanes had inadequate project management practices in five areas: project integration management, scope management, cost management, risk management, and communication management. The audit identified that Metro ExpressLanes had three major control weaknesses in the management of time, resource, and performance measurement. The result of the audit was further discussed in Chapter 4 as a comparison with the project management practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes after the audit. Table 3 is the summary of the 2009 internal assessment result. Table 3: Summary of Internal Assessment on LACRD Project Management Agreed Upon Procedures Categories Status 1. Planning and Organization Project Integration Management Partially Implemented Time Management Not Implemented Scope Management Partially Implemented but not followed. 2. Acquisition and Implementation Procurement Management Generally Implemented 3. Delivery and Support Cost Management Partially Implemented Resource Management Not Implemented 4. Monitoring, Communication and Evaluation Risk Management Partially Implemented Communications Management Partially Implemented Performance Measurement Not Implemented Source: Metro Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project Management Assessment, 2009 In responding to the internal audit findings, ExpressLanes project management indicated, among others, that “A key element critical to the success of this Program is the 70 level of internal staffing matrixed to the Program… this has been a resource issue since July 2008 when the current Program Manager was assigned with no internal project staffing support or budget for the Toll Technology & Roadway Improvements element of the Program”. After the audit, new leaders and team members of the project began to adopt or adjust project management strategies to address the audit findings and overcome various challenges. With the support from the federal and other agencies, Metro ExpressLanes project was not only completed within the newly approved timeframe and budget, but also received many prestigious awards after its completion including Partnering Award, Excellence in Transportation, Transportation Project of the Year to name a few from various professional organizations and government agencies. Based on the above discussion, how the ExpressLanes project team managed to overcome various obstacles to implement the conversions of I-10 and I-110 within the parameters set by the funding agreement became a key question this research sought to answer. With the theoretical base obtained from literature review in Chapter 2, the objective of this research was framed to identify key factors critical to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro Expresslanes Project. 71 3.2 Research Questions Based on the research objective, this study strived to answer the following questions: Question 1. What were the challenges unique to the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? Question 2. Which of the practices of techniques and practices adopted by the Metro ExpressLanes Project were perceived as most critical factors to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? 3.3 Research Design Leedy and Ormrod (2005) defined, “research is a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, interpreting information (data) in order to increase our understanding of the phenomenon about which we are interested or concerned” (p.2). Research design, as Zikmund (2003) put it, is “a master plan specifying the methods and procedures for collecting and analyzing the needed information” (p. 740). There are many methods that a researcher may utilize to help accomplish the research goals, e.g. case study, content analysis, correlational research, experimental research, ex post factor research, and survey … to name a few. Based on my review of the literature and the circumstances of Metro ExpressLanes Project, I believe that case study, ex post factor research, and survey would be the most appropriate methods to help me gather and analyze data to achieve my research objectives. For these three research methods, Leedy and Ormrod (2005, p. 108) explained that a case study is “a type of qualitative research in which in-depth data are gathered relative to a 72 single individual, program, or event, for the purpose of learning more about an unknown or poorly understood situation”…. ex post facto research is “an approach in which one looks at conditions that have already occurred and then collects data to investigate a possible relationship between these conditions and subsequent characteristics or behaviors” …. a survey is “used to describe the incidence, frequency, and distribution of certain characteristics in a population”. Three Phases of Studies To address the two research questions, my research methodology comprised the following three phases: Phase 1: Performed literature search and review to determine the theoretical base for the topics related to my research questions, which included project management practice and theory, modern project management standards, uniqueness and challenges in managing a public project, and strategies in managing public projects. Phase 2: Retrieved and examined existing public documents to gain an understanding of Metro ExpressLanes Project management process that included project origination, planning and design, procurement and execution, monitoring and controlling, and the closing of the construction of Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 HOT lanes conversions. Phase 3: Gathered primary data through survey method. Based on work performed in Phases 1 and 2, I designed a survey instrument, distributed the survey to pre-identified survey participants, analyzed and summarized survey responses. To assess whether the result of this research could serve as lessons learned for other public projects, post-survey interviews and 73 emails seeking feedbacks on survey result were carried out among sampled survey respondents. Due to the fact that survey research would be the key part of this research, the following sections provide more detailed discussions of this method. 3.4 Survey and Identifying Survey Respondents Trochim (2006) states that there are two broad categories in survey research: questionnaire and interview. Questionnaire is the method that utilizes pre-designed instruments to ask the respondent to complete the questions or provide opinions on the survey instrument. Interview is conducted by the researcher who completes the pre-designed questions based on what the respondent tells the researcher. One of the important steps in survey is to identify survey participants. For Metro ExpressLanes, many stakeholders might have existed in the Project: federal funding agencies, state funding agencies, local government agencies, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro), communities, taxpayers, contractors and consultants, etc… It appeared problematic if I attempted to enumerate a complete listing of the population that had a stake in the ExpressLanes Project. Fortunately, based on my research objective and research questions, I need to gather opinions only from the people who had the actual knowledge or experience with the Project in order to credibly support my research findings and conclusions. Thus, the population subject to my sampling should be limited to people who were involve or participated in any phases or activities of Metro ExpressLanes project management and implementation process. 74 To identify the survey respondents who might meet the above criteria, I consulted Metro ExpressLanes Executive Officer, reviewed Metro telephone directory, visited websites of potential respondents’ company, and called some potential respondents’ companies to verify contact information. As a result, a list of 40 potential respondents that consisted of officials, staff, employees, or members from project funding agencies, other government entities, project partner organizations, Metro management and administration, project management team, prime contractor and consultant, sub-contractors and sub-consultants, project partnering facilitator, Technical Advisory Committee (TAG), and Corridor Advisory Group (CAG) was developed. Due to the small size of the population, I decided to sample every member in the population. 3.5 Construction of Survey Instrument There are two broad categories of survey questions: structured and unstructured (Trochim, 2006). I used structured method to design my questionnaire and response format because structured method made it easier for the respondents to respond to my survey questionnaire. In addition, the structured method helped me to accumulate and summarize responses more efficiently. To facilitate respondents’ responses, I constructed each of the key items in the instrument consistently as a statement instead of mixing up statements and questions in questionnaire. 1. Filter Question and Determining Respondents’ Role(s) in ExpressLanes Project As discussed in Section 3.1, the objective this research was to identify key factors to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro Expresslanes Project. To provide 75 an opinion on Metro ExpressLanes project management, one needed to be involved in the management or implementation process of the project to be able to provide possible opinions. Thus, I first constructed Yes/No dichotomous question at the beginning of the survey to determine whether the respondent had experienced in Metro ExpressLanes Project in order to qualify for taking the survey. Then I asked respondents to indicate their role(s) in the project that would give me an idea of my respondents’ composition. 2. Statements for Scale Based on Level of Measurement Based on my review of literature and examination of Metro ExpressLanes existing key documents, I generated three sets of statements in Sections 2, 3, and 4 on the survey that would help achieve my research objective. The statements were constructed to measure the respondents’ opinions about ExpressLanes Project management and implementation process and practices on an interval level of 1-to-5 Likert rating scale: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), and Strongly agree (5). To improve the quality of response data, I included “Don’t know/No opinion” option to reduce the instances of forcing respondents to choose an opinion that they do not know the answer or have no a strong opinion about the answer to the question. An answers rated with a higher value indicated a more favorable attitude towards the statement on the questionnaire. The “Don’t know/No opinion” option carries no value. Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5) Don’t know / No opinion (0) 76 Section 2 was to ask respondents to provide their overall assessment on the project management practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project. Section 3 was intended to answer my first research question: What were the challenges unique to the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? This set of statements included nine issues that are often discussed in the literature as challenges unique to a public project. The survey asked respondents to rate how strongly they agree or disagree with each of the nine issues of potential challenges based on their involvement in Metro ExpressLanes Project: the project had a limited budget; the project had implementation deadlines; the project had conflicting goals to achieve; the project involved multiple stakeholders with different interests; the project was under political and media scrutiny; the hiring of staff or workers for the project was subject to union or civil-service protections; the project was required to adhere to public ethics, administrative rules, laws, and regulations; the project was implemented under an overlapping oversight structure from federal, state, regional, and local governments; the outcomes of the project management depended on the performance and cooperation of organizations outside of the project team. An answer rated with a higher value indicated the item was more challenging. The “Don’t know/No opinion” option carries no value. Section 4 of the survey was designed to answer part of my second research question: Which of the practices of techniques and strategies adopted by the Metro ExpressLanes Project were perceived as the most critical factors to facilitating the management and implementation of the project? This set of statements included thirteen techniques and 77 strategies that are often discussed in the literature as good practices applicable to most public projects. The survey asked respondents to rate how strongly they agree or disagree with each of the thirteen techniques and strategies that Metro ExpressLanes might have adopted based on their involvement in Metro ExpressLanes Project: a preliminary plan with a feasibility study was developed for the project; a project management plan (PMP) including the objectives of the project and guidelines for the development and implementation of the project was adopted; a project team with qualified and committed project leaders was established; data and documentation of goals, objectives, and other requirements of the project were properly collected and maintained; the scope of work with specified delivery due dates was well- defined; “partnering” as a form of collaborative approaches was adopted throughout the project management and implementation process; risk management and monitoring plans were developed for the project; proper procurement and contracting methods were used for the project; qualified and committed contractors and consultants were hired; project stakeholders were adequately identified and informed of the project progress and status; internal controls to monitor the quality and costs of the project were in place; change orders of the project were adequately integrated and controlled; each task and the entire construction phase of Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes were closed or completed on time and within budget. 78 An answer rated with a higher value indicated the technique or strategy might have been more likely adopted or practiced by Metro ExpressLanes project. The “Don’t know/No opinion” option carries no value. 3. Eliciting Opinions via Multiple Choice Answers The center of my study was to gauge professional opinions on factors critical to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project. As discussed in Section 2.3, many factors may impact on the management of a public project, however, attempting to list all of the broadly different factors and then seeking opinions from busy professionals or executives appeared not practical given the time and cost constraint of this study. Thus, I focused on issues typically relevant to Metro ExpressLanes Project based on my examination of existing documents. Then I grouped similar issues together and developed a list of 13 factors plus an “other” factor that respondents could write in. On the last Section of the survey, I asked respondents to use multiple choices to select three of the 13 factors that they perceived as most critical to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project: prepare a preliminary plan with a feasibility study; adopt a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP); establish a project team with qualified and committed leaders; collect and maintain project data and document; define scope of work with specified delivery due dates; adopt “partnering” collaborating approaches; develop project risk management plans; select proper procurement and contracting methods; hire qualified and committed contractors and consultants; identify project stakeholders and keep them informed of project status; establish internal controls to 79 monitor project quality and costs; integrate and control change orders; and close each task and entire phase of the project on time and within budget. The above 13 techniques and strategies were echoed the 13 items on Section 4 of the survey but in a shorter form to facilitate respondents’ selections. 3.6 Administration of Survey Per discussion in the previous sections, gathering primary data via the survey method was an important step to obtain key evidences to support my research findings and conclusions. There are several ways to administer the survey: face to face method, traditional mail method, or web-based interface method. 1. Determination of Survey Method Face to face method seems neither practical nor feasible in my survey because it is very time intensive and most of my pre-identified survey respondents are busy professionals and executives. For traditional mail method, the survey instruments need to be printed out and sent out to respondents via post mail, and then the respondents are required to return it back to me with a pre-stamped return envelope after the survey is completed. Although this method allows respondents to take the survey when they are available, it may create a burden on survey participants because they have to spend extra time on dropping the survey in a post office. This burden put on survey participants would definitely discourage some if not all of the survey participants to take the survey especially when they are busy. As a result, my survey response rate would have suffered. 80 Therefore, I decided to take the advantage of technology by using the web-based survey tool called SurveyMonkey ® to administer my survey. Although there are a cost and other disadvantages to use SurveyMonkey ® , I believe that the benefits would overweigh the cost paid and other disadvantages. The benefits of using SurveyMonkey ® include: (1) it is user-friendly for both of the researcher and respondents with the feature of clicking or typing on the computer interface; (2) it gives respondents the flexibility of taking the survey at their own pace and allows them to edit the survey responses any time before they click “done”; (3) it may be better for respondents to address certain sensitive questions if it is administered anonymously; (4) sending survey through email with hyperlink is less expensive and may avoid the survey to get lost in mail; (5) a survey is transmitted to the survey participants immediately after the scheduled sending time, and the responses come back directly to the researcher’s computer system; (6) SurveyMonkey is dynamic in nature, which provides statistical results on an immediate basis. Also, if using “Email Invitation Collector” method to collect responses, it allows the researcher to track who have responded and who have not; (7) the web-based survey is seen as “environmentally friendly” due to the online formats instead of using paper. Nevertheless, issues may arise from implementing the web-based survey even though there are many benefits for using a web-based survey. First, many people may feel that an unsolicited survey via email is annoying and invades one’s privacy. Thus, most people may ignore or delete the survey after they receive it. Since I had a very small sample of 40 possible respondents, it was crucial that I could 81 obtain as many as responses as possible. To avoid the pre-identified respondents ignored my survey, I had sent out a pre-notification letter via email to notify the respondents about my upcoming survey on Metro ExpressLanes Project Management before I emailed the survey hyperlink to them. Another weakness of web-based survey is that the email addresses of some respondents may have been changed or a typo may occur when typing an email address. Thus, the emailed survey may fail to reach to these respondents’ email system as expected. To deal with this problem, sending out a pre-notification may also serve as a verification of an email address before the formal survey hyperlink is emailed. 2. Pre-Testing on Survey Hyperlink Before I sent out my survey, I conducted a pre-test on my survey hyperlink by asking several volunteers including USC professors, UC Berkeley student, and Metro ExpressLanes prior and current project managers to take a test run on the survey. These volunteers would act as my respondents to take the survey and provided me a feedback of their experience and comments on my survey design, issues relevant to ExpressLanes project, logic and flow of the questions, any inconsistencies and errors, user-friendliness, and the time needed to complete the survey. Based on the feedbacks from the pre-test survey takers, I modified my survey and ensured that the survey could be completed within approximately 10 minutes. 82 CHAPTER 4 EXAMINATION OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS This chapter was designed to accomplish the second phase of my study by gathering and performing analytical analysis of existing Metro ExpressLanes Project documents and data. Through Metro website, Metro Intranet, Metro staff, and ExpressLanes Project consultants, I obtained variety of records and background information related to the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project as well as Metro’s operations as a whole. Example of document and data I obtained include:  Project funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) for funding the ExpressLanes project;  Metro annual budgets and financial statements;  Internal audit of congestion reduction demonstration project management assessment;  Metro Board meeting minutes related to Metro ExpressLanes Project;  Request for Proposal (RFP) for the ExpressLanes Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) Contract;  Executed DBOM contract awarded;  LACRD congestion reduction demonstration Project Management Plan (PMP);  Board reports including Ad Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee reports;  Corridor Advisory Group (CAG) meeting minutes and presentations;  Service sector council meeting minutes and presentations; 83  ExpressLanes Project outreach documents and materials including printouts, online e-commerce site, and digital/videos;  Monthly and/or quarterly Metro ExpressLanes Project status reports;  Metro communication reports related to Metro ExpressLanes Project;  Media reports and coverage about the ExpressLanes Project;  List of Metro ExpressLanes Awards Received; and  Metro ExpressLanes partnering documents. While the review of the above documents helped me to design the survey instrument discussed in Section 3.4, performing further examination and analyses of key project documents was an important step for me to understand the management and implementation processes of Metro ExpressLanes Project. Consistent with the discussion of project management processes described in Sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.5, my review of the documents focused on those that were relevant to the five project management processes dominantly discussed and advocated in project management literature including the PMBOK ® Guide: project origination, planning, execution, monitoring and controlling, and closing. 4.1 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide discusses, “Every government project begins with an origination phase” (PMI, 2006, p. 14). In this phase, one of the most important activities is to prepare an origination document, which can be called or titled by different names such as feasibility study report, basic planning report, project study report, 84 project concept report, budget proposal, or funding request. The key purpose of the origination document is to obtain funding for the project. Thus, this document should be prepared sufficient enough in order for the funding entities to evaluate the project and make their funding decisions. The origination document in ExpressLanes project origination phase is called Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It was prepared and signed by and among the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Partner Agencies including Metro and Caltrans on April 24, 2008. The original MOU specified that Metro and Caltrans would convert existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on three area roadways: I-10 from downtown Los Angeles to I-605 that represents a total of 28 miles; I-210 from State Route 134 to I-605 that represents a total of 24 miles. The conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes on I-110 from the Artesia Transit Center to Adams Boulevard (a total of 33 miles) would be contingent on the availability of additional financing. On July 24, 2008, the first amendment was made to the original MOU to replace the HOT lane conversion on I-210 with I-110. In other words, the conversion of I-210 HOV lane to HOT lane previously identified in April 24, 2008 MOU was changed to the conversion of I-110 HOV lane to HOT with the provision that the conversion of I-210 HOV lane to HOT lane would be contingent on the availability of additional financing. 85 On November 21, 2008, some administrative changes were made to the MOU. This second amendment to MOU became the execution copy of Amended and Restated Congestion Reduction Demonstration Agreement. The MOU specifies with a federal funding of $210.6 million or more from USDOT, the Partner Agencies agree to convert the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 to dynamically-priced high-occupancy (HOT) lanes, and convert the HOV lanes on Los Angeles I-210 to dynamically-priced HOT lanes if the funding is available. According to the MOU, the USDOT made $210 million available to Metro and Caltrans (the Partner Agencies) in Fiscal Year 2007. However, the Partner Agencies would not be able to draw down the funds if the Partner Agencies were not able to obtain the legal authority to implement the conversion of HOV lanes of I-10 and I-110 to HOT lanes duly adopted by the State of California in statute prior to October 15, 2008. The MOU also specified that the conversion should be completed and be in revenue operation by December 31, 2010. But in the event of a delay in implementation of any HOT Lane due to circumstances beyond the control of the Partner Agencies, USDOT may negotiate an extended completion date or exercise any remedies under an agreement. On September 28, 2008, California Senate Bill No. 1422 authorizing a regional transportation agency in cooperation with the Department of Transportation to develop and operate high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes was approved by Governor on September 28, 2008. Therefore, the LACRD program began its planning phase. 86 4.2 Program Management Plan (PMP) The planning and development of Metro ExpressLanes and other LACRDP projects, collectively called LACRD Program, were governed by a document called Congestion Reduction Demonstration Program (CRDP) Program Management Plan (PMP). The LACRD Program funded by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) in 2008 is divided into four major projects: (1) Toll Technology & Roadway Improvement (also called Metro ExpressLanes), (2) Transit Facilities, (3) Transit Operations, and (4) Expresspark. Total budget of the LACRD Program is $210 million funded by USDOT. For the allocation of the federal grant of $210 million among these four projects, see Figure 5. Per discussion in Section 2.1.3, “a program is a group of related projects, subprograms, and program activities managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually” (PMBOK ® , 2013, p. 553) and “a project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result” (PMBOK ® , 2013, p. 3). Based on my research objective defined in Section 3.1, the focus of my study was on the ExpressLanes Project that converted the Los Angeles existing HOV lanes into HOT lanes along I-10 from Alameda Street to I-605 and I-110 from 182 nd Street to Adams Boulevard, called Metro ExpressLanes. Thus, my review of the PMP concentrated on issues related to the ExpressLanes Project only. Section 3.1 discussed that in 2009, the CEO of Metro requested his internal audit department known as Management Audit Services (MAS) to perform an assessment on Metro ExpressLanes project management practices when the project was estimated to be one 87 year delay in completion. Based on the agreed-upon procedures that focused on seven areas of project management, the Management Audit Services (MAS) found that except for the practice of procurement management that had well-defined processes, Metro ExpressLanes had inadequate practices in six project management areas being reviewed. In particular, the MAS found: A fully integrated Program Management Plan with recommended practices was not developed. Elements of the Program Management Plan related to internal staffing and activities, stakeholder management and project control all are either not included or are not adequate when compared with best practices… There is no Time Management Plan that includes a comprehensive integrated master schedule…The scope does not contain many of the elements recommended as Program Management best practices…The total cost of execution for Congestion Pricing, which includes both internal costs and contracts was not developed using a cost build up or previous project analysis approach…There is no Resource Management Plan…The Risk Management process has been defined but is not being executed on a consistent basis… There is no communication approach for internal communication and coordination…The performance metrics are not articulated in an integrated master schedule (excepted from Metro, 2009, pp. 1-5). After the audit, Metro ExpressLanes under the new project management team began to adopt or adjust project management strategies to address the audit findings and other project management challenges. Among others, the draft Program Management Plan was revised to 88 include many project management processes suggested by PMBOK ® Guide and other best practices broadly used in the industry. Overall Issues Covered by Revised Program Management Plan (PMP) The revised Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) Program Management Plan (PMP) covered many issues that the Program team anticipated to occur during the planning and implementation of the LACRD Program. In the introduction section of the PMP, it specifies that the purpose of this document is to communicate the objectives of each project to all participants and provides the framework for the development of more detailed working procedures as the project progresses. Since Metro and Caltrans have several tools such as guides, handbooks, and manuals in place to help manage projects more efficiently and effectively, the PMP was prepared by using the existing tools to address related issues and establish the general framework of the PMP. The Metro and Caltrans explain, “The tools define the roles, responsibilities, processes, and activities that will result in projects being completed on time, within budget, with the highest degree of quality and safety” (PMP, p. 1-1). Based on the above discussion, the PMP does not intend to provide detailed or specific methods to manage and implement each project. Instead, it serves as a framework to establish general project management procedures to be consistent with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Project Guidelines; provide a guideline for the orderly interactions among multiple agencies, organizations, and staff in the implementation of the CRD Program; and define the responsibilities and 89 authorities to initiate, direct, oversee, evaluate, and report on various administrative and technical assignments of the CRD Program (adapted from CRDP PMP, Revision 2). According to Section 2.1.4, to help project management professionals to apply the skill, tools, and techniques in their project, the Project Management Institute (PMI) maps five process groups into nine project management knowledge areas. My further examination and analyses of the revised Program Management Plan (PMP) contents found that the PMP had covered the nine project management knowledge areas of integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resource, communication, risk, and procurement in the PMBOK ® Guide and Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide although the methods and strategies discussed on the PMP may be organized differently from the PMBOK ® Guide. Table 4 summarizes the topics covered by the PMP and referenced to the project management knowledge areas addressed in the PMBOK ® Guide. 90 Table 4: Topics Covered by PMP & Referenced to PMBOK ® Knowledge Area Section & Topic Key Issues Addressed PMBOK ® Knowledge Area 1. Introduction Purpose of CRDP PMP, background, description, and legal authority of the CRD Program Integration Management 2. Program Organization Program staffing levels, participants, and organization, and project partners Human Resource Management 3. Program Management Control Project baselines, management information and control systems, document control, and reporting Communication Management 4. Procurement Procurement policies and procedures Procurement Management 5. Design Program Planning studies, basis of design, and management of design Quality Management 6. System Safety & Security System safety and security, construction and installation safety and security Risk Management 7. Risk Management Identification, management, control, allocation, and mitigation of risks, insurance program and claims process Risk Management 8. Dispute Resolution Bid protest procedures, contractual disputes, and inter- agency conflict resolution Communication & Risk Management 9. Inter-Agency Entity Coordination Project participating entities, cooperative and work agreements with public and private entities Communication Management 10. Construction Management Organization, responsibilities, quality assurance and control, contract administration, and change orders Time, Cost, & Quality Management 11. Quality Management Quality management, coordination with other partners, design, procurement, and construction Quality Management 12. Real Estate Acquisition & Management Defining ownership, regulations, appraisals, and public property acquisition Procurement Management 13. Community Relations Interface with government agencies and media, and community outreach Communication Management 14. Start-Up Preparations Integrated test program, test and activation plans and procedures, operations and maintenance period Scope & Integration Management 15. Evaluation Process Data collection and report reviews Communication Management 16. Maintenance of the PMP Procedures for modifying the Program Management Plan (PMP) Communication Management Source: CRDP Program Management Plan and PMBOK ® Guide 91 In particular, the issues of collecting requirements, defining scope, creating work breakdown structure, verifying scope, and controlling scope under project scope management of the PMBOK ® Guide are covered in Section 3 of the PMP related to the topics of project baselines, information and control systems, document control, and reporting. Defining and sequencing activities, estimating activities resources and duration, and developing and controlling schedule under project time management are summarized in the ExpressLanes Master Schedule on Appendix G of the PMP. Estimating costs, determining budget, and control costs under project cost management are itemized in the ExpressLanes Cost Report and Funding Plan on Appendix H of the PMP. Defining quality and performing quality controls under project quality management are discussed in detail in Section 11 of the PMP on the topics of quality management objective, quality management program, design, procurement, and construction. Acquiring, developing, and managing project team under project human resources management are discussed in length in Section 2 of the PMP on the topics of program staffing levels, project orientation for new staff, program participants and organization, and project partners. Identifying stakeholders, planning communication, distributing information, managing stakeholders’ expectations, and reporting performance under project communication management are covered in Sections 9 and 13 of the PMP on the topics of cooperative and 92 force account work agreement with public and private entities, interface with state and local governmental agencies, and community outreach and interface with media. Identifying, monitoring, and controlling risks under project risk management are addressed in Section 7 of the PMP on the topics of risk identification and management, control, allocation and mitigation of risks, site-derived risks, insurance program, and claim process. Planning, conducting, administering, and closing procurement under project procurement management are addressed in Section 4 of the PMP on the topics of general procurement policies, procurement procedures, evaluation and award policies, and contracting policies. Thus, the entire CRD Project Management Plan (PMP) may be considered as a critical project integration tool similar to the strategy of project integration management discussed in the PMBOK ® Guide to provide high level guidance for the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project from origination to closing. CRD Program Stakeholders and Project Team According to Section 2.2.3, building a competent and cohesive project team including selecting capable project managers is one of the critical strategies in public project management. However, the 2009 audit of Metro ExpressLanes Project found that the elements of the draft Program Management Plan (PMP) related to internal staffing and activities, stakeholder 93 management and project control all were either not included or and not adequate when compared with the best practice. My review of the revised PMP found that the finding disclosed by the 2009 audit had been resolved. For example, Chapter 2 defines the higher level organization of the CRD Program to be the Metro Board of Directors, which consists of 14 members: 5 Los Angeles County Supervisors, the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, 3 members appointed by the Mayor, 4 members appointed by the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee to represent the other 87 cities in the Los Angeles County, and one non-voting member from Caltrans District Director. The PMP also establishes an integrated CRD Program team of members from the lead agency Metro, Caltrans District 7, and various local transportation partners including the municipal transit operators, local jurisdictions, FTA, and FHWA. In addition, the PMP provides the framework for the staffing, reporting relationships, levels of authority and responsibility of the CRD Program. Based on the revised PMP, the integrated management team of the CRD Program is comprised of leaders and professionals with various disciplines in construction project management. In particular, the integrated team equips with key positions including:  Program Director who reports to the Executive Director of Highway Programs;  Project Manager of Toll Technology and Roadway Improvements who reports to the Executive Director of Transit Project Delivery; 94  Project Quality Manager who is assigned through the Director of Quality Management and reports to the Program Director;  Construction Safety Manager who reports to the Director of Corporate Safety and is assigned to the Project manager, Toll Technology and Roadway Improvement;  Public Affairs Construction Support who is assigned through the Deputy Executive Officer of community relations and reports to the Program Director;  Senior Contract Administrator who is assigned through the Director of Contract Administration and reports to the Project Manager;  Project Control Manager who is assigned through the Executive Director Transit project delivery and reports to the Project Manager;  Caltrans Project Administrator who is assigned through Deputy District Director for District 7 Program management and supports the project by coordinating Caltrans design and contract management support oversight functions;  Deputy Project Manager, Construction who reports directly to the Project manager and is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Metro integrated project management; Resident Engineer who reports to the Deputy Project Manager and is responsible for managing and administrating day-to-day construction;  Third Party Administrator who reports to the Deputy Project Manager Construction;  Environmental Compliance and Services who is part of construction management and provides resources and support to the Deputy Project Manager, Construction; 95  Director of Quality Management who is responsible for the development and implementation of the construction project management division’s quality management policies and procedures and supporting documents;  Manager of the Third Party Administration who directs the overall coordination with third party agencies and utilities to ensure project schedule and budget are met;  Manager of Environmental Compliance and Services who is part of construction management, reports directly to the Executive Director, and provides resources and support to the Project Manager;  Change Control Manager who is responsible for the implementation and maintenance of change control procedures and systems;  Document Control Manager who is responsible for the implementation and maintenance of document control procedures;  Community Relations Officer who is assigned through the Deputy Executive Officer of Community Relations and reports to the Program Director. Besides the CRD Program team established by the PMP, Metro other departments such as Finance and Accounting, Legal, Human Resources, Information and Technology also provide supporting services to the ongoing construction of the ExpressLanes. Similar to many major construction projects, the conversions of the HOV lanes to HOT lanes on the I-10 and I-110 corridors in Los Angeles County were subject to environmental regulatory reviews. 96 According to Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report (June 2013), Caltrans was the lead agency responsible for submitting NEPA and CEQA required documents for approval. On April 28, 2010, the final EIR/FONSI (Environmental Impact Report/Finding of No Significant Impacts) for the I-10 and I-110 conversions was approved. On May 14, 2010, the Environmental Assessment was approved. Upon concurrence from USDOT, Metro used the Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) model to prepare and release Request for Proposal (RFP) for the design and construction as well as long-term operation and maintenance of Metro ExpressLanes on June 7, 2010. After the RFP was released, five addenda were issued to the RFP. The process of bidding and awarding Metro ExpressLanes DBOM contract was completed according to California Assembly Bill: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: contracting (AB-2755, 2010). Among others, the following two sections of AB-2755 impacted the bidding and awarding process of Metro ExpressLanes DBOM contract:  Metro shall award all contracts for construction based on the lowest responsible and responsive bid submitted. AB-2755, §130051.9 (c).  Metro shall prepare a prequalification questionnaire to be completed by each construction company, engineering firm, consultant, legal firm, product vendor, and any other business entity seeking to contract with Metro to perform a public works project in excess of five million dollars ($5,000,000). Metro shall require its inspector general to review the questionnaire to ensure it solicits, at a 97 minimum, information on all of the following subjects regarding the firm: (1) experience, (2) quality and timeliness of past performance, (3) reliability and responsibility, (4) compliance with equal employment requirements, (5) compliance with wage, hours, and other fair labor standards, (6) subcontractors used by the firm, (7) integrity of the firm and its key personnel, and (8) gifts given, or contributions made, to members or alternate members or employees of the authority. AB-2755, §130051.22 (a). Through competitive bid and a transparent tender process, Metro received three proposals for the Request for Proposal (RFP) on August 31, 2010. Based on various criteria set in RFP and a panel review, the DBOM Contract was awarded to Atkinson Contractors, LP on December 16, 2010. The key provisions such as scope of work and period of performance of the DBOM contract were prepared based on the requirements specified on the Request for Proposal (RFP). The following section reviewed key provisions on the DBOM Contract. 4.3 Metro ExpressLanes Design, Build, Operate & Maintain (DBOM) Contract The execution of converting I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes to HOT lanes construction project (Metro ExpressLanes) was technically implemented according to the Firm Fixed Price Contract entered and signed between Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Atkinson Contractors, LP (Contractor) on December 16, 2010. This contract is also referred as DBOM (Design, Build, Operate & Maintain) contract, which consists of main document of 295 pages that detail each party’s responsibilities 98 described in the contract provisions of General Conditions, Regulatory Requirements, Special Provisions, and Compensation & Payment Provisions as well as volumes of technical documents. The effective date of this contract as indicated on Article VI is December 16, 2010. Article VI also specifies that the period of Performance of this contract begins on the date set forth in the Notice to Proceed (NTP: or “Commencement Date”) and the Contractor is required to complete all work under the contract within 990 calendar days after the Commencement Date unless this contract is terminated earlier or extended by Metro in writing as provided in the contract. Upon the Contractor fully performs and completes the work identified in this contract, Metro is obligate to pay the Contractor $72,363,702. In reference to the 2009 audit findings discussed in Section 4.2 that Metro ExpressLanes Project had inadequate plans in resource, time, and scope management, I paid special attention on these three issues when I reviewed the contract. Among other provisions in the contract, these critical processes appear in place: (1) assigning qualified key personnel to the job. This process is also referred as project human resource management often addressed in project management literature and PMBOK ® Guide; (2) defining scope of work with deadlines to complete each milestone of tasks and the entire contract work. This process covers two issues often discussed in literature and PMBOK ® Guide as project scope management and project time management. In particular, SP-04 of the Special Provisions and Appendix B of the contract identifies Contractor key personnel assigned to this job. The key personnel with individual names 99 consist of Project Manager, Construction Manager, Design Manager, Manager of Systems Integration, Safety Manager, Operations and Maintenance General Manager, Quality Manager, and Project Executive. Since the qualifications and credentials of the key personnel are important to the success in executing the contract, provision GC-05 of Contractor’s Representative, Organization and Personnel of the contract specifies that any changes in key personnel shall be in writing to secure prior written acceptance of Metro Contracting Officer or its authorized representative. Provision GC-05 also indicates that the Contractor shall not reassign key personnel to other projects until a satisfactory replacement has been approved by Metro. The scope of work and scheduling is covered in provision SP-02 Prosecution and Completion of Work on the contract, which specifies that the Contractor shall start the contracted work on the date specified in the Notice to Proceed (NTP) issued to the Contractor. Furthermore, the contract emphasizes that the Contractor shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure the completion of the contracted work according to Metro ExpressLanes Work Completion Schedule as shown on Table 5. 100 Table 5: Work Completion Schedule of Metro ExpressLanes Source: Reformatted from DBOM Contract, pp. 266-267 Milestone Description Schedule No. 1 Contractor to complete I-10 Corridor Toll Operations Scope of Work, including Systems Acceptance Testing. Contractor achieves Substantial Completion as defined in the Contract Documents. Six hundred eighty five (685) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 2 Contractor to complete I-110 Corridor Toll Operations Scope of Work, including Systems Acceptance Testing. Contractor achieves Substantial Completion as defined in the Contract Documents. Five hundred ninety (590) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 3 Contractor to complete construction of Adams Boulevard, HOV Off- Ramp Widening, and associated street improvements. Five hundred thirty (530) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 4 Contractor to complete construction of the Adams Blvd. Bridge widening, Pedestrian Over-Crossing (POC), and associated street improvements. Five hundred thirty (530) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 5 Contractor to complete fully tested and functional Toll Operation Service Center and start System Acceptance Testing of I-110 Corridor. Five hundred thirty (530) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 6 Contractor to complete all design work for the I-10 Corridor to 100%, including final specifications and drawings, and submit for required Metro Approvals. Two hundred forty (240) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 7 Contractor to complete all design work for the Adams Blvd. Bridge Widening, Pedestrian Over-Crossing (POC), HOV Off-Ramp Widening, and related street improvements, to 100%, including final specifications and drawings, and submit for required Metro Approvals. Two hundred forty (240) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 8 Contractor to complete all design work for the I-110 Corridor to 100%, including final specifications and drawings, and submit for required Metro Approvals. One hundred ninety five (195) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 9 Contractor to complete all the civil and structural design work for I-10 Corridor related to sign posts, their foundations, and their attachments to existing structures, to 100%, including final specifications and drawings, and submit for required Metro Approvals. One hundred eighty (180) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. No. 10 Contractor to complete all the civil and structural design work for I-110 Corridor related to sign posts, their foundations, and their attachments to existing structures, to 100%, including final specifications and drawings, and submit for required Metro Approvals. One hundred twenty (120) calendar days after the Commencement Date set forth in the Notice to Proceed. Options 1 I-105 Enhancements Shall be completed as part of Milestone No. 2 above. 2 Additional Signage Required by Mutcd Shall be completed as part of Milestones No. 1 and No. 2, accordingly. 5 Enforcement Technology Shall be completed as part of Milestones No. 1 and No. 2, accordingly. 6 Additional Language Support Shall be completed as part of Milestones No. 1 and No. 2, accordingly. If and when exercised: 101 There are ten milestones associated with each schedule. A milestone is an established event or occurrence related to the contract work or activity. From the Work Completion Schedule, we can see that each milestone identifies particular tasks to be completed by pre- determined calendar days. In addition to the key provisions discussed above, to ensure that the contract is executed and the project is completed within the contract specified time limit, budget, quality, and according to various regulatory requirements, the contract covers many issues including, but not limited to, availability of funds; Contractor’s obligations; subcontractors and suppliers; Contractor-furnished document and Metro reviews; governmental approvals; cooperation, coordination and access; emergencies; unauthorized work; performance and inspection; environmental compliance; safety and loss prevention; final inspection and acceptance of the work; operations and maintenance responsibility; warranty and reliability; title; extension of time; change orders; liability and indemnification; claims; disputes; audit; Contractor’s interaction with the media and the public; confidentiality; conflict of interest; basis of compensation; and final payment. According to Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Report, Metro issued the Notice to Proceed (NTP) of the construction to Atkinson Contractors, LP on January 11, 2011. In June 2011, the contractor submitted the Final Design Documents for the I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes. On July 6, 2011, the groundbreaking ceremony for the start of construction of the ExpressLanes was held at the Harbor Gateway Transit Center. In early August 2011, the 102 construction for the sign foundations started on the I-110 freeway and in late September 2011, the same started on the I-10 freeway (adapted from Metro, June 2013). 4.4 Project Monitoring and Controlling Data To ensure the project is completed as planned, it is crucial that the monitoring and controls of various project processes and activities are in place. My examination of the CRDP Program Management Plan (PMP); Design, Build, Operate, Maintain (DBOM) Contract; monthly and quarterly project status reports; and other documents found that the execution of the construction of I-10 and I-110 HOT lanes conversions was implemented technically through the DBOM contract discussed in Section 4.3; overall monitoring and controlling of the Project document, procurement, design, system safety and security, risk management, dispute, inter-agency coordination, quality, and community relations were essentially governed by CRDP Program Management Plan (PMP); and the entire project progress was monitored and controlled mainly by monthly project status report and quarterly project status report as well as through various project management tools and strategies. As discussed in Section 4.2, the 2009 audit found that Metro ExpressLanes Project did not have a time management plan that included a comprehensive integrated master schedule and the total cost of the project was not developed using a cost build up or previous project analysis approach, my review of the documents focuses on the revised Program Management Plan (PMP), Metro ExpressLanes monthly and quarterly project status reports, and other public documents to determine whether ExpressLanes Project had internal controls in place 103 to properly manage the time and cost after the 2009 audit through the completion of the project. Time Management (Project Schedule) My review found that Metro ExpressLanes had time management process in place. The overall schedule of the Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Demonstration (LACRD) Program was laid out as Master Schedule of LACRD Program as shown in Table 6. This schedule covers four key projects of the LACRD Program, which includes the construction of toll technology & infrastructure for the I-10 and I-110 Metro ExpressLanes; improvement of transit facility for Park & Ride Lot, station expansion, and maintenance of facility; and implementation of Express Park in downtown Los Angeles. The ExpressLanes Master Schedule appears to have created according to the Critical Path Method (CPM) discussed in Section 2.1.2. A critical path as Aguanno (2002) explained is to “define a sequence of tasks in a project wherein none of the tasks can be delayed without affecting the final project end date.” 104 Table 6: Master Schedule of LACRD Program Source: CRDP Program Management Plan 105 Table 6: Master Schedule of LACRD Program (Continued) Source: CRDP Program Management Plan Table 6 identified the start and finish dates of various activities of the four projects under the LACRD Program, which includes the major tasks of community outreach to be performed from September 25, 2009 to July 4, 2014; USDOT agreement to be drafted and completed between December 15, 2010 and March 26, 2012; outside agency utility work to be completed between October 23, 2009 and June 20, 2012; HOT lanes construction by 106 DBOM Contractor to be constructed and completed from January 11, 2011 to January 31, 2013; I-10 Rehab construction to be completed between July 12, 2010 and May 1, 2012; transit facility improvement to be implemented between October 8, 2010 and July 9, 2014; transit signal priority in downtown to be completed between June 1, 2012 and October 1, 2012; ExpressPark to be constructed between May 25, 2012 to June 10, 2013; vanpools to be implemented between February 1, 2012 and August 28, 2013; and CRD data collection to be started to collect on February 1, 2012 and January 31, 2014. In addition to the Master Schedule, each project team monitored and reported the project progress via “Key Milestone Schedule” through ExpressLanes monthly and quarterly project status reports. Since the focus of my study was on the construction of Metro ExpressLanes Project as discussed in Section 3.1, I only excerpted the milestone schedules related to the conversions of I-10 and 1-110 HOT lanes. Table 7 shows two samples of key milestone schedules pertaining to the conversions of I-10 and I-110 activities reported on the monthly project status reports. Table 8 shows two samples of key milestone schedules pertaining to the conversions of I-10 and I-110 activities reported on the quarterly project status reports. 107 Table 7: Sampled Key Milestone Schedule on Monthly Project Status Report Source: Metro ExpressLanes Monthly Project Status Reports 108 Table 8: Sampled Key Milestone Schedule on Quarterly Project Status Report Source: Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Reports 109 Metro ExpressLanes team also kept tracking the tasks on the project critical paths by providing narrative on the quarterly project status report. For example, on the Quarterly Project Status Report of June 2012, the ExpressLanes Project team reported: The Critical Path of the HOT Lanes DBOM contract runs through the Toll Implementation design/procurement/test related activities. The schedule assumes a one month end-to-end testing period for each of the corridors, following installation of the Toll Operation Service Center and two months of integrated test period for the entire system following the corridor-wide testing. Our design consultants have confirmed that those durations are adequate for the testing activities. The projected date for the opening of the I-110 HOT Lanes is October 2012 and the I-10 HOT Lanes is February 2013 (p. 20). On the Quarterly Project Status Report of December 2012, the ExpressLanes Project team provided the update on the progress of I-10 and I-110 HOT lanes conversions as below: The opening of the I-110 HOT Lanes took place November 10, 2012 and the I-10 HOT Lanes is projected in February 2013 (p. 18). On the Quarterly Project Status Report of March 2013, after the construction of I-10 and I-110 HOT lanes conversions were completed, the ExpressLanes Project team reported: The Critical Path of the HOT Lanes DBOM contract runs through the Toll Implementation design/procurement/test related activities. The schedule assumes a one month end-to-end testing period for each of the corridors, following installation of the Toll Operation Service Center and two months of integrated test period for the entire 110 system following the corridor wide testing. Our design consultants have confirmed that those durations are adequate for the testing activities. The opening of the I-110 HOT Lanes took place November 10, 2012 and the I-10 HOT Lanes took place on February 23, 2013 (p. 18). Based on the above discussion, Metro ExpressLanes appeared to have taken actions to address the 2009 audit finding related to an inadequacy in the project time management. In particular, Metro ExpressLanes has developed a comprehensive integrated master schedule for the project, which identifies the start and finish dates of various activities. In addition, the project implementation progress was monitored by a key milestone schedule with six- month look-head through monthly and quarterly project status reports. Cost Management (Project Cost Report) The element of cost has been considered as one of the most important factors in the management of a project. The 2009 audit disclosed that the total cost including internal and contract expenditures for the execution of the ExpressLanes Project had not been developed. My examination of Metro budget and other documents found that the cost of the LACRD Program with detailed breakdown of line items had been developed after the 2009 audit. While the budget and expenditure of the entire project were processed and controlled by Metro’s Financial Information System (FIS) and other computer systems of the project partner agencies, the cost of the project was monitored and reported via ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report. Table 9 shows the schedule of LACRD program cost status reported on sampled ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report. 111 Table 9: Sampled Schedule of LACRD Program Cost Status Source: ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report 112 Table 9: Sampled Schedule of LACRD Program Cost Status (Continued) Source: ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report As discussed in Section 4.3, Atkinson Contractors, LP, was the Firm Fixed Price Contract (or DBOM contract) bidder and contract award winner. The total amount of the DBOM contract was $72,363,702. Therefore, the expenditures of the design, build, 113 operation, and maintenance (DBOM) of the ExpressLanes were technically controlled by utilizing this DBOM approach. The application of DBOM approach in this public construction project was in line with the industry best practices. The Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) model is an approach that combines the responsibility of usually disparate functions of design-build procurement with operation and maintenance under a single contract between a public sector that provides financing and a private entity that is responsible for the design and construction as well as long-term operation and/or maintenance services. The benefit of the DBOM approach is that it allows the private contractor to take the advantage of efficiencies by tailoring the project design into the construction equipment and materials to be used. In addition, the DBOM contractor’s knowledge of project design and materials to be utilized will help develop a tailored operation and long-term maintenance plan up front to reduce the risks resulted from unknown factors. With a DBOM contract, the public sector secures the project’s financing and retains the operating revenue risk and any surplus operating revenue (adapted from USDOT website). According to the DBOM contract, Metro would pay the contractor a firm fixed price based on the applications for progress payments, milestone payments, and fixed monthly payments specified in the contract if the contractor fully performed according to the scope of work and other provisions identified in the contract. Table 10 shows the breakdown of the Firm Fixed Price Contract of Metro ExpressLanes – Schedule of Qualities and Price. 114 Table 10: Schedule of Quantities and Prices on DBOM Contract Source: ExpressLanes DBOM Contract, pp. 290-291 115 Table 10: Schedule of Quantities and Prices on DBOM Contract (Continued) Source: ExpressLanes DBOM Contract, pp. 292-293 116 4.5 Documents Deliberating Other Activities and Project Closing This section reviewed some of the information and documents that were important to the management and implementation of the Metro ExpressLanes Project, but were not covered by the previous sections. Project Partnering Approach In addition to the application of various processes and strategies in managing the construction of I-10 and I-110 HOT lanes, my review of the documents found that Metro ExpressLanes also adopted an emerging process that has been increasingly used in the construction industry for the past 30 years, called “project partnering” or in short “partnering”. As discussed in Section 2.2.4, adopting professionally facilitated project partnering is in fact mandated by the Division of Construction, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), on all Caltrans related projects with a total project budget greater than $10 million and 100 or more working days. My interview with the Executive Officer and the Project Partnering Facilitator revealed that ExpressLanes Project held regular partnering sessions to discuss challenges and recommended solutions from the beginning of the project execution through the end of the Project closing. Each partnering session was attended by the Metro ExpressLanes Project team members and stakeholders from Metro, Caltrans, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), Parson Brinckerhoff (PB, consultant), The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Metrolink, Atkinson Construction, AECOM (consultant), ACS (consultant), and Steiny Co (consultant). All members of the Project team agreed in writing 117 that they would commit to achieving the project goals of safety, quality, on time, within budget, effective communication, environmental compliance, and public acceptance. During the initial partnering session held on February 15, 2011 in Los Angeles, various challenges faced by the ExpressLanes Project were identified and corresponding solutions to each of the challenges were also proposed. Tables 11, 12 and 13 showed that each challenge had a corresponding recommended solution presented and each recommended solution had specific individual(s) or firm(s) assigned to be responsible for taking the actions to implement the recommended solution within a timeframe. For the purpose of this study, the name(s) of individual responsible for the recommended solutions were removed with a concern that I did not obtain individual consent to include their names on the tables. Tables 11 identified challenges and solutions related to the safety and quality of the project. 118 Table 11: Challenges and Recommended Solutions Related to Safety and Quality Project Source: Metro ExpressLanes Project Initial Partnering Session Report 119 Table 12 identified challenges and solutions related to environmental compliance, public acceptance of the project. Table 12: Challenges and Recommended Solutions Related to Environmental Compliance and Public Acceptance Source: Metro ExpressLanes Project Initial Partnering Session Report 120 Table 13 identified challenges and solutions related to the completion of the project within budget and on time. Table 13: Challenges and Recommended Solutions Related to the Completion of Project within Budget and on Time Source: Metro ExpressLanes Project Initial Partnering Session Report As discussed earlier, the partnering sessions was planned to facilitate the achievement of the ExpressLanes Project goals of safety, quality, on time, within budget, effective communication, environmental compliance, and public acceptance. On the closeout partnering session held on December 12, 2012, the project team, including 15 members from Metro, 9 from prime and subcontractors, and 5 from Caltrans, was asked to complete the evaluation based on the rating scale of 4.0=A (Excellent/Strong Agree), 3.0=B 121 (Good/Agree), 2.0 (Fair/Disagree), and 0.0=F (Poor/Strong Disagree) regarding the impact of partnering sessions on facilitating the achievement of the Metro ExpressLanes Project goals. Table 14 shows the result of partnering goals evaluation. The result showed that the ratings were approximately between 2.6 to 3.7. Table 14: Metro ExpressLanes Project Partnering Goals Evaluation Source: 2014 Caltrans Excellence in Partnering Award Application Based on Table 14, it appeared that the partnering sessions had greatly helped facilitate the achievement of the goals of safety (rating: 3.2 – 3.7), effective communication (rating: 3.3 – 3.7), environmental compliance (rating: 3.0 – 3.6), and public acceptance (3.2 – 3.4). However, for helping to achieve the goals of quality and on time performance, partnering sessions seemed playing a less effective role. The control of these two elements may be found to be more effective by a fixed priced DBOM contract as discussed in Section 4.3. 122 ExpressLanes Project Completion The construction of 1-110 ExpressLanes was completed and started toll revenue operations on November 10, 2012 and the I-10 ExpressLanes was completed and started toll revenue operations on February 23, 2013. Table 15 showed the Project completion status corresponding to each funding agreement. Table 15: Funding Agreements and Project Completion Status Source: Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report, June 2013 123 Table 15: Funding Agreements and Project Completion Status (Continued) Source: Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report, June 2013 124 Public Outreach and Media Coverage As discussed in Section 2.2.2, one of the challenges that a public project may encounter is the conflict and contentious opinions about the project. The challenges of public resistance to Metro ExpressLanes, media negative coverage, calls from constituents, anger with the project failure, etc. were specifically identified during the initial partnering session, see Table 12. My review of metro website (metro.net) and project documents found that since the inception of the project in 2008, the project team had taken various actions to cope with the challenges of public acceptance. For example, the team committed to an engaging public outreach process to have regular meetings with stakeholders and make presentations to the public and communities impacted by the project. Metro website showed the project team held 250 public outreach meetings from 2008 through the end of 2011, see Figure 15, and conducted many Corridor Advisory Group (CAG) meetings during 2008 to 2012, see Figure 16. 125 Figure 15: Metro ExpressLanes Public Outreach Meetings and Presentations Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/past-meetings/ 126 Figure 16: Metro ExpressLanes Corridor Advisory Group (CAG) Meetings Source: http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/cag-agendas/ 127 To help develop strategies to promptly address public and media concerns, the project team also kept tracking and maintained major media articles related to the management and implementation of I-10 and I-110 HOT lanes conversions since the early stage of the origination to the completion of the Project. Table 16 shows sampled media articles published at the project early stage. Table 17 shows sampled media articles published at the project completion stage. Table 16: Sampled Media Articles Published at Project Early Stage Source: ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report 128 Table 17: Sampled Media Articles Published at Project Completion Stage Source: ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report 129 List of Awards Metro ExpressLanes Project Received Based on my interview with Caltrans Project Manager, Project Partnering Consultant, and Executive Officer of the Project, after the construction of ExpressLanes was completed, ExpressLanes Project team have received ten prestigious awards from various professional organizations and government agencies including Automobile Club of Southern California, International Partnering Institute (IPI), California Transportation Foundation, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), International Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS), American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and Construction Management Association of American (CMAA). Table 18 is the list of awards Metro ExpressLanes Project received. Table 18: List of Awards Metro ExpressLanes Project Received Source: Executive Officer, Metro ExpressLanes Project Item Name of Award Awarded By Award Recipient Year 1 Outstanding New AAA Discount Partner Automobile Club of Southern California Metro 2013 2 Partnering Award - Ruby International Partnering Institute (IPI) Metro & Team 2013 3 Operations Efficiency Program of the Year California Transportation Foundation Metro & Team 2013 4 Excellence in Transportation Caltrans, District 7 Metro & Team 2013 5 Engineering Achievement Award American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) - LA Chapter Metro 2013 6 Innovative Transportation Award Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS) - LA Chapter Metro 2013 7 Adwheel 1 st Place – Billboard Advertising American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Metro 2013 8 Engineering Excellence Award American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) - LA Chapter PB & Metro 2014 9 Transportation Project of the Year ($50-$100 M) Construction Management Assocation of American (CMAA) - Southern California Chapter Stantec & Metro 2014 10 Excellence in Partnering - Gold Caltrans, Headquarters Metro & Team 2014 130 Chronology of Metro ExpressLanes Project Events Metro ExpressLanes Project team also kept tracking key events related to the Project since the origination till the completion. Table 19 shows the key events occurred from April 24, 2008 to February 23, 2013. Table 19: Metro ExpressLanes Chronology of Events Source: Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report, June 2013 131 Table 19: Metro ExpressLanes Chronology of Events (Continued) Source: Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Report, June 2013 132 4.6 Summary of Critical Analyses on Key Documents Reviewed Sections 4.1 through 4.5 discusses my review of the selected ExpressLanes Project existing documents and data that were organized according to the five project management processes: project origination, planning, execution, monitoring and controlling, and closing. It is important to know that my review of the documents should not be interpreted as an audit since I only applied very limited procedures such as reading, inquiry, comparison, and other analytical methods in my review. In other words, my review of the documents did not include certain audit procedures that might provide readers more confidence in the data reliability such as tracing the data to the source documents or confirming the information with the third parties that were involved in the process because performing such audit procedures were beyond the scope of this study. The following is the summary of my critical analyses and observations based on my review: Project Origination. Based on Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide, “Every government project begins with an origination phase” (PMI, 2006, p. 14). In this phase, one of the most important activities is to prepare an origination document for the purpose of obtaining funding for the public project. My review found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by and among the USDOT, Caltrans, and Metro in April 2008 appeared to have legally secured the federal grant of $210 million to initiate the Metro ExpressLanes Project. While the provision that required Metro to return the $210 million to USDOT if Metro failed to comply with any provisions in the MOU placed a significant pressure on the project, it might be interpreted as 133 the tough but effective provision to help stimulate project managers and team members to implement the project on time and within budget to avoid the already awarded fund from returning to the USDOT. Planning of the Project. One of the most important processes in project management is planning, which defines the basis of all project work and outlines the inputs, tools and techniques, and outputs needed to accomplish each of the project work at a high level. Metro developed a draft Program Management Plan (PMP) for the ExpressLanes during the early stage of the project. However, according to Metro internal audit in 2009, the draft PMP was missing many elements critical to successfully guide the management and implementation of the project. After the audit, the new project management team began to take actions with adaptive project management strategies to address audit findings and revise the PMP. My examination of the revised PMP found that it had adapted to include many project management processes under the nine project management knowledge areas advocated in PMBOK ® Guide: integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resource, communication, risk, and procurement. Specifically, the revised PMP had addressed one of the most important practices: project human resource management, in which the revised PMP not only defined the higher level organization of the Congestion Reduction Program such as Metro Board of Directors, but also established the integrated management team of the ExpressLanes Project that 134 comprised of leaders and professionals with various disciplines in the construction project management. According to literature, although adopting PMBOK ® Guide has been recognized as one of best practices in the project management industry, application of best practices including PMBOK ® Guide arguably cannot guaranty the success of the management and implementation of a project because the size and complexity of each project are difference. My review of the revised PMP and the positive outcome of the Metro ExpressLanes Project provided me the evidence that applying best practices with adaptive strategies would help increase the likelihood of project management success. Project Execution. Through competitively bidding, a DBOM (Design, Build, Operate & Maintain) contract was awarded to Atkinson Contractors, LP on December 16, 2010 to execute the conversion of I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes to HOT lanes as well as the operation and maintenance of the ExpressLanes after the project was completed. Metro selected a firm fixed price for this DBOM contract. Under a fixed priced contract, a contractor is fully responsible for the costs and the profit or loss in a project (adapted from GSA, 2005, FAR Subpart 16.1). Therefore, the outcome that Metro ExpressLanes had been completed within a budget might be attributed to the fact that Metro had utilized the fixed priced contract method to procure the construction of the ExpressLanes. However, it is important to know that using a fixed priced contract is not without a pitfall because a project owner may run into a risk of receiving products or services with 135 substandard quality resulting from the contractor’s substitution of equipments, property, facilities, and services with the quality that has been agreed by both parties. To determine whether and how Metro mitigate this risk, I performed a detailed examination of the contract provisions and found that Metro had included special provisions, e.g. SP-58, SP-59, and SP-60, in the contract that allowed Metro to audit and inspect the materials, parts, and services after the project was completed or the services were delivered. With these special provisions, I believe that the likelihood of the contractor’s violation of contract terms including the quality provision would be greatly reduced because Metro could reject any equipments, property, facilities, and services if the audits and inspections found that the qualities were not in compliance with the contract specifications. In addition, Metro could deduct any amount due if the audits and inspections determined to do so. My further examination also found that the DBOM contract identified key personnel in the project and defined scope of work with deadlines to complete according the each milestone of breakdown tasks and the entire contract work. The inclusion of these key processes helped facilitate the completion of the project on time and within budget. Project Monitoring and Controlling. To ensure each task and entire project are completed as planned, it is crucial that the monitoring and controls of various project processes and activities are in place. My review of the project documents found that ExpressLanes had utilized various project management tools to monitor and control the project progress, e.g. master schedule to outline the start and finish dates of each task; cost report to show the adopted budget, 136 forecast, commitment, expenditures and variance for each project; risk register to list possible threats and the method to mitigate; monthly and quarterly project status reports to show six- month look-ahead key milestone schedule and keep tracking each task on the project critical paths by providing narrative. In addition, Metro adopted the emerging process of “partnering” throughout the entire project implementation process to help identify the challenges and corresponding solutions to achieve the project goals of safety, quality, on time, within budget, effective communication, environmental compliance, and public acceptance. According to the partnering goals evaluations completed by the partnering session participants from Metro, Caltrans, and the project contractor, the partnering sessions appeared to greatly facilitate the achievement of the goals of safety, effective communication, environmental compliance, and public acceptance. However, for helping to achieve the goals of project quality and on time performance, partnering sessions seemed to have played a less important role because the achievement of these two goals might have been well controlled by the fixed priced DBOM contract. Project Completion. My examination of project documents found that the construction of 1-110 ExpressLanes was completed and started toll revenue operations on November 10, 2012 and the I-10 ExpressLanes was completed and started toll revenue operations on February 23, 2013 under the leadership of Metro ExpressLanes Project and entire project team members. Therefore, Metro effectively utilized the $210 million federal 137 grant to help improve the congestions in the Los Angeles County and the threat that the $210 million would be returned to the funding agency USDOT no longer existed. In conclusion, my examination of existing Metro ExpressLanes document and data found that Metro ExpressLanes Project team had adopted many best practices of tools and strategies advocated by leading project management literature including PMBOK ® Guide and Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide published by the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the management and implementation of the construction of I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes. In certain project management processes, the Project team appeared to have done superior jobs evidenced by many awards the Project team received after the Project was completed. 138 CHAPTER 5 COLLECTION AND ANALYSES OF SURVEY RESPONSES According to Section 3.5, the survey on Metro ExpressLanes Project Management served as the purpose of gathering the primary data aiming at answering my two research questions: (1) What were the challenges unique to the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? (2) Which of the practices of techniques and practices adopted by the Metro ExpressLanes Project were perceived as most critical factors to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? The survey was developed with 26 questions in five sections that were transferred into a theme format provided by SurveyMonkey, see Appendix B. While SurveyMonkey provides several ways to send survey and collect responses electronically to the targeted survey recipients, I chose the “Email Imitation Collector” method because it would allow me to add a list of my targeted 40 emails into SurveyMonkey on a incremental basis and send a unique survey link to my respondents through an email message, see Appendix A, delivered by SurveyMonkey email server. The “Email Imitation Collector” method also helped me to keep tracking the status of the responses after the survey was sent. This feature was important because it allowed me to view who had responded, who had not, and who opted out from my survey. Then I could send out a timely reminder to the not-yet responded survey recipients to remind them to take my survey. 139 I sent out the first set of 36 survey instruments on March 11, 2014 and the second set of 4 survey instruments on March 12, 2014 after I verified the correctness of the email addresses that were returned to me when I sent out a pre-notification letters. During the course of this survey, I sent out five survey reminders as shown in Figure 17. Figure 17: Screenshot of Survey and Reminders Sent Source: https://www.surveymonkey.com/MyCollector_MessageMgr.aspx?... Although I requested survey recipients to take the survey within a week after they received my survey link, it took about three weeks before I received all 40 responses. The last response I received was on March 30, 2014 because the respondent took the survey after returning from a business trip. 140 The following sections discussed my analyses and the interpretations of the survey responses I received. 5.1 Respondents’ Involvement in Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Question1 of the survey was designed to determine a respondent’s involvement in Metro ExpressLanes Project, in which any respondents who did not participate in the process of the construction of Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes were filtered out from taking the survey. Of 40 responses I received, only one respondent indicated “No” to survey Question 1 and 39 respondents responded with “Yes” to the Question 1 regarding respondents’ participation in any part of initiating, planning, execution, monitoring, or closing of the construction of Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes. After filtering out one respondent who was not qualified to take the survey, Question 2 was designed to ask the qualified survey takers to indicate their roles in Metro ExpressLanes Project. I also provided an open option that allowed the respondents to type in their roles if their roles were not listed. Figure 18 shows the result of respondents’ responses in terms of their roles in management or implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project. The result helped me to determine the qualifications and credentials of the respondents who took the survey. 141 Figure 18: Respondents’ Roles in Metro ExpressLanes Project Source: Based on Raw Data of Survey Responses, Question 2, Appendix C The survey disclosed that 14 respondents (36%) were project management team members, 9 respondents (23%) were staff of project partner organizations, 9 respondents (23%) were staff of project prime contractor or consultant, 8 respondents (21%) were officer/staff of a government agency, 8 respondents (20%) were officer/staff of Metro management and administration, 4 respondents (10%) were officer/staff of project funding 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Respondents' Role in Metro ExpressLanes Project Management 142 agency, and 4 respondents (10%) indicated they also played an role as DBOM team member, consultant to Metro on the project, Metro program management consultant, project executive for s subcontractor, Caltrans Senior Engineer, resident engineer, program manager, and program management team. Due to the fact that Metro ExpressLanes Project was a joint effort that had involved multiple parties from various organizations and entities, some respondents might have assumed more than one role in this project. Thus, the percentage and number of responses might not necessarily be added up to 100% or 39 responses in terms of answers to indicate their roles. The result indicated to me that all respondents had participate in at least some processes of initiating, planning, execution, monitoring, or closing of the construction of Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes. Therefore, their opinions provided in the survey should, to a great extent, reflect their true perceptions on issues occurred and practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project. 5.2 Overall Assessment of Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Question 3 of the survey was designed to seek respondents’ overall assessment of ExpressLanes Project Management. In particular, the survey asked the respondents to provide their rating on how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement: “The project management practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project facilitated the processes of initiation, planning, execution, monitoring, and closing of the construction of Los Angeles I- 10 and I-110 ExpressLanes under the quality, time, budget, and other constraints”. Figure 143 19 showed the result of respondents’ overall assessment of Metro ExpressLanes project management. Figure 19: Overall Assessment of Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Source: Based on Raw Data of Survey Responses, Question 3, Appendix C Figure 19 showed that of the 39 respondents took the survey, 25 respondents (64%) rated “Strongly agree” with the statement, 11 respondents (28%) rated “Agree”, 2 respondents (5%) rated “Neutral”, and 1 respondent (3%) rated “Strongly disagree”. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree The Practices Adopted by ExpressLanes Project Facilitated the Construction of ExpressLanes under the Quality, Time, Budget, and other Constraints 144 The average rating for this question is 4.51 as shown in Appendix C, Question 3. Per discussion in Section 3.5, “Strongly disagree” carries a rating value of 1, “Disagree” carries 2, “Neutral” carries 3, “Agree” carries 4, and “Strongly agree” carries 5. Therefore, the average rating of 4.51 can be interpreted that a large majority (92%) of the respondents agree or strongly agree on the statement that project management practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes helped facilitate the construction of I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes under the quality, time, budget, and other constraints. 5.3 Challenges Unique to Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Questions 4 through 12 of the survey were designed to ask the respondents to provide their rating on how strongly they agree or disagree with the statements of nine issues often discussed in the literature as challenges unique to a public project management. Some of these issues identified were also based on my review of the secondary data sources: Metro ExpressLanes Project existing documents. All 39 respondents provided their ratings on Questions 4 through 12 as shown Figure 20. As discussed in section 3.5, on an interval level of 1-to-5 Likert rating scale, 1 represents respondents’ attitude of “Strongly disagree” with a survey statement, 2 represents “Disagree”, 3 represents “Neutral”, 4 represents “Agree”, 5 represents “Strongly agree”, and 0 (no value) represents “Don’t know/No opinion” attitude. Values of 4 and above indicate respondents’ more favorable attitude towards a survey statement. 145 Figure 20: Challenges Unique to Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Source: Based on Raw Data of Survey Responses, Questions 4-12, Appendix C. Figure 20 showed that the average ratings from the responses on the issues of challenges were all above 3 (“Neutral”) except Question 6 with a 2.89 value. This indicates to me that the respondents did perceive the issues listed in Questions 4 through 12 as the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average Rating Strong diagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5) Don't know / No opinion (0) Ratings on Challenges Unique to Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Number of Responses 146 challenges unique to the Metro ExpressLanes Project with the exception of Question 6 that indicates the project had conflicting goals to achieve. The mean score of average rating on the challenges is 4.12 as shown in Table 20, which may be interpreted that the nine items listed were indeed perceived by the respondents as really unique to the management and implementation of the project. Table 20: Mean Score of Average Ratings on Challenges Unique to Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Source: Based on Raw Data of Survey Responses, Questions 4-12, Appendix C. Of the nine issues of challenges identified and listed, five issues were ranked with higher average ratings between 4.40 and 4.82 by the respondents, see Table 20. The result of Issues of Challenges Average Rating Strong diagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5) Don't know / No opinion (0) Total Responses Q4. The Project had a limited budget. 3.72 2 4 7 12 11 3 39 Q5. The Project had implementation deadlines. 4.82 7 32 39 Q6. The Project had conflicting goals to achieve. 2.89 3 13 10 5 5 3 39 Q7. The Project involved multiple stakeholders with different interests. 4.47 3 1 9 25 1 39 Q8. The Project was under political and media scrutiny. 4.68 1 9 28 1 39 Q9. The hiring of staff or workers for the Project was subject to union or civil-service protections. 3.56 1 4 6 8 6 14 39 Q10. The Project was required to adhere to public ethics, administrative rules, laws, and regulations. 4.58 15 21 3 39 Q11. The Project was implemented under an overlapping oversight structure from federal, state, regional, and local governments. 4.40 1 1 16 17 4 39 Q12. The outcomes of the Project management depended on the performance and cooperation of organizations outside of the Project team. 3.92 1 5 3 16 13 1 39 Mean Score of Average Rating (Q4-Q12): 4.12 147 responses shows that the respondents perceived that the issues of project deadlines, political and media scrutiny, adhering to public ethics and laws and regulations, involving multiple stakeholders, and implementing under an overlapping oversight structure of governments were very challenging to Metro ExpressLanes Project. The following discusses these four challenges that also appeared to be obstacles confirmed or evidenced by my examination of Metro existing documents and records, see Chapter 4 for more details. Project Implementation Deadlines Based on the origination document of Metro ExpressLanes Project – Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) discussed on Chapter 4, the construction of I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes did have a deadline to meet. In other words, the funding of $210 million from the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) was subject to the condition that the conversion of I-10 and I-110 HOV lanes to HOT lanes had to be completed and in revenue operation by December 31, 2010 with the exception that the DOT agreed to grant an extended completion date in the event of a delay due to circumstances beyond the control of the Partner agencies. According to my review of Metro ExpressLanes Quarterly Project Status Reports, due to the unexpected issues occurred relating the survey and starting control points for the performance of the striping of the general purpose lanes, fiber optic cable installation, and other related problems, Metro ExpressLanes Project team negotiated with DOT to extend the opening of the I-1I0 HOT lanes on November 10, 2012 and I-10 HOT lanes on February 23, 2013. 148 Project under Political and Media Scrutiny This challenge was specifically identified by Metro ExpressLanes Project team during the initial partnering session held on February 15, 2011. During the partnering session, project team members from Metro, Caltrans, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), Parson Brinckerhoff (PB, consultant), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Metrolink, Atkinson Construction, AECOM (consultant), ACS (consultant), and Steiny Co (consultant) identified seven issues related to the this challenge: (1) public perception/resistance to change, (2) media negative coverage, (3) political challenge encountered by calls from constituents, (4) public anger with project failure that would lead to congestion in HOV lanes, (5) distribution of toll tag (or transponder), (6) message on the toll signs, and (7) multiple languages. The fact of this challenge was also evidenced by extensive media article coverage since the inception through the completion of the project as discussed in Section 4.5 and shown in Tables 18 and 19. After the Project was completed and in revenue operation to collect tolls, ExpressLanes continued to receive extensive media coverage from Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Business Journal, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, KCET, The Transit Coalition Newsletter,… to name a few. 149 Project to Adhere to Public Ethics, Administrative Rules, Laws, and Regulations Since the implementation of Metro ExpressLanes was initiated by one of the Metro Board members as Senate Bill 1422 State Tolling Authority Legislation that was approved by Governor on September 28, 2008, the performance of the ExpressLanes project had to be strictly adhere to the Bill. In addition, due to the fact that ExpressLanes Project received public funding of $210 million from the United States Department of Transportation, the Project team were required to follow public ethics and administrative rules to be accountable for the money they spent. Furthermore, since Metro ExpressLanes was a construction project, the design, review, and approval of the construction were required to be in compliance with environmental laws. Project involving Multiple Stakeholders with Different Interests Metro ExpressLanes had many stakeholders with different interests in the Project. The stakeholders include the funding agency the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Metro, Caltrans, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), Parson Brinckerhoff (PB, consultant), Metrolink, Atkinson Construction, AECOM (consultant), ACS (consultant), Steiny Co (consultant), local transit operators, communities, businesses, suppliers, transit riders, and drivers, etc… Project Implemented under an Overlapping Oversight Structure The management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes were overseen by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), California Department of Transportation 150 (Caltrans), Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and Metro Board of Directors. The following four of nine issues were ranked with lower average ratings between 2.89 and 3.92 by the respondents: Q12. The outcomes of the Project management depended on the performance and cooperation of organizations outside of the Project team (rated 3.92). Q4. The Project had a limited budget (rated 3.72). Q9. The hiring of staff or workers for the Project was subject to union or civil-service protections (rated 3.56). Q6. The Project had conflicting goals to achieve (rated 2.89) The lower ratings of the above four challenges may be interpreted as they might be problems commonly found in a public project management but might not be issues unique to management and implementation of the ExpressLanes Project. 151 5.4 Project Management Practices Adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Section 4 was designed to obtain respondents’ viewpoints on project management practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes. The techniques and strategies listed on survey Questions 13 through 25 were based on my review of leading project management literature including PMBOK ® Guide and Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide as good practices applicable to most public projects. Some of the techniques and strategies identified were also based on my review of the secondary data sources: Metro ExpressLanes Project existing documents. All 39 respondents provided their ratings on Questions 13 through 25, see Table 21 and Figure 22. As discussed in section 3.5, on an interval level of 1-to-5 Likert rating scale, 1 represents respondents’ attitude of “Strongly disagree” with a survey statement, 2 represents “Disagree”, 3 represents “Neutral”, 4 represents “Agree”, 5 represents “Strongly agree”, and 0 (no value) represents “Don’t know/No opinion” attitude. Values of 4 and above indicate respondents’ more favorable attitude towards a survey statement. Table 21 shows that the average ratings from the responses on the 13 techniques and strategies Metro ExpressLanes adopted (Q13-Q25) were between 3.94 (closed to “Agree”) and 4.76 (closed to “Strongly agree”), and the mean score of the average ratings was 4.44. Thus, the result appeared to me that on average, the respondents perceived the techniques and strategies adopted by Metro ExpressLanes were good practices. 152 Table 21: Mean Score of Average Ratings on Techniques and Strategies Adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project Source: Based on Raw Data of Survey Responses, Questions 13-25, Appendix C. Techniques and Strategies Adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project Average Rating Strong diagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5) Don't know / No opinion (0) Total Responses Q13. A preliminary plan with a feasibility study was developed for the Project. 4.31 1 2 13 13 9 38 Q14. A project management plan (PMP) including the objectives of the Project and guidelines for the development and implementation of the Project was adopted. 4.33 1 19 13 6 39 Q15. A Project team with qualified and committed project leaders was established. 4.76 9 29 1 39 Q16. Data and documentation of goals, objectives, and other requirements of the Project were properly collected and maintained. 4.41 1 1 18 19 39 Q17. The scope of work with specified delivery due dates was well-defined. 4.56 1 15 23 39 Q18. “Partnering” as a form of collaborative approaches was adopted throughout the Project management and implementation process. 4.62 14 23 2 39 Q19. Risk management and monitoring plans were developed for the Project. 4.38 2 17 15 5 39 Q20. Proper procurement and contracting methods were used for the Project. 4.54 16 19 4 39 Q21. Qualified and committed contractors and consultants were hired. 4.70 11 26 2 39 Q22. Project stakeholders were adequately identified and informed of the Project progress and status. 4.53 17 19 3 39 Q23. Internal controls to monitor the quality and costs of the Project were in place. 4.33 1 2 17 16 3 39 Q24. Change orders of the Project were adequately integrated and controlled. 4.24 2 3 13 15 6 39 Q25. Each task and the entire construction phase of Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes were closed or completed on time and within budget. 3.94 1 3 4 14 11 6 39 Mean Score of Average Rating (Q13-Q25): 4.44 153 Figure 21: Rating on Techniques and Strategies Adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project Source: Based on Raw Date from Survey Responses, Questions 13-25, Appendix C This chapter focused on presenting the survey result as well as a brief analysis and interpretation based on the responses received. Next chapter discussed research findings and conclusions according to the three phases of work performed aiming at answering my two research questions. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average Rating Strong diagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5) Don't know / No opinion (0) Number of Responses Ratings on Techniques and Strategies Adopted by Metro ExpreeLanes Project 154 5.5 Key Factors Critical to Facilitating Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Section 5.2 presented the survey result that over 92% of the responses perceived the project management practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project facilitated the construction of Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes under the quality, time, budget, and other constraints. Section 5.4 showed that all respondents perceived the list of 13 techniques and strategies adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project were good practices. Question 26 of the survey was designed to gauge respondents’ opinions on key factors critical to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes on I-10 and I-110 in Los Angeles County. This question also provided a space to allow respondents to write in if the factors they believed to be critical are not listed there. Although the question was to ask respondents to select three out of 13 factors that they believe to be most critical, my analysis of all responses in elaborating my review of Metro ExpressLanes existing documents supported my observations that the five factors ranked on the top of the list should be perceived as the most critical factors to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project:  Establish a project team with qualified and committed leaders;  Hire qualified and committed contractors and consultants;  Define scope of work with specified delivery due dates;  Adopt “partnering” collaborating approaches; and  Adopt a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP). Table 22 and Figure 22 showed the result of the survey. 155 Table 22: Key Factors Critical to Facilitating Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Source: Based on Raw Data of Survey Reponses, Question 26, Appendix C To help visualize the practical significance on respondents’ selection of key factors critical to facilitating the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project, I generated Figure 22 based on raw data of survey responses, Question 26, Appendix C. Factors Facilitating Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Percentage of Responses Number of Responses ● Establish a project team with qualified and committed leaders. 82% 32 ● Hire qualified and committed contractors and consultants. 49% 19 ● Define scope of work with specified delivery due dates. 44% 17 ● Adopt “partnering” collaborating approaches. 31% 12 ● Adopt a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP). 26% 10 ● Identify project stakeholders and keep them informed of project status. 21% 8 ● Establish internal controls to monitor project quality and costs. 13% 5 ● Prepare a preliminary plan with a feasibility study. 10% 4 ● Develop project risk management plans. 8% 3 ● Close each task and entire phase of the project on time and within budget. 8% 3 ● Other – There were more than 3 that were integral to the success of the project; Joint Project Office; Implement a comprehensive safety program; Open communication at all times. 5% 2 ● Collect and maintain project data and document. 3% 1 ● Select proper procurement and contracting methods. 3% 1 ● Integrate and control change orders. 3% 1 156 Figure 22: Respondents Selection of Key Factors Critical to Facilitating Metro ExpressLanes Project Management and Implementation Source: Based on Raw Data of Survey Responses, Question 26, Appendix C 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% Key Factors Critical to Metro ExpreeLanes Project Management 157 5.6 Post-Survey Interviews and Email Feedbacks To assess whether the result of this research could serve as lessons learned for other public projects, post-survey interviews and emails seeking feedbacks on survey result were carried out among sampled survey respondents. While most feedbacks indicated that the survey result was consistent among most if not all public mega projects, one interviewee pointed out that in addition to the challenges identified in this research, Metro ExpressLanes Project encountered another unprecedented challenge that there were no or few prior lessons for the project team to draw or learn because the project was not only the very first public project to implement the tolling technology in the Los Angeles County, but also one of the first six federal funded HOT lane conversion projects in the United States. For the top five rated strategies selected by the survey respondents for questions related to factors perceived to be critical to facilitating the project management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project: (1) established a project team with qualified and committed leaders; (2) hired qualified and committed contractors and consultants; (3) defined scope of work with specified delivery due dates; (4) adopted “partnering” collaborating approaches; and (5) developed a comprehensive project management plan, one feedback indicated, “the adoption of a Project Management Plan (Item 5) is only required on the largest of our capital projects”. Overall, almost all feedbacks agreed that the top rated strategies adopted by ExpressLanes project team may serve as lessons learned for future similar public projects. 158 CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Metro ExpressLanes Project was not only one of the first six Congestion Reduction Demonstration Programs to receive federal funding to convert existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes to implement congestion pricing strategy in the United States, but also one of about 200 capital projects undertaken by Metro for the past few years. Like many public projects, Metro ExpressLanes encountered numerous challenges. In the early stage of the implementation, the completion of the project was estimated to be one year in delay. However, it was eventually completed within the approved timeframe, budget, and other constraints. Given the high project failure rate of 60% or more found in many large construction projects (Flyvbjerg, et al., 2009; KPMG, 2013; & Kusek et al., 2013) and the unique burden that Metro was required to return the grant received to the federal if the funding requirements were not met, the objective of this research was to determine how the project team overcame various obstacles and completed the project within the constraints. To achieve the research objective, this research was framed to answer two questions: What were the challenges unique to the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? Which of the strategies adopted by the project team were perceived as the most critical factors to facilitating the implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? A survey aimed at answering the above two research questions with nine challenges and thirteen strategies synthesized from literature review and analyses of Metro 159 ExpressLanes project documents was conducted among the survey participants who were involved in the implementation of the project. The result of the survey revealed that the top five rated challenges faced by Metro ExpressLanes Project are: specific deadlines to meet; under political and media scrutiny; required to adhere to various laws and regulations; involved in multiple stakeholders with different interest; implemented under an overlapping oversight structure. The top five rated strategies adopted by the project team are: established a project team with qualified and committed leaders; hired qualified and committed contractors and consultants; defined scope of work with specified delivery due dates; adopted “partnering” collaborating approaches; and developed a comprehensive project management plan. The following is the summary of survey findings and analyses. 6.1 Summary of Survey Findings and Analyses The result of the survey revealed the following five of the nine challenges were rated with the highest scores by survey respondents for questions related to the challenges confronted by Metro ExpressLanes Project: Challenge 1: The Project had implementation deadlines to meet. 82% of the survey respondents expressed that they strongly agreed and 18% of the respondents expressed that they agreed, “The Project had implementation deadlines to meet” was one of the challenges unique to the management and implementation of the Project. 160 My analyses of Metro ExpressLanes Project documents confirmed that this was one of the most challenges that the project team encountered in the management and implementation of this project because the funding agreement specified that if the deadlines of the project were not met, the funds awarded to the project were required to be paid back to the funding agency. According to the funding agreement of Metro ExpressLanes Project: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) discussed on Chapter 4, the construction of I-10 and I-110 ExpressLanes were required to be completed and in revenue operation by December 31, 2010 with the exception that the DOT would grant an extended completion date due to circumstances beyond the control of the Partner agencies for a guaranteed funding of $210 million from the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). During the initial partnering session held on February 15, 2011, project team members identified 15 obstacles that might delay the project completion deadlines: unknown underground utilities; issues related to design, review, and approval; toll points and signs; delivery of long lead items, developing the dynamic pricing algorithm; optimizing the vehicle speed detection system, testing and integration of the system; bottlenecks at termination points; construction execution options; FHWA approval; I-10 Metrolink interface; interface with Expo lines; control cabinet locations; and permits and licenses requirements. For each of the 15 challenges, the project team members developed corresponding recommended solution, such as defining schedule to finish by certain dates for identifying 161 measurement criteria, data collection, and output requirements, as shown on Table 13 to tackle the problems at the early stage of the project through the project partnering sessions. Challenge 2: The Project was under political and media scrutiny. 72 % of the respondents expressed that they strongly agreed and 23% of the respondents expressed that they agreed, “The Project was under political and media scrutiny” was another challenge unique to the management and implementation of the Project. My review of Metro ExpressLanes Project documents also supported that this was another unique challenge for the management and implementation of this project. The fact of this challenge was also evidenced by extensive media article coverage since the inception through the completion of the project as discussed in Section 4.5 and shown in Tables 16 and 17. After the Project was completed and in revenue operation to collect tolls, ExpressLanes continued to receive extensive media coverage from Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Business Journal, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, KCET, The Transit Coalition Newsletter,… to name a few. During the partnering session, project team members identified seven issues related to this challenge: (1) public perception/resistance to change, (2) media negative coverage, (3) political challenge encountered by calls from constituents, (4) public anger with project failure that would lead to congestion in HOV lanes, (5) distribution of toll tag (or transponder), (6) message on the toll signs, and (7) multiple languages. 162 To handle this challenge, the project team developed corresponding recommended solution to each of the issues as shown on Table 12, such as providing information campaign, and conducting regular briefings and rapid response to public and media, at the early stage of the project through the project partnering sessions. Challenge 3: The Project was required to adhere to ethics rules, laws, and regulations. 54% of the respondents expressed that they strongly agreed and 38% of the respondents expressed that they agreed, “The Project was required to adhere to public ethics, administrative rules, laws, and regulations” was another challenge unique to the management and implementation of the Project. My analyses of Metro ExpressLanes Project documents confirmed that this was also another unique challenge that the project faced because the implementation of Metro ExpressLanes was approved by Governor on September 28, 2008 as Senate Bill 1422 of State Tolling Authority Legislation, the performance of the ExpressLanes project had to be strictly adhering to the Bill. In addition, due to the fact that ExpressLanes Project received public funding of $210 million from the United States Department of Transportation, the project team were required to follow public ethics and administrative rules to be accountable for the money they spent. Furthermore, since Metro ExpressLanes was a construction project, the design, review, and approval of the construction were required to be in compliance with environmental laws, e.g. 163 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) reviews that could be time consuming and subject to various uncertainties. Challenge 4: The Project involved multiple stakeholders with different interests. 64 % of the respondents expressed that they strongly agreed and 23% of the respondents expressed that they agreed, “The Project involved multiple stakeholders with different interests” was another challenge unique to the management and implementation of the Project. My analyses of Metro ExpressLanes Project documents verified that this was also another unique challenge that the project faced. Metro ExpressLanes had many stakeholders with different and in some cases conflict interests in the project. The stakeholders included the funding agency the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Metro, Caltrans, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), Parson Brinckerhoff (PB, consultant), Metrolink, Atkinson Construction, AECOM (consultant), ACS (consultant), Steiny Co (consultant), local transit operators, communities, businesses, suppliers, transit riders, and drivers, etc… Challenge 5: The Project was implemented under an overlapping oversight structure. 44% of the respondents expressed that they strongly agreed and 41% of the respondents expressed that they agreed, “The Project was implemented under an overlapping oversight structure from federal, state, regional, and local governments” was another challenge unique to the management and implementation of the Project. 164 My analyses of Metro ExpressLanes Project documents confirmed this was also another unique challenge because the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes had been overseen by these overlapping oversight government agencies: United States Department of Transportation (DOT), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and Metro Board of Directors. The result of the survey also disclosed that the following five of the thirteen strategies synthesized from literature review and analyses of Metro ExpressLanes Project documents were rated with highest scores for questions related to factors perceived to be critical to facilitating the project management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes: Key factor 1: Establish a project team with qualified and committed leaders 82% of the respondents selected the above strategy as one of the key factors facilitating the management and implementation of Metro Expresslanes Project. My analyses of Metro ExpressLanes documents verified that this was the key factor that facilitated the completion of the project as planned. In particular, my review found that the project defined the higher level organization of Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) Program to be the Metro Board of Directors, which consists of 14 leaders of 5 Los Angeles County Supervisors, the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, 3 members appointed by the Mayor, 4 members appointed by the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee to represent the other 87 cities in the Los 165 Angeles County, and one non-voting member from Caltrans District Director. The Program Management Plan (PMP) established an integrated CRD Program team of members from Metro, Caltrans District 7, and various local transportation partners including the municipal transit operators, local jurisdictions, FTA, and FHWA. In addition, the PMP provided the framework for the staffing, reporting relationships, levels of authority and responsibility of the CRD Program. Further examination of the PMP found that the integrated management team of the CRD Program was comprised of leaders and professionals with various disciplines in construction project management. In particular, the integrated team equipped with key positions including Program Director; Project Manager of Toll Technology and Roadway Improvements; Project Quality Manager; Construction Safety Manager; Public Affairs Construction Support; Senior Contract Administrator; Project Control Manager; Caltrans Project Administrator; Deputy Project Manager, Construction; Resident Engineer; Third Party Administrator; Environmental Compliance and Services; Director of Quality Management; Manager of the Third Party Administration; Manager of Environmental Compliance and Services; Change Control Manager; Document Control Manager; and Community Relations Officer. Key factor 2: Hire qualified and committed contractors and consultants 49% of the respondents selected the above strategy as one of the key factors facilitating the management and implementation of Metro Expresslanes Project. The result 166 of my examination of the secondary data of Metro ExpressLanes documents and records supported this selection of strategy made by majority of the respondents in the survey. As discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, through the competitive bid, Metro utilized Design, Build, Operate & Maintain (DBOM) fixed priced contracting method to select Atkinson Contractors to execute the ExpressLanes Project. Among other provisions, the contract identified key personnel specifically assigned to different functions of the project. Since the qualifications and credentials of the key personnel were important to the success of the project, the contract specified that any changes in key personnel shall be in writing to secure prior written acceptance of Metro. The contract also indicated that the Contractor shall not reassign key personnel to other projects until a satisfactory replacement had been approved by Metro. Key factor 3: Define scope of work with specified delivery due dates 44% of the respondents selected the above strategy as one of the key factors facilitating the management and implementation of Metro Expresslanes Project. My review of the secondary data of Metro ExpressLanes documents and records found that the Project team had developed a Master Schedule covering four key projects of the LACRD Program, which included the construction of toll technology & infrastructure for the I-10 and I-110 Metro ExpressLanes; improvement of transit facility for Park & Ride Lot, station expansion, and maintenance of facility; and implementation of Express Park in downtown Los Angeles. The ExpressLanes Master Schedule shown on Table 6 appeared to have created according to the Critical Path Method (CPM) discussed in Section 2.1.2, which 167 identified the start and finish dates of various activities of the four projects under the LACRD Program. In addition to the Master Schedule, the each project team monitored and reported the project progress via “Key Milestone Schedule” through ExpressLanes monthly and quarterly project status reports as shown on Table 7 and Table 8. The Project team also kept tracking the tasks on the project critical paths by providing narrative on the quarterly project status report. Key factor 4: Adopt “partnering” collaborating approaches 31% of the respondents selected the above strategy as one of the key factors facilitating the management and implementation of Metro Expresslanes Project. My review of the secondary data of Metro ExpressLanes documents and records found that the project team adopted project partnering approach to keep project mismanagement, conflicts, disputes, or claims to minimum by identifying challenges and recommended solutions in each partnering session from the inception to the closing of the project. Based on the evaluations performed by the project stakeholders in the closeout partnering session held on December 12, 2012, the partnering sessions was rated to have greatly facilitate the achievement of Metro ExpressLanes project goals of safety, effective communication, environmental compliance, and public acceptance. However, for helping to achieve the goals of quality and on time performance, partnering sessions seemed playing a less effective role. The control of these two elements may be found to be more effective by a fixed priced DBOM contract as discussed in Section 4.3. 168 Key factor 5: Adopt a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) 26% of the respondents selected the above strategy as one of the key factors facilitating the management and implementation of Metro Expresslanes Project. My review of the documents support that the adoption of a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) was very important strategy because the 2009 internal audit of the project disclosed that part of the reasons that Metro ExpressLanes encountered a delay in the early stage was that the draft PMP was missing many key project management areas to provide an adequate guidance on the management and implementation of the project. After the audit, the PMP was revised to address audit concerns. My analyses of the revised LACRDP Program Management Plan (PMP) found that the PMP had covered the nine project management knowledge areas addressed in the PMBOK ® Guide and Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide although the methods and strategies discussed on the PMP may be organized differently from the PMBOK ® Guide. In particular, the issues of collecting requirements, defining scope, creating work breakdown structure, verifying scope, and controlling scope under project scope management of the PMBOK ® Guide are covered in Section 3 of the PMP related to the topics of project baselines, information and control systems, document control, and reporting. Defining and sequencing activities, estimating activities resources and duration, and developing and controlling schedule under project time management are summarized in the Expresslanes Master Schedule on Appendix G of the PMP. Estimating costs, determining budget, and 169 control costs under project cost management are itemized in the Expresslanes Cost Report and Funding Plan on Appendix H of the PMP. Defining quality and performing quality controls under project quality management are discussed in detail in Section 11 of the PMP on the topics of quality management objective, quality management program, design, procurement, and construction. Acquiring, developing, and managing project team under project human resources management are discussed in length in Section 2 of the PMP on the topics of program staffing levels, project orientation for new staff, program participants and organization, and project partners. Identifying stakeholders, planning communication, distributing information, managing stakeholders’ expectations, and reporting performance under project communication management are covered in Sections 9 and 13 of the PMP on the topics of cooperative and force account work agreement with public and private entities, interface with state and local governmental agencies, and community outreach and interface with media. Identifying, monitoring, and controlling risks under project risk management are addressed in Section 7 of the PMP on the topics of risk identification and management, control, allocation and mitigation of risks, site-derived risks, insurance program, and claim process. Planning, conducting, administering, and closing procurement under project procurement management are addressed in Section 4 of the PMP on the topics of general procurement policies, procurement procedures, evaluation and award policies, and contracting policies. 170 Other than the 13 factors that I pre-listed on the survey, four respondents wrote in other factors they believe to be critical too. One respondent stated a joint project office; another respondent said “implementation of a comprehensive safety program”; the third respondent indicated “all 13 factors apply plus open communication at all times”; and the fourth respondents emphasized that there were more than three factors that were integral to the success of the project. 6.2 Research Conclusions This research found 92% of the survey respondents rated either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the statement that the project management practices adopted by Metro ExpressLanes Project facilitated the construction of ExpressLanes under the quality, time, budget, and other constraints. The outcome of the survey responses for rating the challenges faced by Metro ExpressLanes Project and strategies adopted by the project team was found to be consistent with the result of my analyses of Metro ExpressLanes Project data and records. As discussed in more detail in prior section, this research revealed that the following five of the nine challenges synthesized from literature review and analyses of the project documents were rated with the highest scores by survey respondents for questions related to the unique challenges confronted by Metro ExpressLanes Project: 1. The project had specific deadlines to meet; 2. The project was under political and media scrutiny; 3. The project was required to adhere to various laws and regulations; 171 4. The project involved in multiple stakeholders with different interest; and 5. The project was implemented under an overlapping oversight structure. This research also disclosed that the following five of the thirteen strategies synthesized from literature review and analyses of the project documents were rated with the highest scores by the survey respondents for questions related to factors perceived to be critical to facilitating the project management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project: 1. Established a project team with qualified and committed leaders; 2. Hired qualified and committed contractors and consultants; 3. Defined scope of work with specified delivery due dates; 4. Adopted “partnering” collaborating approaches; and 5. Developed a comprehensive project management plan. Post-survey interviews and emails seeking feedbacks on survey result that were carried out among sampled survey respondents revealed that overall, almost all feedbacks agreed that the top rated strategies adopted by ExpressLanes project team may serve as lessons learned for future similar public projects. In conclusion, the result of this research supports the literature argument that a public project encounters unique challenges that a private project may rarely come across. Enhanced project management strategies such as the ones identified by this research will help facilitate the management and implementation of a public project. 172 Nevertheless, as discussed in Chapter 2, the application of any best practices should not be considered as a “one size fits all” solution to the management and implementation of a public project. An adaptive application of project management strategies base on uniqueness of each project will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of managing a public project. 6.3 Recommendation for Future Studies As discussed Chapter 1 and other sections throughout this project, the concept and practice of the management and implementation of HOT lane conversions are relatively new. Based on my research objective, this research was designed to seek opinions only from people directly involved in the processes of the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project. Thus, the result of this research may only reflect the perceptions from the project team leaders and members. Due to the fact that stakeholders of the Metro ExpressLanes Project contained many more people than the survey participants I identified such as board members, Metro management and staff, community members, and other officials of the partner agencies. Therefore, to have a comprehensive evaluation of the project management practices of a public project, I recommended that a future survey be designed to invite higher level of the organization such as board members and senior management officials as well as community members and other citizens that may be impacted by the project to participate in the survey. To this end, the survey can be designed to identify and compare the opinions from different groups of people who respond the survey. 173 Also, since Metro ExpressLanes is one of the six Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) projects in the United States, a bench marking research for project management practices adopted by other five CRD project teams may be performed to compare and determine best practices for the management and implementation of future HOT lane conversion projects. 174 REFERENCES Aguanno, K. (2002). Critical path: An extended definition. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.mmpubs.com/argunno Black, K. (1996). Causes of project failure: A survey of professional engineers. PM Network, November 1996: 21–24. Blake, J. (2002). Development of a project management methodology for state government. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, October 3-10, 2002. San Antonio, Texas, USA, Bredillet, C. N. (2008). Exploring research in project management: nine schools of project management research (part 6). Project Management Journal, 39(3), 2–5. Bresnen, M. & Marshall, N. (2000). Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 229–237. ---. (2002). The engineering or evolution of co-operation? A tale of two partnering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20 (2002) 497–505 Caltrans. [Construction Partnering Steering Committee (CCPSC)]. (2013). Field guide to partnering on Caltrans construction project. Sacramento, CA: Author. ---. (2014). Caltrans excellence in partnering award application. Los Angeles, CA: Author. 175 Cameron, B. G. & Pertuze, J. A. (2009). Disciplinary links between scientific management and strategy development. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from esd.mit.edu/wps/2009/esd-wp-2009-19.pdf Carayannis, E. G., Kwak, Y., & Anbari, F. T. (2005). The story of managing projects: an interdisciplinary approach. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers. Chen, C. & Varaiya, P. (2001). The freeway congestion paradox. PeMS Development Group. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from http://paleale.eecs.berkeley.edu/ ~varaiya/transp.html. Chandler (City of Chandler, Arizona). (2012). Project management methodology guidelines. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from www.chandleraz.gov/Content/ PM000PMMethodologyGDE.pdf Cowan, C., Gray, C., & Larson, E. (1992, December). Project partnering. Project Management Journal, XXII, 5–11. Dyer, S. (2007). The seven core competencies for partnering. Livermore, CA: OrgMetrics. Flyvbjerg, B., Garbuio, M., & Lovallo, D. (2009). Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects: Two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster. California Management Review, 51(2), Winter 2009, pp. 170–193. Fretty, P. (2006). Why do projects really fail? PM Network, March 2006: 46–48. Global Leadership Alliance. (2014). Partnering goals evaluation, project partnering progress. 2014 Caltrans Excellence in Partnering Award Application. Los Angeles, CA: Author. 176 Gul, S. (2012). On the developments in the last thirty years within project management: an overview and critical review. African Journal of Business Management, Retrieved October 9, 2012, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1991572 Heagney, J. (2011). Fundamentals of project management (4th ed.). New York: American Management Association. High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes. Cal. S. 1422 (2008). Holzer, M. (2010). Foreword. In D. S. Kassel, Managing public sector projects: A strategic framework for success in an era of downsized government (pp. xv-xvii). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Ireland, L. (2006). Project management: past, present, future. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from www.asapm.org/asapmag/articles/PrezSez7-28-06.pdf Kassel, D. S. (2010). Managing public sector projects: A strategic framework for success in an era of downsized government. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Kerzner, H. (2001). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (7th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ---. (2003). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (8th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. King, V. (1996). Constructing the team: A U. S. perspective. Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A. Kozak-Holland. (2012). The history of project management. Canada, Oshawa: Multi-Media Publications. KPMG International. (2013). Global construction survey 2013. Swiss: Author. 177 Kusek, J. Z, Prestidge, M. G. & Hamilton, B. C. (2013). Fail-safe management: Five rules to avoid project failure. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kwak, Y. H. (2003). Brief history of project management. In Carayannis, Kwak, & Anbari (Eds.), Chapter 2: The story of managing projects. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Larson, E. & Drexler, Jr., J. A (1997). Barriers to project partnering: Report from the firing line. Project Management Journal, 28(1) 46–52. Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the team: Final report of the government/industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK construction industry. Great Britain: Department of the Environment. London: HMSO. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research (8th ed.). Columbus: Pearson Education, Inc. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). (2009). Congestion reduction demonstration project management assessment. Los Angeles, CA: Author. ---. (2011). Metro ExpressLanes Program fact sheet. (April, 2011). Retrieved November 18, 2012, from http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/ ---. (2012). ExpressLanes quarterly project status report. (June, 2012). Retrieved November 18, 2012, from http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/ ---. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Law. Retrieved May 31, 2013, from http://mymetro.metro.net/LRestore/Documents/ DistrictCommissionAuthority.doc 178 ---. (2013). Adopted Budget FY2014. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://www.metro.net/about/financebudget/financial-information/ ---. (2013). Introduction to the LACMTA. Retrieved May 31, 2013, from http://intranet1.metro.net/dept/mtalibrary/about_the_lacmta/introduction to the lacmta.doc Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Reform Act of 1992, Cal. Assemb. B. 152 (1992). Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: Contracting, Cal. Assemb. B. 2755 (2009-2010). Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) & Atkinson Contractors. (2010). Metro ExpressLanes Project firm fixed price contract. Los Angeles, CA: Author. ---. (2011). Metro ExpressLanes Project initial partnering session report. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) & Caltrans. Congestion reduction demonstration program (CRDP): Program management plan, Revision 2. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Measure R. Traffic Relief and Rail Expansion Ordinance. Ordinance # 08-01. 179 Mitchell, S. M. (2002). Analyzing differences between public and private sector information resource management: Strategic chief information officer challenges and critical technologies. Unpublished master’s thesis. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Moore, C., Mosley, D., & Slagle, M. (1992). Partnering: Guidelines for win-win project management. Project Management Journal, VVIII (1), 18–21. Moore, C. C., Maas, J. D., & Shearer, R. A. (1995). Recognizing and responding to the vulnerabilities of partnering. PM Network, September 1995: 20–23. Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The management of projects (Expanded ed.). London: Thomas Telford. ---. (1998). Why project management doesn’t always make business sense. Project Management, 4(1): 12–16. Mule, M. & Susara, E. (2004). Project management evolution from a single project manager to global virtual enterprise project management office. Proceedings of the 2004 PMI Global Congress, Buenos Aries, Argentina. Olsen, R. P. (1971). Can project management be defined? Project Management Quarterly, 2(1), 12–14. Opfer, W. A. & Kloppenborg, T. J. (2001). A comparison of government and industry project management practices. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, November 1-10, 2001. Nashville, Tenn., USA 180 O’Rand, A. M. & Krecker, M. L. (1990). Concepts of the life cycle: Their history, meanings, and uses in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, pp. 241–262, Annual Reviews. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083270 Pinto, J. (1997). Twelve ways to get the least from yourself and your project. PM Network, May 1997: 29–31. Poister, T. H. & Slyke, D. M. V. (2002). Strategic management innovations in state transportation departments. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 58–74. Retrieved November 9, 2012, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3381298 Prabhakar, G. P. (2008a). Projects and their management: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 1–7. ---. (2008b). What is project success: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(9), 3–10. Prakash, V. (2014). 3 Things You Need to Know About Projects and Operations. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from http://www.pmchamp.com/3-things-you-need-to-know-about-projects-and-operations/ Project Management Institute (PMI). (2006). Government Extension to the PMBOK ® Guide (3 rd ed.). Newtown Square: Author. ---. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) (4 th ed.). Newtown Square: Author. ---. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) (5 th ed.). Newtown Square: Author. 181 Proposition A, Ordinance Establishing a Retail Transactions and Use Tax in the County of Los Angeles for Public Transit Purposes, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Admin. Code Title 3, 3-05 (1980). Proposition C, Ordinance Establishing an Additional Retail Transactions and Use Tax in the County of Los Angeles for Public Transit Purposes, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Admin. Code Title 3, Code Title 3 3-10 (1990). Ransome, L. S. (1995). Project manager responsibility for controlling government projects. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute 26 th Annual Seminar/Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 249–254. Robertson, S. & Williams, T. (2006). Understanding project failure: Using cognitive mapping in an insurance project. Project Management Journal, September 2006: 55–71. Rosenthal, L. et al. (2010). Los Angeles County Congestion Reduction Demonstration National Evaluation Plan. Columbus: Battelle Memorial Institute. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, Pub. L.109-59, §1604 (b) (2005). Shenhar, A. J. (2001). One size does not fit all project: exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394-414. Retrieved October 9, 2012, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2661507 182 Shenhar, A. J. & Dvir, D. (2004). Project management evolution: Past history and future research directions. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Research Conference 11-14 July 2004, London, UK. Simpson, J. (2001). Partnering. Kawneer White Paper 2001. London: Kawneer UK. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). (2011). 2011 Congestion Corridors Report. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://mobility.tamu.edu/corridors/ Trochim, W. M. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (2nd Ed). Retrieved August 8, 2013, from Internet WWW page, at URL: <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/> (version current as of October 20, 2006). United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2006). Report on the value pricing pilot program through April 2006. Washington, DC: Author. ---. (2010). Los Angeles County congestion reduction demonstration national evaluation plan. Publication No. FHWA-JPO-. Washington, DC: Author. ---. (2012). Los Angeles congestion reduction demonstration (Metro ExpressLanes) program, national evaluation: Tolling data test plan. Final Report – June 19, 2014, Publication Number FHWA-JPO-13-030. www.its.dot.gov/indx.htm ---. (2014). Design build operate maintain. June 15, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/defined/design_build_operate.aspx United States General Services Administration (GSA). (2005). Federal Acquisition Regulation. Volume I – Parts 1 to 51. Washington, DC: Author. Vassiliades, J. (2013). 2014 Caltrans excellence in partnering award application. 183 Verzuh, Eric. (2008). The fast forward MBA in project management (3rd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Weaver, P. (2007). A brief history of project management, is our profession 50 or 5000 years old? APM Project, 19 (11). Retrieved September 20, 2012, from http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/ Whitty, S. J. (2005). A memetic paradigm of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 575–583. Whitty, S. J. & Schulz, M. F. (2007). The impact of Puritan ideology on aspects of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 10–20. Wirick, D. W. (2009). Public-sector project management: Meeting the challenges and achieving results. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods (7th ed.). Mason: South-Western. 184 APPENDIXES 185 Appendix A: Survey Invitation Message To: [Email] From: "yvonnezh@usc.edu via surveymonkey.com" <member@surveymonkey.com> Subject: Survey on Metro ExpressLanes Project Management Dear Sir/Madam: We are conducting a study of the management and implementation of the Metro ExpressLanes Project that converted the Los Angeles I-10 and I-110 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. The conversions were completed for I-110 in 2012 and I-10 in 2013. As part of our study, we are conducting a survey of people who were involved in the planning and implementation of the Project. Through the assistance of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), we have obtained a list of people who may have been involved in the Project. You have been identified as a possible contact for the survey. We invite you to participate in the survey. It will take you approximately 10 minutes to complete. To take the survey, please click the link below: [SurveyLink] The survey data will be used only for the purpose of this study. All responses will remain anonymous. If you would like to receive the result of the survey, please contact us. Thank you very much in advance for your participation! Sincerely, Yvonne Zheng Candidate, Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development USC Sol Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Email: yvonnezh@usc.edu Tel: (626) 315-7153 Genevieve Giuliano, Ph.D. Director, METRANS Transportation Center Professor, USC Sol Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Email: giuliano@price.usc.edu Tel: (213) 740-3956 Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. [RemoveLink] 186 Appendix B: Survey Instrument 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Appendix C: Raw Data of Survey Responses 1 of 28 194 2 of 28 195 3 of 28 196 4 of 28 197 5 of 28 198 6 of 28 199 7 of 28 200 8 of 28 201 9 of 28 202 10 of 28 203 11 of 28 204 12 of 28 205 13 of 28 206 14 of 28 207 15 of 28 208 16 of 28 209 17 of 28 210 18 of 28 211 19 of 28 212 20 of 28 213 21 of 28 214 22 of 28 215 23 of 28 216 24 of 28 217 25 of 28 218 26 of 28 219 27 of 28 220 28 of 28

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Metro ExpressLanes Project was one of the first six Congestion Reduction Demonstration Programs to receive federal funding to convert existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in the United States. In the early stage of the construction, the completion of the project was estimated to be one year in delay. However, the project was eventually completed as planned. Given the high project failure rate of over 60% discussed in literature and the unique burden that Metro was required to return the grant to the federal if the specified requirements were not met, the objective of this research was to determine how the project team overcame various obstacles and completed the project within the constraints. ❧ To achieve the research objective, this research was framed to answer two questions: What were the challenges unique to the management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? Which of the strategies adopted by the project team were perceived as the most critical factors to facilitating the implementation of Metro ExpressLanes Project? ❧ A survey aimed at answering the two research questions with nine challenges and thirteen strategies synthesized from literature review and analyses of project documents was conducted among the survey participants who were involved in the implementation of the project. ❧ The result of the survey revealed that the top five rated challenges faced by Metro ExpressLanes Project were: had specific deadlines to meet

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Governing regional collaboratives: institutional design, management and leadership

PDF

Measuring the drivers of economic, energy, and environmental changes: an index decomposition analysis

PDF

The risks and rewards of city management: how city managers evaluate the nature of the job and compensation

PDF

Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications

PDF

Civic associations, local governance and conflict prevention in Indonesia

PDF

Active travel, outdoor leisure, and neighborhood environment: path analysis, Los Angeles County

PDF

Essays on fiscal outcomes of cities in California

PDF

Washington gold rush: the competition for congressional earmarks

PDF

Lessons from TAP implementation: obstacles and solutions to improve the transit users experience

PDF

China's environmental reform: ecological modernization, regulatory compliance, and institutional change

PDF

A study of Chinese environmental NGOs: policy advocacy, managerial networking, and leadership succession

PDF

Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...

PDF

The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society

PDF

The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases

PDF

Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

Three essays on the causes and consequences of China’s governance reforms

PDF

Essays on congestion, agglomeration, and urban spatial structure

PDF

Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty

PDF

The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning

PDF

Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...

Asset Metadata

Creator Zheng, Yvonne Guan (author)

Core Title Institutional analysis of factors critical to facilitating project management and implementation of Metro ExpressLanes

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 08/29/2014

Defense Date 07/30/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag HOT lane conversions,OAI-PMH Harvest,Project Management,project management practices,public project management

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Giuliano, Genevieve (committee chair), Tang, Shui Yan (committee member), Wiggins, Stephanie (committee member)

Creator Email yvonnezh@usc.edu,zhengstudio@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-465499

Unique identifier UC11287540

Identifier etd-ZhengYvonn-2865.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-465499 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZhengYvonn-2865.pdf

Dmrecord 465499

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Zheng, Yvonne Guan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA