A Firestorm Ignited: Pipeline Rupture in Clarke County

admin — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:06:00 GMT

Government, privatesector, and citizen stakeholders must collaborate to reduce pipeline risks.

On November 1, 2007, a twelve-inch liquid propane line ruptured in Clarke County, Mississippi. Over the next forty-eight hours, eleven thousand barrels of propane were released through a 636-foot-long split in the longitudinal seam. This propane vaporized, and the vapor cloud eventually ignited, causing a fire that resulted in the evacuation of 250 people from their homes and $2.1 million in property damage.

In 2006, the failed pipe was internally inspected within its legal time frame, and the cause of the failure remains unknown. The National Transportation Safety Board, Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and pipeline company continue to investigate. Clarke County, state, and federal officials want to know how this tragedy could have been prevented.

Pipelines are reportedly the safest means available to transport energy materials such as natural gas and petroleum that the United States critically needs. Transport by pipeline is safeguarded through many layers of protection designed to prevent and mitigate the consequences of pipeline incidents.

In rare occurrences, the layers of protection fail—as they did in Clarke County—having serious consequences. One woman, on oxygen and in poor health, lived in a trailer home less than twenty yards from the pipeline. When gas from the ruptured pipe filled her home and she was unable to be moved quickly enough, she begged her daughter to leave and save her own life. The daughter watched helplessly as the flames engulfed her mother and their home.

Tony Fleming, president of the Clarke County Board of Supervisors, was working in the area that day and was one of the first to respond to the explosion. When the pipe ruptured, he heard a blast, saw a fireball, and several seconds later heard a second blast. As a volunteer fireman, he instinctively started toward the scene before his pager went off. As an emergency responder, he had attended the pipeline operator’s annual safety meetings and was aware of a pipeline in the area. The emergency responders recognized the pipeline markers and knew to call the 800 number listed on them. Fleming helped coordinate the emergency response, consoled residents, and answered questions from reporters.

Improving Pipeline Safety

Since the event, Fleming has gained insights that will help county, city, and state managers improve pipeline safety. Although pipeline operators are required to communicate pipeline safety information to people living along their pipelines, residents may not recognize or retain the information. Fleming is concerned that many people living along the failed pipeline did not know of its existence and did not know how to recognize that a leak had occurred or what to do in such an event. Although emergency responders were aware of the pipeline, the county did not have maps showing the line, its size, or the product transported. Following the accident, Fleming searched tax records and located eleven pipelines in the county—all of which were subsequently added to the county maps.

Fleming witnessed the impact the accident had on the community. He is concerned that a new home has been placed on the site where the previous trailer home burned to the ground. At the time of the accident, the county had no permit requirements for dwellings located along the pipeline right of way and thus no way to prevent a replacement trailer from being installed. Compounding his concern are the calls he receives from residents worried about four new pipeline routes proposed in Clarke County. Most residents oppose the new lines and want to hire lawyers to fight the construction.

However, operators can resort to the use of eminent domain to accomplish pipeline extensions, and property owners are being asked to work with the pipeline companies to find ways to accommodate the energy pipelines in their communities. The county has held hearings to answer community questions about the pipelines, and some suggest the next step should be use of a land development approval process to bring area stakeholders together to reach a compromise.

Crossing Boundaries

Pipeline safety responsibility crosses political and sectoral boundaries: local, regional, and national stakeholders have a shared interest in pipeline safety improvement. Two months after the pipeline rupture in Clarke County, PHMSA asked stakeholders from around the country to join together at the first Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) meeting to work on a process that could add more protection. Tony Fleming attended.

Residents of Clarke County, like many growing communities across the country, must find a way to address the issue of land use and development near pipelines. Community residents are fortunate that the incident happened after most people had left for work and children were at school. The low population density of the area also limited the extent of the tragedy.

Any citizen can play a role in reducing pipeline risks in the community by getting involved (see box). One way is to participate in the land-use and development processes, in which many questions must be answered. How much risk do pipelines pose to the community or jurisdiction? Should populations that are difficult to evacuate be given special consideration? Where can developers and planners find information about pipelines and their operators? What practices would help them minimize the risks in the event of a pipeline failure? Are there ways to utilize pipeline rights of way to enhance the community? How can new development safely coexist with pipelines? Could a buffer zone or more stringent building codes effectively reduce the hazards to the community? How do jurisdictions work together to mitigate pipeline dangers and educate the public, and how do they cooperate or subordinate in the event of a disaster?

When pipelines cross more densely populated areas or when development comes into proximity to pipelines, the risk of damage to the pipelines increases, as does the risk to populations near the lines. Figure 1 shows an increasingly familiar situation, a formerly rural area near a transmission pipeline in Washington State and the same area after construction of a new residential development.

Reducing Risk

Planners and developers often work under the pressure of conflicting goals: promoting economic viability while improving quality of life, developing infrastructure while ensuring public safety, attracting industry while limiting air and water pollution, and constructing new buildings while managing traffic congestion. They must balance community benefits and growth with individual landowner rights.

They must be aware of potential hazards and avoid them (ideally) or buffer the community from them. Pipelines are usually safe and generally invisible to the community, but they can and do pose risks. Checking pipeline location is the first step in consideration of pipeline risks in the landuse planning process (Figure 2).

As noted, pipeline regulatory protection already has many layers, beginning with established and proven pipeline design, manufacturing, and construction standards. They include regulatory requirements for pipeline operators to rigorously monitor, inspect, maintain, and protect their pipelines. Operators must also develop and maintain management practices to ensure the integrity and safe operation of their pipelines. Personnel working on pipelines must demonstrate they are qualified to perform the work. Operator personnel must demonstrate they can recognize abnormal conditions and respond appropriately to protect life and property.

In densely populated and other high-consequence areas, additional protective measures further ensure pipeline safety. These measures may include extra depth of cover over the pipe, lower allowable operating stress levels, and more stringent monitoring. PHMSA continually evaluates pipeline operator inspection and accident data to determine when operational practices need to be enhanced or other corrective actions taken.

To enhance pipeline safety, pipeline operators are required to develop and implement public awareness campaigns to communicate with people living along the pipeline, emergency responders, and government officials. They are required to provide very specific information to the affected public through public awareness programs under the American Petroleum Institute’s Recommended Practice (API RP) 1162.

Operators must inform the affected public about the potential hazards created by the pipeline in their neighborhood and how to recognize, respond to, and report a pipeline emergency. They must include in their programs procedures for advising affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents along the pipeline; an overview of how pipelines operate; hazards that may result from activity in proximity to the pipeline; hazards due to possible pipeline operations; and measures undertaken to prevent impact to public safety, property, or the environment. They are required to give emergency and local public officials information on the location of transmission pipelines and on how operators prepare for emergencies to enhance emergency response and community growth planning.

The potential seriousness of pipeline accidents makes these many explicit instructions necessary. A significant challenge for PHMSA and the pipeline companies is ensuring that individuals and officials receive, fully understand, and implement the information sent to them as a result of API RP 1162. In an intergovernmental and intersectoral process as complicated as pipeline safety, building in detection mechanisms that serve as automatic early flags to potential problems is an important role for all stakeholders.

Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance

Local land-use planning regulations can be one marker of prospective problems. To change these practices, planners, developers, and community leaders need guidance that is straightforward and not overly burdensome. To meet this need, PHMSA initiated the year-long PIPA effort to develop risk-informed guidance for land-use planning near transmission pipelines. It is partnering with a variety of stakeholders, including state and local government, community planners, property developers, real estate professionals, concerned citizens groups, and pipeline operators. This risk-informed guidance will become an additional layer of protection.

During the inaugural PIPA meeting on January 15, 2008, stakeholder representatives presented material to illustrate the challenges they will face, potential benefits that risk-informed guidance can offer, and need to work jointly to reduce the risks associated with land use near pipeline rights of way. They represent federal government agencies, state and local government associations, pipeline industry associations, public advocacy groups, and associations representing stakeholders from outside the pipeline industry. They have expertise in risk analysis; risk communication; land-use management, planning and development; and development regulation.

Some stakeholders join out of curiosity, perhaps to learn more about pipelines or PHMSA. Some seek guidance for planning and development around pipelines. Some come to share their experiences in implementing risk-informed land-use planning in their own jurisdictions. Some have their own individual agendas, and others simply come to learn. Still others—moved as Tony Fleming was to participate— come because of local tragedies, unanswered questions, a sense of responsibility to their office, and a desire to make a difference so future lives can be spared.

Consensus Process

PHMSA is encouraging more local governments and property developers to attend the next PIPA meeting so there can be greater inclusion in the consensus strategy it is using. PHMSA is using this strategy in the PIPA effort because of its success in past similar situations. Carl Johnson, administrator of PHMSA, explains,

“PHMSA believes firmly that the most useful and practical guidance can be developed through a consensus process. A key element is promotion of all stakeholders’ interests. Participants are decision makers. Involvement is critical to obtaining endorsement of the decision-making process and ultimately support for the results from the project. Fostering input, participation, and sharing among those persons who have an investment in and adjacent to the rights of way increases the chances that the end product will be broadly implemented.”

Task Team Goals

The Transportation Research Board’s Special Report (SR) 281, Transmission Pipelines and Land Use: A Risk-Informed Approach, provides a basis for land-use practices, zoning ordinances, and preservation of environmental resources issues with regard to pipeline rights of way and their maintenance. (The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves as an independent adviser to the federal government and others on scientific and technical questions of national importance.) During the kickoff meeting for the PIPA effort, the participants divided into three task teams: protecting communities, protecting transmission pipelines, and communication. Each team developed goals using guidelines from a PIPA steering group and the recommendations of SR 281.

Protecting Communities

This team is addressing the question, “What should pipeline safety stakeholders do, or avoid doing, adjacent to the pipeline rights of way to reduce the risk to communities?” It is evaluating best practices and creating simple, risk-informed guidance for

defining recommended characteristics of land use adjacent to transmission rights of way and
using enhanced building codes for structures adjacent to transmission rights of way.

Protecting Transmission Pipelines

This team is addressing the question, “What should pipeline safety stakeholders do, or avoid doing, on the rights of way to reduce the risk to transmission pipelines?” It is working to

identify acceptable landowner uses and activities on the rights of way and ways to incorporate rights-of-way space in new developments;
compile best practices for specification, acquisition, and maintenance of the rights of way by operators (best practices are to include managing encroachments on and vegetation in the rights of way); and
develop best practices for the management and recording of land documents for planning agencies, operators, surveyors, and landowners.

Communication

This team is investigating the question, “How should the risks to transmission pipelines and communities be communicated to pipeline safety stakeholders?” They have begun to

examine ways to foster early communication in the land development process among stakeholders;
determine best practices for real-estate disclosure of transmission rights of way to potential purchasers of property;
describe benefits, risk, and risk management of pipeline transportation; and
formulate the PIPA risk communication plan and design the format of the final PIPA work product to communicate all PIPA results to stakeholders.

Using a consensus approach, each team will work during the year to identify best practices for land-use planning and development near transmission pipelines and prepare guidance for communicating the information to various stakeholder groups. The best practice information may take the form of guidance, recommendations, model ordinances, or suggested planning policies, regulations, or legislation.

Conclusion

The Clarke County accident, and its aftermath, illustrates the issues that the task teams will be handling. One issue is that some residents along the pipeline may have been unaware of its existence, despite the requirements of API RP 1162. How do officials build more reliable notification and a clear explanation into the process? Another issue is that the county had no way to prevent the replacement of the trailer because it did not have permit requirements in place for the pipeline right of way. How do officials create a process that will provide flags to officials regarding development or occupancy activity along the pipeline right of way? These are difficult, complicated questions, but through public-private collaboration, they can be answered and the public made safer.

References

American Petroleum Institute. Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators. API Recommended Practice 1162, first edition, December 2003. committees.api.org/pipeline/ standards/index.html.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Transmission Pipelines and Land Use: A Risk-Informed Approach. Special Report 281 (Washington, DC: 2004). onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr281.pdf.

Government 2.0—Fact or Fiction?

admin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:29:00 GMT

The second generation of Web access will change the way government delivers services and its relationship with the American public.

by Daniel Mintz

In spring 2006, after becoming chief information officer at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), I created a one-page, bulleted list of priorities and presented it in many forums inside and outside of the department. Various DOT stakeholders gave me feedback on these priorities, which I used for, among other things,modifying the list itself.

The original version of my fifth bullet (added in 2007), Government 2.0, said:“Exchange information in a consistent format and easy-to-access manner with key external and internal stakeholders, in particular the American public.” During one of my presentations, a senior official said they really liked the priority list, but could I change the beginning of the Government 2.0 bullet to “Exchange accurate information …”My response was that I was open to suggestions, but that the resulting bullet would be a lie.That is, the entire nature of the value of Government 2.0, in some sense, contradicts concerns over predictability, consistency, and accuracy for which we normally strive. In fact, the implications of Government 2.0—or, as it is sometimes called,Web 2.0— are more profound, and it will inevitably influence government, whether we plan for it or not.

The problems with my initial version of Government 2.0 were much broader than just the decision to insert or not insert the word “accurate.”Government 2.0 represents a better and more robust way of achieving timely and creative interaction with our stakeholders, in particular the American public. The federal government is using it more every day. The implementation of Government 2.0 raises numerous policy questions that will need to be addressed to take full advantage of the available capabilities.

Challenges

At present,most government agencies—as they grapple with ways to take advantage of the capabilities of this next generation of Internet—focus on the immediate problems it poses: security, privacy, and policy implications.The next administration will face two much larger challenges—we hope with the vision, focus, and stamina needed to address them—first, how best to build a government organization that can tolerate failure, at least in small doses, and second, how to make a government agency or department organizationally agile. Answering the first challenge will be necessary to start to take advantage of Government 2.0 capabilities. Answering the second will be required to maximize that utilization.This article does not provide answers to the two challenges, which would take too long and is outside its scope, but it does explain why those challenges are relevant and important.

Web 2.0

All the current candidates for president are using Web 2.0 capabilities, which provide the foundation for Government 2.0 efforts, as an integral part of their campaigns— including Web pages for online communication, Facebook and MySpace pages for social networking, and YouTube to hold presidential debates—much of which would not have been imagined during the last presidential contest a mere four years ago.The person elected from this group is likely to expect the same or more from government. Certainly, citizens drawn into the process by such campaign events will expect the same or more. Government 2.0 is fact already—and potentially transformational if it becomes a priority for the next administration.

Government 2.0

Historically (before the Internet), finding an item, or even the existence of an item, that met a defined set of requirements took significant amounts of time and (potentially) money. Researching a topic required physical effort. In many cases, such research would be impractical under time or cost constraints.

The first generation of the Web had people or companies creating content that others could access. Although this capability was powerful and useful, the information provided on the Web was static and passive. Once placed on the Web, it remained unchanged—unless and until the original provider updated it.

Government 2.0 is derived from the more general term,Web 2.0,which represents a second generation of Web usage.This second generation access differs greatly in at least three ways: it is participatory, pervasive, and integrated:

Participatory.The original passive Internet—where a provider placed information on a Web page and a user read it—has changed. Users make their own content and, in the case of artificial worlds, become part of the Internet experience directly.
Pervasive. Internet access has grown beyond the computer on a desk—to cell phones, cars, and even kitchen appliances. Hotels and coffee shops— and a growing number of other public and private spaces almost anywhere—feature wireless access.
Integrated. More and more “things” are being connected to the Internet, from security access devices transmitting their status, to home security systems, to data devices implanted in a highway sending signals on the status of the road.We are entering a world where everything is connected to everything else.

Wikipedia and More

The initial impacts are felt in a variety of ways. For example,Web content is not controlled now by the original creator, who, over time, has become less and less clear. One of the best known examples of this is Wikipedia, which has become the largest single collection of information in existence. A small staff is responsible for coordinating all Wikipedia activities, but almost all of the content is provided by users, and most of the editing is accomplished by a coterie of volunteers.

The federal government has a variety of wikis. For example, the director of national intelligence has created Intellipedia, which is being used to collect information across a variety of federal intelligence agencies.The State Department has created Diplopedia,which allows its employees to share information about topics and experiences around the world.

The value of such wikis is that they allow groups of people who otherwise would have only limited contact with each other to pool their knowledge in a single repository available to all within that community. It not only increases information sharing, but also a sense of collegiality and partnership that otherwise might never arise.

Web 2.0, more recently, has taken an additional step—moving to a participatory model. Virtual worlds, the three-dimensional (3D) Internet, provide the capability to create an artificial world containing representations of real people called avatars. People are able to traverse such worlds, interacting with other people and obtaining information interactively.

One of the leading commercial examples is Second Life,where people or organizations are able to create islands where avatars (people) can congregate for social or business reasons. Second Life has become an active community, where information and services are bought and sold, social relationships thrive, training is conducted, and communities of interest are created.

A variety of government agencies have already created content on their own islands within Second Life. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has a presence where it discusses issues about weather and other aspects of its mission.The State Department has an embassy where it recently sponsored a jazz festival for Second Life participants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses its Second Life presence to provide health-related information.

New Challenges

The federal government faces a number of challenges that private industry does not when working with these kinds of public-facing Internet activities. First is the problem noted above—the desire that all published information produced by a government agency be “accurate.” Normally,wikis will undergo a continuous editing process, which allows them to approach “accuracy” over time, but they do not always start that way.

The second is a related problem, that any material a federal employee publishes can be taken as establishing or implying the establishment of formal policy. As anyone who has had their name appear in the press or has had to testify before the Congress will tell you, even offhand remarks and e-mails can be used in unexpected ways. A wiki or encounter in a virtual world is an “e-mail writ large.” Third, when the creation and maintenance of these sites crosses organizational boundaries—including federal, state, and local governments, as well as private stakeholders—responsibilities for the level of accuracy can become complex and unclear.

One final challenge when using 3D Internet sites like Second Life (as with any externally hosted solution) is a government agency’s inability to control what is happening anywhere in that virtual world—let alone on their specific island. Sometimes, what goes on can be embarrassing.

The Larger Context

Government 2.0 is not an isolated phenomenon but the next step in a continuum the Internet is forcing on all organizations as it continues to have an increasingly disruptive impact.

Cost

Economists use the term“transaction”to indicate the cost of an activity. By “cost,” they mean the resources required, whether money or a person’s time, to achieve the transaction.Not only does an organization change its behavior depending on transaction costs, but its structure.

In Wikinomics, Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams discuss the findings of Ronald Coase, a British researcher, who looked at why corporations existed and grew large. The reason Coase gave was that the cost of performing a transaction inside a corporation tended to be less expensive for many activities than for a transaction outside for that same activity. Thus, corporations over time acquired the activities that could be done less expensively in that fashion.

Measuring Results

For many years, computer technology did not have an impact on these inside and outside costs. The focus of information technology (IT) organizations and the organizations they supported, therefore,was optimizing the use of the computer technology. Thus, organizations focused on cost reduction, computer consolidation, centralized purchasing to achieve economies of scale, and, more recently, the creation of shared services throughout or across organizations (e-government initiatives, for example). The next logical step for government is to start focusing on how to measure and maximize the resulting programs rather than looking at how well the infrastructure supports them.

However, the Internet has changed this situation for the reasons noted. Now, the cost of performing a transaction may not be more outside an organization. For many larger organizations, the cost may be lower for increasing numbers and kinds of transactions outside rather than inside.

This is already having a dramatic impact on private sector organizations. Companies are increasing the use of external Internet-connected resources, including private individuals, to provide advertising advice, technical input, and even research and development capabilities that once would have been provided internally or from well-established and long-term partners.

Companies that learn to be organizationally “agile”—that can make internal changes to move specific functions outside the company and can train or hire staff members who understand how to use these new and changing relationships—will have a much higher chance of survival and success. The companies that are not agile run the risk of being driven out of business because of high-cost structures or their inability to move quickly enough to respond to changes in the marketplace.

Human Capital Implications

The impact on personnel will be significant. Capabilities required to define the business and contractual relationships and manage partnerships differ greatly from those for managing a hierarchical relationship. This change will require retraining or hiring new personnel who have these skills and capabilities.

Senior management will support these changes to obtain greater visibility into their organization. Junior staff members can more immediately impact policies and interface with the senior staff. Middle management will be threatened by these changes because its historic importance was often based on control of information up and down the organization.

Government will not be immune. Its private-sector partners will participate to stay in business; they will want to interface with the government in the same fashion. Young employees of the government will regard these capabilities as second nature; they will expect comparable capabilities in government—or they will look elsewhere for work.

Leadership Needed

We thus return to our initial challenges. Government 2.0 is in its infancy. No one knows what will work and what will fail. By its varied nature, these new Internet- enabled technologies allow unpredictable interactions between unexpected stakeholders producing unplanned results, none of which offer comfort to the typical government agency. To participate, government agencies will need to define small pilot projects and give the staff flexibility to experiment. In our current “blame first, ask questions later” environment, it will take strong leadership for this to occur.

The short-term advances of Government 2.0 are dramatic.The use of Internet-based information sharing and social networking has increased the opportunity to optimize the use of IT. Decreasing the costs of business transactions becomes possible. However, the real impact is likely to be organizational in nature—turning inside out the classical approach to organization structures and business relationships.

The federal government has struggled to make progress on the current set of e-government initiatives. It is a tribute to the Office of Management and Budget and the agencies that believe in the programs that so much has been done. The political and cultural hurdles of Government 2.0 will be more difficult to overcome, impacting more people more significantly. To have the best,most responsive government,we must tackle these issues.

Conclusion

There is argument about the date that Radio 2.0 was invented. Most of the important inventions relating to Radio 2.0 occurred in the 1920s. In its initial years, Radio 2.0 was treated the same as Radio 1.0—broadcasting stories and entertainment, essentially unchanged— even with the addition of video to Radio 2.0.

Over time, everyone realized that Radio 2.0,or Television, was not radio with pictures, but something entirely different. Television had a different relationship to its viewers,with a different method of participation and experience. None of that was obvious when it began. Similarly,what Government 2.0 will ultimately become and how it will affect government is only dimly understood today. It is likely to have a major impact on how government services are delivered, how government is organized, and ultimately how it relates to and with the American public.

Government 2.0 is a fact, not fiction. It will have an increasing presence in the next administration and will affect us all in ways barely imagined today.

References

Tapscott, Don, and Anthony D. Williams. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (Portfolio: December 28, 2006).

Daniel Mintz is chief information officer at the U.S.Department of Transportation. He has had a thirty-five-year career in the computer industry in the private sector, where he worked with commercial and government customers. His responsibilities include policy oversight for a $2.5 billion information technology budget and cyber-security, as well as operational responsibility for much of the desktop and network communications infrastructure and telephony infrastructure.He can be reached at dan.mintz@dot.gov.

The T-REX Megaproject: Denver’s Showcase for Innovation and Collaboration

admin — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:42:00 GMT

Working together, federal, state, local, and private-sector entities plan and execute an intermodal transportation breakthrough in Denvers Southeast Corridor.

By Van R. Johnston, Wendy Haynes, and Claire-Lauren Schulz

The megaprojects environment has changed dramatically since the 1970s. Forming and maintaining the strong coalitions required to sustain multibillion dollar, multiyear, and multiterm megaprojects have become more complicated. Our new “do-no-harm” era challenges megaproject managers to aggressively mitigate disruptions and attend to stakeholder concerns. As explored by Altshuler and Luberoff, themes that permeate most contemporary megaprojects include maintaining core constituencies, entrepreneurialism, mitigation, bottom-up federalism, and locally painless project funding. Cost escalation, delays, and obstacles have become the megaproject norm.

As metropolitan growth continues, more freeway and mass transit systems across the country will require reconstruction or expansion. Citizens—the customers of public services—are demanding higher quality transportation options in a timely manner, for less money, and with minimal disruption. Despite the inherent complexities of multibillion dollar public works projects, they continue to be planned and executed, putting public leadership to the test.

Background

The Colorado Transportation Expansion (T-REX) project—a megaproject that has exceeded expectations— is characterized by intermodality, design-build experimentation, creative financing, accelerated construction, and collaborative partnerships. Project leadership has based its goals on community, quality, budget, and schedule. Project officials have met these demanding goals, an exceptionally rare feat for a megaproject. Exemplary elements of the T-REX project could pave the way for the next generation of megaprojects.

Like most cities, Denver is growing, and traffic congestion is a major issue. Volume along Denver’s Southeast Corridor had exceeded its maximum capacity of 180,000 vehicles per day and was quickly approaching gridlock. To solve this problem, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Regional Transportation District (RTD) formed a unique partnership with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to plan and execute extensive highway improvements and add light rail service to the Southeast Corridor.

After six years of planning and preparation,T-REX construction began in 2001 (Table 1).The project team received full funding, obtained the necessary approvals, and utilized an innovative design-build approach. Because of its unique leadership collaboration, this project will be completed two years early and within budget. Construction is scheduled for completion in September 2006, and light rail service along the Southeast Corridor will begin in November 2006.

The $1.67 billion T-REX project will transform the way people in the metro Denver area commute and live. Knowledgeable observers predict that it will improve transit and motorist travel time and reliability, increase transit ridership, enhance safety for motorists, and replace aging infrastructure. Public officials also anticipate that the project will reduce travel time and congestion on various freeway segments and major streets and support rapidly growing residential and commercial areas served by the Southeast Corridor.

Early Joint Involvement and Collaboration

Uncontrolled entrepreneurial egos, political biases, and overuse of consultants too often obscure and neglect the public interest during project planning. In the early planning stages, the parties involved will likely perform more effectively if a common goal can unite them. In the initial stages of the T-REX project, the parties agreed to work together toward mutually held goals.

They studied the Southeast Corridor to determine the most effective solution for the growing traffic problems. Many solutions were discussed, but none appeared to guarantee that traffic would be able to flow as smoothly as possible throughout the corridor during the project. All parties involved refused to advocate an incomplete solution, foreshadowing that a solution would likely involve intermodal elements. CDOT and RTD performed a Southeast Corridor major investment study (MIS).The MIS report reinforced earlier perceptions of the need for an intermodal project and recommended a rapid transit line and some highway improvements for safety—but no major highway improvements.

The study led to a proposal for the equivalent of ten highway lanes and six lanes of light rail line.The suggested plan would require the removal of several homes and businesses, which CDOT and RTD believed would sit poorly with the public, and they needed as much support as possible. Therefore, CDOT pursued studies to determine how to create more lanes without taking properties. After analyzing a “depressed” section of I-25, engineers determined that it would be possible to add the four lanes needed by cutting side-slopes and building retaining walls. Experts deemed the approach feasible, and CDOT and RTD moved forward.

Overcoming Fiscal and Regulatory Hurdles

Obtaining fiscal support for megaprojects has changed since the 1970s. Federal funds are granted only if a project receives authorization through a federal bill; the primary constituencies of such legislation consist of mass transit advocates, environmental groups, and other critics and skeptics. These constituencies make compromising on priorities and resolving project-related conflicts more difficult. However, usage of the federal funds granted has become more flexible. This flexibility has allowed for wider distribution of available resources and fewer restrictions on various facets of a project, an advantageous development for state and local governments, as exemplified in the T-REX project. In 1997,CDOT faced a tight reauthorization deadline. Fortunately, “policy entrepreneurs” deftly navigated through the political straits and helped alleviate the situation. The Transportation Commission identified the Southeast Corridor project as one of the most important strategic projects in the state.The passage of Senate Bill 1 in June 1997 (sponsored by Senator Ray Powers of Colorado Springs) authorized local officials to accelerate the construction of the project. A 10 percent funding provision that could be utilized for transit was included in this bill, which gave CDOT $84 million toward the project. CDOT would be able to immediately offer this $84 million to match U.S. Department of Transportation funds.CDOT convinced rural commissioners to use the funds on something other than highways, and the agency persuaded then- Governor Ray Romer that CDOT should retain authority over the project.

Southeast Corridor Project Team

In May 1998, Congress passed the new Federal Transportation Bill,TEA-21.All corridors in the metro Denver area were authorized; the act also included $10 million in federal funding earmarked specifically for the Southeast Corridor.

CDOT and RTD officially joined forces to form the Southeast Corridor project team to design and build improvements in the corridor. Shortly thereafter,CDOT and RTD began the environmental impact statement (EIS) process for the project, required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, hiring Carter and Burgess for the EIS. The EIS must demonstrate that a project can be built with minimal detriment to the environment and that the adverse impacts are mitigated. Public officials incorporated environmental issues, public comment, and project design into the T-REX EIS to provide a sound basis for an accurate estimate of costs. In efforts to further mitigate environmental concerns, the T-REX EIS also considered a wide array of consequences, including “build” and “no-build” alternatives, right-of-way acquisition, and condemnation.

Project leaders worked hard to involve citizens in the process through various public open houses and numerous presentations to public and civic groups.To the surprise of many, the EIS was completed in eighteen months. Informed observers attribute the speedy completion to the collaborative nature of this project, during which those involved set aside differences and focused on project goals.

Transportation Revenue Notes

Funding for the project soon found the spotlight. In 1999, Bill Owens, who supported the Southeast Corridor project, took office as governor. He wanted to execute the project without a tax increase. For this reason, and to minimize local objections, the cost needed to be as painless as possible locally. This required elected leaders to consider a bonding strategy that would minimize the impact of inflation while accelerating project completion. The Colorado State Constitution limits the state in contracting debt in any form, including bonds and other long-term debt, without voter approval.As a result, project officials pursued an innovative approach for funding, Transportation Revenue Notes—also known as Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds—which still require voter approval. (GARVEE bonding is a federal instrument that allows future federal fund allocations to pay off bonds issued by the state.)

To enable CDOT to use GARVEE bonds, the Colorado legislature enacted legislation in 1999 giving it eligibility.CDOT began a massive statewide outreach campaign to acquire the necessary voter support for the GARVEE bond strategy. Throughout the campaign, CDOT’s message was that all Coloradans would benefit, not only Denver residents. In November 1999, Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved the two bond initiatives to fund the highway project, as well as the light rail in the Southeast Corridor.

As project costs rose and federal aid decreased, GARVEE bonds provided local governments a means to accelerate T-REX while reducing costs.With this bonding strategy,RTD sold bonds for the light rail, and CDOT sold bonds both to help finance the highway portion of the Southeast Corridor and to help other state highway projects. CDOT also borrowed against federal funds not yet granted. Without the issuance of GARVEE bonds to provide up-front capital with the ability to use federal funds, CDOT would have had to default to pay-as-you-go financing, resulting in a project completion date of 2017 instead of 2006.

Other Public and Private Funding

In 1999, numerous bills passed, helping T-REX move forward.They allowed for contractor selection on design-build best value, increased private participation in public transportation facilities, petition for inclusion into the RTD tax district by landowners adjacent to preexisting RTD boundaries, and any necessary relocation of utilities.

The City of Seattle was not fulfilling its federal commitments to transit, which ultimately freed up $500 million in federal funds for transportation. Federal officials granted the City of Denver high priority for these funds, due at least in part to sound local planning and mitigation efforts. In November 2000, the FTA signed a $525 million full funding grant agreement in RTD’s name.With federal and state support, local governments pledged $30 million in matching funds.

The T-REX project has effectively reexamined and reengineered ways to obtain funding and overcome regulatory hurdles. As costs for public projects continue to rise, the processes associated with obtaining funding and complying with regulations will likely become more complicated and competitive. Other project officials should take heed of the T-REX experience and respond nimbly to changing circumstances.

A Different Project Delivery Method: Design-Build

Many past public projects have utilized the traditional design-bid-build approach. In this approach, the design plans are completed first, and contractors bid and build the sections in separate phases. Some public officials argue that this approach has resulted in higher costs, delays, dissatisfaction, and quality problems. Clearly, such undesirable outcomes would conflict with T-REX officials’ commitment to community, quality, budget, and schedule. Therefore, they selected the innovative design-build delivery method, under which a single contractor team designs and builds an entire project, for a predetermined price, with oversight from a designated authority. The method is entrepreneurial; it decentralizes authority while empowering those who play a direct, vital role in implementation.

CDOT and RTD chose Southeast Corridor Constructors (SECC), a joint venture team consisting of Kiewit Construction and Parsons Transportation Group, as the design-build contractor for T-REX. SECC was chosen through a best-value process in which CDOT and RTD jointly evaluated and weighted the technical and price aspects of the proposal.The experience and prior accomplishments of the team also impressed project officials. The deal was sealed when SECC agreed to finish the project ahead of schedule and $39 million under the $1.23 billion bid price.

Execution

After completing project planning,T-REX officials moved to execution, which not only involved constructing the project, but also managing traffic and maintaining public support. Table 2 depicts the intermodal elements of the project, and Figure 1 depicts the scope.

Given the diverse nature of the project and its stakeholders, the project team knew that success would require transparency and good will as it coordinated the various elements of the megaproject. Collaboration, accountability, and consistency became the guiding principles. Adherence to these principles allowed the project team to overcome challenges, develop and maintain relationships with the public, and reach early completion.

This multimodal project entailed a multiagency partnership.The T-REX project team took a “one team, one project” approach to focus on the best interests of the project and its stakeholders. CDOT and RTD formalized their partnership with an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in September 1999. This agreement, besides explaining the design-build concept and the financing methods, assigned responsibilities to each agency, establishing a benchmark for accountability. Through this agreement, both agencies agreed to work together to fund and build T-REX through a designbuild, best-value contract. In addition, in October 1999 the FHWA and FTA also formalized an agreement regarding their roles on T-REX.This interagency agreement, similar to the IGA, also outlined the principles of the project and assigned responsibility.

CDOT,RTD, FHWA, and FTA all agreed to work as “one DOT,” coordinating efforts together on T-REX. After signing their own partnership agreements, all four agencies signed a partnering charter emphasizing the importance of community, safety, cost, quality, schedule, and teamwork in the project. Specifically, the four agencies agreed to the following project goals: F Minimize inconvenience to the public F Meet or beat the total program budget of $1.67 billion F Provide for a quality project F Meet or beat the schedule to be fully operational by June 30, 2008.

Retrospective

The modern era of megaprojects differs from eras past. Funding limitations and demands for higher quality public projects require project managers to explore alternative ways to deliver better projects with more stringent budgets. Citizens expect project outcomes to be achieved with minimal harm to neighborhoods and the general environment. Public managers must find ways to make government work better and cost less by reexamining and reengineering work programs and processes. Even in this challenging era, the T-REX project demonstrates that completion of a successful megaproject is possible.

T-REX has shown that it is possible to effectively meet the needs of stakeholders in spite of limited resources, higher public expectations, do-no-harm values, and mitigation strategies. Because of design-build innovation and effective leveraging of federal resources, T-REX will be completed earlier and at lower cost than a project using a traditional approach—a rarity in the history of megaprojects.

The success of design-build and innovative project financing can be attributed to the collaborative partnerships— the backbone of the project. Personal egos and agency politics were set aside. By collaborating, the T-REX team drew upon a multitude of skills, knowledge, and experience, which allowed for innovative, effective execution. Collaboration—and clear lines of accountability—were essential to the design-build environment. The quality and speed of decision-making increased dramatically. Individual accountability among the agencies played a crucial role in meeting the goals of the project. T-REX has focused on the task, remained under budget, and stayed on track.

Neither unanticipated disruption nor taxes plagued the public. This project nears completion unhindered by the controversy and contentiousness that so often characterize megaprojects.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the following for their contributions to this article: Cal Marsella, general manager of RTD; Larry Warner, former project director of T-REX; Betty McCarty, administrative officer, Denver Regional Council of Governments; Toni Gatzen, T-REX public information manager; and Allison Hodge,T-REX staff.

References

Altshuler, Alan A., and David E. Luberoff. MegaProjects:The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2003).

Johnston,Van R.,Wendy Haynes, George Scheurenstuhl, Bill Vidal, Tom Norton, and Richard Clarke.T-REX Panel for the National American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). ASPA National Conference, Denver, March 31–April 4, 2006.

Johnston,Van R.“Caveat Emptor: Customers vs. Citizens.” The Public Manager,Vol. 24, No. 3 (Fall 1995), pp. 11–14.

Moler, Steve. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.“Colossal Partnership: Denver’s $1.67 Billion T-REX Project.” Public Roads,Vol. 65, No. 2 (Sep/Oct 2001).

T-REX Project:Transportation Expansion Project. 2006. http://www.trexproject.com/.

T-REX Fact Book. About T-REX. 2003. http://www.trexproject.com/.

Van R. Johnston, PhD, is a professor of management and policy at the Daniels College of Business, University of Denver. He can be reached at vjohnsto@du.edu.

Wendy Haynes, PhD, is the graduate program coordinator and professor of public administration at Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts, and former first assistant IG for megaprojects for Massachusetts. She can be reached at whaynes@bridgew.edu.

Claire- Lauren Schulz is a graduate student at the Daniels College of Business, University of Denver. She can be reached at cschulz@du.edu.

Strengthening Workforce Resiliency in The Public Sector

admin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:56:00 GMT

By following practical guidelines from the new field of resiliency psychology, public managers can navigate through rough periods of change and bounce back from setbacks.

By Al Siebert

In today’s world of nonstop change, public managers need a highly resilient workforce. In the past, government managers ran stable, efficient organizations, which operated for decades without much change. Public-sector workers did what their managers told them to do and were evaluated on how well they followed their job descriptions.

Today’s managers must implement deep reorganization and constant change on reduced budgets while trying to meet required objectives. Every branch of government has shifted from needing cooperative, compliant employees, to needing self-motivated, change-proficient, adaptable workers capable of performing in new ways without up-to-date job descriptions. This demand distresses many managers and workers.

When public-sector employees list their challenges and difficulties, most report that they feel pressured to do more work, of better quality, in less time, with fewer people, in new ways, with a reduced budget—while worrying whether their jobs are safe. Some succumb to this pressure, some don’t.

Public managers can make a difference in how well their workers cope by using simple techniques to strengthen their resiliency. Public managers who dwell on trying to overcome employee resistance to change fail because trying to get people to stop doing something is a negative goal. A positive goal is to develop resiliency strengths in workers who are committed to their work and have positive attitudes toward change.

Public-sector managers who work proactively to strengthen workforce resiliency gain many benefits. Resilient workers hold up well under pressure, adapt quickly to change, get the right things done with fewer mistakes, and are sick less often. Resiliency is not an ability one either has or does not have.

Resiliency strengths can be developed, just as proficiency in any sport or activity can be learned and developed. How can managers strengthen workforce resiliency?

Learn which resiliency strengths to develop in employees.
Know the factors that support or impair worker resiliency.
Be a good role model of resiliency.

Resiliency psychology offers the following practical guidelines for strengthening workforce resiliency.

Support Optimum Health and Well-Being

At the most basic level, the people who hold up well under constant pressure live in ways that sustain their health and well-being. Wellness is a way of life. Actively encourage employees to follow widely known practices for living a healthy lifestyle.

Increase Positive Feelings

Laughing, pleasant relationships, enjoyable moments, and feelings of job satisfaction expand a person’s cognitive skills and strengthen resiliency. Negative emotions such as fear, anger, anxiety, and worry constrict a person’s cognitive skills and weaken resiliency. Award-winning research by psychologist Barbara Frederickson has documented a direct connection between positive feelings, resiliency, good health, flourishing, good relationships, and effective work teams.Work teams observed to have a high ratio of positive to negative emotions flourish while work teams with little positive feeling tend to languish.The lowest positive-negative ratio needed for flourishing is 3 to 1, a ratio of 5 to 1 is best.

Managers who threaten workers and intentionally keep them fearful are acting irrationally because negative emotions increase the probability of mistakes, accidents, employee sickness, and having good people quit. Managers who create a positive, appreciative atmosphere that promotes job satisfaction strengthen resilience, increase mental alertness and accuracy, and keep the best employees strongly committed to the organization.

Provide an Emotional Paycheck

Workers become more engaged and committed when they experience emotional satisfaction.Your governmental organization renders a monetary paycheck for each worker, but your job is to provide them with an emotional paycheck. You do this by purposefully arranging for the people under your direct control to experience the following feelings each week:

My work is important and meaningful.
I am responsible.
I am recognized for achievements.
I have the opportunity for professional growth.
I am valued and appreciated.
I have accomplished something.

To impart these feelings requires good emotional intelligence in a manager—an important area of professional growth.

Forest Service

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service has undergone a massive national reorganization. For the first hundred years of its existence, it had a network of regions, forests, and ranger districts that operated autonomously. This structure, created by Gifford Pinchot in 1905, had been designed so that it would not take a district ranger more than one day riding on horseback to reach his forest supervisor’s office.

As the USDA Forest Service entered its second century, the national executive leadership team saw that the old structure was inefficient. The reorganization of the Forest Service established a central service center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which led to layoffs and relocations that disrupted the lives and families of thousands of employees.

The director of the new human capital management division, Roy Roosevelt, understood that a positive outlook within his unit was essential. “I knew it was important for all of us in human resources to respond with positive coping energy to every new challenge,” Roy says. “Whenever a new demand hits us, my response is, ‘The fun never stops!’ I kept stirring up enthusiasm for handling the reorganization really well, urged everyone to support people in the field, and gave them constant praise and appreciation. I want everyone to know that as the Forest Service strives to meet the competitive challenges of today and the future, human resources will play a major role.”

Emphasize Problem-Solving Responses

Resilient people, when faced with difficulty, focus on solving the challenge. The least resilient people become overly emotional, portray themselves as victims, blame others, and dwell on their misfortune.

You increase workforce resiliency by arranging for workshops on effective problem-solving methods. Content should include logical “left brain” methods, creative “right brain” methods, group brainstorming, and how to find simple, practical solutions.

Encourage Self-Motivated Learning

Highly resilient people continuously learn new ways of doing things, seek new experiences, and frequently change how they interact with their circumstances. The least resilient people drift into a “calcified” condition where they try to avoid change and new experiences. Childlike curiosity, playfulness, and self-motivated, self-managed learning lead to advanced resilience skills. We are marvelously blessed with the ability to replace old behaviors by learning new ones at any age.

A problem with traditional training is that it conditions employees to be passive learners who wait to be instructed. In contrast, self-motivated, self-managed learning leads to becoming more skillful, change-proficient, and resilient year after year.This means that traditional training methods are self-defeating when used to try to increase workforce resiliency.

Resilient people are like children who never grow up.They are curious and get excited about learning better ways of doing things. Encourage workers to ask questions. Asking good questions is a far more useful skill in today’s world than knowing answers that someone taught. Habitual curiosity leads quick orientation to new realities and playful curiosity can lead to practical problem-solving—one of the most basic resiliency skills.

A professional growth area for budding managers is learning how to manage with questions. Keep in mind, if you want resilient employees, you can’t continue to manage workers like they were managed in the past.

Adapt to Circumstances

Adapting to new circumstances is the key to survival in all of nature. If you always respond one way and never in the opposite way, you sometimes will be helpless to stop yourself from automatically reacting in a self-defeating manner.

The flexibility found in highly resilient people comes from their complex inner nature. Here is a partial list of counterbalanced personality qualities typically found in people who overcome setbacks to achieve solid career success:

Creative and analytical
Serious and playful
Hard-working and lazy
Sensitive and tough
Cautious and trusting
Unselfish and selfish
Self-appreciating and self-critical
Impulsive and thorough
Optimistic and pessimistic.

Metropolitan Bus System

The new operations manager for a metropolitan bus system studied the budget expenditures and saw that the annual cost for paper towels in the operations budget was over $25,000. “Why is this cost so high?” he wondered.

He spent many days in the bus barns observing the drivers and bus cleaning crews. When the drivers came on duty, he saw each one pick up a new package of paper towels from the supply room on the way to their assigned bus. During their shifts, the drivers would break open a package of towels and clean up messes left by passengers on the handrails and seats. At the end of their shifts, the drivers would leave the partially used packages of towels on the bus. The bus cleaning crews would then remove them and throw them out. When he looked in the dumpsters, the manager saw large stacks of unused paper towels thrown into the trash.

Here was the problem. One package of towels for each driver, every shift, every day, added up to a major expense. He talked about what he’d observed with his boss, the drivers, and the cleaning crews. The solution they decided to implement was to install towel dispensers on each bus and give the cleaning crews responsibility for keeping the dispensers filled. The cost of paper towels dropped immediately, saving the transit system over $6,000 a year.

This manager followed all the steps for rational problem-solving. He identified the problem, was clear about the desired goal, collected information, discussed several solutions with people who had to make a solution work, and measured the results.

By using a problem-solving response to any challenge or difficulty, it becomes a valuable habit. But more than that, when you invite people to put their minds to work and solve problems, they feel more job satisfactions and make sure that their solutions work.

How many of these pairs of counterbalanced qualities describe you? Can you add more?

Counterbalanced personality qualities are signs of advanced emotional intelligence.Your resilience in rapidly changing circumstances comes from having many such pairs of traits, whatever they may be. The longer the list of pairs of counterbalanced, paradoxical traits you recognize in yourself, the more emotionally complex you are, which can increase your chances of successfully handling any situation that develops.

Balance Positivity with Negativity

Managers with positive attitudes typically handicap themselves by having a negative attitude about negative thinking. When managers suppress disagreement and negative thinking during meetings, they create a condition called “groupthink,” in which groups make bad decisions.

Power is derived from being at the choice point between counterbalanced forces. A sign that managers have developed advanced emotional intelligence is that they feel comfortable with and can counterbalance positive thinking with negative thinking. Barbara Clark, former City Treasurer in Portland, Oregon, says, “A negativity specialist will make you think through your plans better, point out flaws, and warn you about what could go wrong. I would thank the Lord when I had a negative thinker in my department!”

Employ a Flexible Style

Do you expect that everyone will respond well to the way that you want to manage, or do you manage people in a way that gets the best responses from each individual? In today’s workplace, a flexible management style gets the best results.

Two of the most well researched personality factors are “external locus of control” and “internal locus of control.” Hundreds of research studies show that people who cope best in difficult situations score high on measures of “internal control” beliefs.They feel personally responsible for how well their lives go, and know that they have some control over events and their responses to events. People who feel helpless and victimized, and blame others, score high on measures of “external control” beliefs.They do not believe that their personal efforts could make anything better. They believe that solutions to their unhappy condition are under the control of other people and external forces.

A fascinating truth about the human mind is that whatever you believe, you will find evidence that supports your belief. Thus it is that “external” and “internal” belief systems are both self-validating.

As a manager, it is nonproductive to try to get employees to change from their way of thinking to your way of thinking. If you adapt how you interact with each worker to get the best results from them, everything will flow much easier for all.

Figure 1 is a visual guideline on how to use a flexible management style that gets the best results from a diverse workforce.You start by observing where each person is on the external- internal dimension. Use the appropriate management mode with them, and then follow up with appreciation.

This management strategy lets you avoid a typical failing in managers: spending most of your time trying to improve the performance of your least productive workers. A much smarter strategy is to tell people who need to be told what to do exactly what you want them to do. Leave your best workers alone to do what they know has to be done.Then devote most of your management time to the middle group who want to learn how to be more effective. It’s a much better experience for all.

Bounce Back Stronger

Resilience means being able to bounce back from setbacks that may seem overwhelming at first. When resilient people have their lives disrupted, they handle their feelings in healthy ways.They allow themselves to feel grief, anger, loss, and confusion when hurt and distressed, but they don’t let it become a permanent state. An unexpected outcome is that they not only heal, but often bounce back stronger than before.

Public-sector managers and employees who function at the highest resilience level are best suited for a world of nonstop change. They adjust quickly to new circumstances and move confidently through chaotic turmoil to reach good outcomes.

Resilient people handle major difficulties more easily than others. They expect to overcome workplace disruptions in ways that work out well, and the struggle to overcome difficulties can develop new strengths. Resilient organizations have stories of how adversities in their past turned out to be valuable experiences.

We live in a constantly changing world. Some people make their lives difficult by resisting or fighting the ongoing changes. Others adapt and flow with them— it’s each person’s choice. Managers who understand the importance of workforce resiliency can help employees (and themselves) navigate through rough periods of change skillfully and easily.

Al Siebert, PhD, is director of The Resiliency Center in Portland, Oregon. He has extensive experience conducting workshops for public-sector groups and is director of the resiliency camp at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Eastern Management Development Center. His book, The Resiliency Advantage, won the Independent Publishers 2006 Best Self- Help Book Award. It includes many stories of public-sector employees as outstanding examples of resiliency. He can be contacted at http://www.resiliencycenter.com.This article is based on his workforce resiliency session at the 2006 Excellence in Government conference.

References

Frederickson, B. L., and M. Losada.“Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing.” American Psychologist, Vol. 60, No. 7 (2005), pp. 678–686.

Siebert,A. The Resiliency Advantage: Master Change,Thrive under Pressure, and Bounce Back from Setbacks (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2005).

Realizing a Performance Culture in Federal Agencies

admin — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:00:00 GMT

Government executives and human capital professionals offer a road map for designing and implementing effective performance management systems. By Bill Trahant What’s the best way for government executives to create high-performance cultures in federal...(read more)

Citizen Involvement in The Digital Age

admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:35:00 GMT

Web-based public comment is helping Spartanburg County and the Town of Cary connect with residents concerning important community issues.

by Dan Bevarly and Jeffery G. Ulma

The Digital Age is here.The way we communicate, share, and connect with others has changed drastically in the past decade. Although you may not know some of your neighbors, you might encounter them online in social networks, forums, and— through one or two degrees of separation—a professional network. The private sector has been the bellwether of things to come in the public sector, but municipalities throughout the country are taking action to connect a new generation of citizens—always attached to a mobile phone, Internet connection, or an amalgam of the two—to their government, to spur participation in a way that is more feasible in an overscheduled, digital life style.

The function of a democratic government has not changed much since its inception.The voice of the people is as important as ever in the creation of law and the establishment of policy.However, capturing that voice has become the new challenge.The public forum—in an offline world—doesn’t have the draw of even ten years ago. Society at large has shifted to an online world, and public chief information officers and managers are beginning to use this societal trend to their advantage.

The Groundswell Begins
No longer is a single community meeting in the neighborhood with an “open microphone” enough, and a mandatory public hearing at the end of a process is often viewed with skepticism. Some residents are intimidated by the crowd and don’t express their true opinion or,worse yet, don’t participate at all.

Citizens want—even demand—early, extensive, and convenient access to local government so they can play a part in planning decisions.As the recipients of the feedback, the government staff must decipher hundreds of paper forms, find the best way to sort these numerous comments, and quickly respond to citizen concerns. For these reasons, local governments need modern ways to manage public input.

Community thought leaders at all levels can now seize more opportunities to connect with everyday citizens by leveraging social networking as a tool to foster virtual “town meetings.”Across the nation, governments are opening lines of communication between their offices and the people of their respective states, counties, and municipalities. Using theWeb to empower citizens and publish open calls for civic engagement and public comment, local governments are warming to true constituent engagement, but more can be done to harness the true power of the citizen’s voice. Social networking is no longer an area that the government can ignore.Visionary state and local leaders are adopting these consumer- adopted behaviors at a fast pace, but in ways that make sense at a government or enterprise level.

Many state and local governments are looking at the massive popularity of social networking as a way to encourage citizen involvement. By integrating enterprise social networking into their latest initiatives and implementing media-rich applications designed to meet the structured requirements of government, municipalities are striving to connect with citizens concerning crucial government functions like zoning, issues management, and tourist development.

Two uses of online engagement in the public sector come from the Carolinas. In each, the idea of community remains,while the way in which people convene— and share valuable ideas—shifts to theWeb.

Spartanburg County
Home to more than 250,000 people, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, is no stranger to connecting with its populace concerning important community issues. Although experienced in traditional citizen engagement, the county is faced with key economic development goals to help modernize this segment of rural America and has responded with an innovative digital community.

Since 1987, the Spartanburg County Foundation, a public-private partnership, has published community indicator reports, effectively using citizen comment to raise awareness about the many issues impacting the growth, health, and quality of life of county residents.Traditionally updated every three years, the report has proven a valuable resource to the community: assisting organizations in their planning and encouraging conversation and dialogue among citizens to bring about community change. In fact, the most recent data collected and reviewed— concerning family, health, education, public safety, economics, and environmental issues—have led to the establishment of ten community goals, strategies to achieve them, and sixty indicators to benchmark progress toward each of them.

What began with focus group discussions grew to an imperative to find a better way to inform, connect, and update even larger audiences throughout the county. For this one-stop communication resource, the foundation adopted Neighborhood America’s enterprise social networking solution for its latest Community Indicators project to help foster citizen engagement. By implementing digital communities through a platform rich in features and functionality, coupled with experienced support, Spartanburg was able to avoid a large capital investment, all the while effectively collecting and managing scores of responses from its people.

The foundation has been able to scale its audience, engage citizens, and update them on progress toward achieving the long-term goals set forth in the Community Indicators project. In addition to offering citizens a convenient way to stay informed more frequently, the site encompasses all community members, including the county’s visually impaired. Spartanburg’s achievement in citizen engagement is a model for other counties, attracting community leaders from across the country to learn from its example.This initiative has received national recognition for its community-wide effort to develop a better future for the citizens of Spartanburg County.

Town of Cary
Cary, North Carolina, with a population of 121,000, is located in the heart of the world-famous ResearchTriangle region. Recognized by publications like Money magazine as one of the best places to live inAmerica, the community has a long history of cutting-edge planning and zoning approaches.The citizens in this high-tech location are not afraid of computers:more than 94 percent of the households have access to the Internet.Collecting data, studies, plans, reports, and ordinances from other places, they e-mail officials and staff members regularly to ask questions and express their opinions. Some have even created their ownWeb sites about new development proposals to communicate with each other.

Technology Town
As a result, town government has had to keep pace with digital methods for communicating and offering additional involvement opportunities, includingWebbased public participation. For example, agendas and detailed staff reports for rezoning cases for the town council and planning and zoning board meetings have been available on theWeb for a decade.These include maps, photos, and color renderings of the proposed development. The town also providesWeb pages for special planning projects and publishes monthly reports listing all approved and pending development plans.

Further reflecting its unofficial nickname,Technology Town, Cary has moved to the next stage—“going interactive”—providing online surveys and threaded discussion boards for some of its planning efforts.Although the results have been mixed (and limitations like the selfselection of participants are recognized), the town council is still committed to offering an ever-expanding array of involvement methods for Cary residents.

Neighborhood America
To extend its repertoire, Cary recently acquired Neighborhood America’s Public Comment system.Although thisWeb-based approach was designed for longterm projects, like the preparation of transportation plans, Cary is going to use it in a new way: applying the system to short-term processes like rezoning.

For complex rezoning cases that last about six months, handling the intense flurry of input directed to different people or arriving scattershot at town hall is difficult. Concerns are shared with the staff, council members, and planning and zoning board members. They arrive in a variety of formats (phone calls, letters,walk-in visits, and e-mails). Cary sought a mechanism where it could funnel comments through a single portal on the Web, and Public Comment fit the bill.

This focused social network (or online community) serves as a one-stop communication tool with the planning department for Cary citizens concerned with town zoning.Through citizen feedback to one portal, town officials are able to manage and respond quickly and effectively. These responses are then published on theWeb site to serve as a reference for residents, preventing the repetition of questions that planning department officials have already answered.This streamlined communication results in an increased response rate and enables officials to devote more time to constituents.

As it now readies to test this emerging technology on the first few cases,Cary hopes to use it to better manage information and feedback.The town should also gain insight into participants by asking them questions like where they live in relation to the project or which specific aspect of a development proposal generates the most concern. In the end, Public Comment will give Cary a tool to share information, collect citizen input, provide timely and consistent responses, and facilitate improved decision making.

Web-Based Engagement
Cary is just one example of technology’s facilitating engagement in local communities.Town hall meetings have been enhanced, even replaced, by boundary-spanning, interactive online forums, and press releases and posting campaigns with limited reach have given way to bidirectional,Web-based engagement sessions—all in a concerted push to include the voice of the populace.

The traditional media have latched onto this trend, as well. ABC, CBS, Fox, and other networks have stepped up their user-generated content campaigns to enable viewers to participate in political discussion by submitting video—via mobile phones if they so choose—directly to the news agency.ABC has used this effective avenue to elicit citizen comment for on-air interviews with President Bush and other high-ranking political officials.

Public managers have the tools that reflect timehonored standards of public comment—standards designed to support constructive public dialogue.Yet, at the same time, new technologies now enable governments to collect and manage multiple forms of public feedback, through any type of device, and to organize that feedback in a way that makes it useful and reportable. If these innovations transcend geographical and socioeconomic boundaries, allowing for instant engagement and bidirectional communication in a secure, structuredWebbased environment, then why aren’t these new interactive technologies ubiquitous across the public landscape?

Enterprise Social Networking
The technology that makes citizen engagement possible represents the next wave in data organization and information delivery. Known as enterprise social networking (ESN), this Internet-native software as a service (SaaS) solution is designed to enable governments to manage structured public involvement.The solution provides a complete enterprise content management system that incorporates state-of-the-art management of usergenerated content, that is, all forms of multimedia content created and submitted by citizens. System capabilities are comparable to or exceed those of largescale technology development projects in major corporations and are comparatively affordable for even smaller government offices.

Most important, because the system is delivered in a Web-based SaaS model without the need to install hardware or software, ESN can be quickly launched to meet all project needs.TheWeb delivery makes the ESN easy to use—particularly beneficial to municipal governments since the staffs tend to be small and nontechnical. Small teams can manage large outreach initiatives in real time.These systems can also be very affordable.Many planning offices are able to redirect budgets for traditional community outreach items—mailings, meetings, etc.—and gain efficiency and citizen responsiveness at the same time.

ESN systems enable the public manager to effectively manage all work processes related to community projects—such as press releases, census lists, and other forms of documents and collaboration—all while considering organized feedback from the municipality’s many constituents.These next-generation technologies will enable campaigns to “turn on a dime” with hypersensitive listening to those in touch with public zoning policy and statute issues.

Conclusion
Interactive technology that offers traditional rules of structure is the future. It allows governments to better understand their constituents and invites reasoning. After all, public dialogue helps to build relationships, expectations, and policy over time, rather than at a point in time. Most important, it enables governments to establish long-term relationships with citizens on the basis of clear, accurate, and structured communication. Indeed, this is the future of citizen participation.

Attracting Graduates to Government

admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:31:00 GMT

Federal agencies miss opportunities to recruit top talent when they fail to debunk myths that steer new graduates into the private sector and rely on archaic hiring processes that today’s top professionals bypass for easier and quicker private-sector job offers.

Dale F. Weeks

Young government employees face a number of acknowledged obstacles in choosing a path of public service: complex application processes that often drag on for months, lower salaries than those for comparable private-sector jobs, bureaucratic hierarchies and promotion caps that limit opportunities even for highly skilled workers, and an inflexible environment. Those entering the private sector face a different set of problems: limited benefits, longer work hours and fewer vacation days, and an environment lacking camaraderie as new employees compete for recognition and promotion. Public-sector organizations must recognize the common desires of new graduates if they want to attract the kind of professionals who can develop into future managers and leaders.

Young professionals make tradeoffs according to their personal preferences, priorities, and short- and long-term goals. Some sacrifice higher-paying jobs in the private sector for the longer-term security of government. Some choose government because of their passion for an issue or dedication to a government agency mission. Those who enter the private sector may have a poor perception of government or prioritize earning potential, particularly if they face student loan repayments and the high cost of living, especially in metropolitan areas.

The Differences Are Blurring

Public servants have days when they sit at their desks after comparing jobs with their private-sector colleagues and wonder, “Should I have gone the private-sector route to avoid all this bureaucracy?” Recently, however, I’ve heard complaints from private-sector employees more typical of those you hear from public servants. They cite management structures and decision-making procedures that are far from the fast-paced environment that public- sector employees perceive as the mode du jour. One colleague, who works for a large consulting firm, spoke of the bureaucracy he has encountered in his daily job because a project on which he is working requires multilayered contract approvals that often delay negotiation and progress for weeks.

Large consulting firms that contract with government may also find their organizations start to function at the government pace, particularly when bound to the regulations and requirements for procurement and other operations and when relying on approval processes from government officials to perform their work. This was the case I observed in reviewing disaster recovery and reconstruction funded by the federal government and implemented through the private sector.

The private sector is performing government functions through contracts, helping re build the Nation and other countries in a year of multiple natural disasters and a continuing war on terrorism.This collaboration blurs the differences between government and private- sector organization and behavior, and new graduates can have a hard time deciding on the best working environment.

The Government Is Missing Opportunities

The federal government is missing opportunities to recruit top talent because it has failed to debunk the myths that steer new graduates into the private sector and turned away candidates early in the process by maintaining archaic application and hiring processes that today’s top professionals bypass for the private-sector jobs that come more easily and quickly.

The mounting federal challenges—fighting global terrorism and restoring livelihoods and infrastructure after disasters in the United States and abroad— are not enough to draw new graduates into public- service careers.The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that seeks to revitalize the federal civil service, surveyed 805 college seniors in early May 2005. It found that only about 21 percent said 9/11 made them more interested in working for the U. S. government. According to the organization’s president and chief executive officer, Max Stier, “Students don’t hold government jobs in very high esteem and some students worry they won’t be able to repay their college loans on government salaries.They also see the government as an unwieldy bureaucracy in which promotions will come too slowly. What’s more, they think government red tape will prevent them from having much of an impact.”

Another highly qualified young respondent said that the long application process, with its months of waiting, was frustrating and a deterrent. A recent article in The Washington Post, “Questionnaire Can Shut Out Entry-Level Applicants,” highlighted the frustration felt by new college graduates who want public-sector jobs but can’t get through the application process to even get an interview. On the bright side, many agencies are creating a more entrepreneurial environment that appeals to the savvy young professionals who are also drawn to the missions of particular agencies and a public-service career. However, if the talented and dedicated can’t get through the front door, then the agencies’ efforts only serve the current population of workers—largely made up of senior officials who entered federal service for different reasons and have different expectations of their agency at this point in their careers.

The federal government needs to emphasize the characteristics that distinguish it from the private sector, correcting the misperceptions that deter the young from public service. Organizations like the Partnership for Public Service are working to “rebrand” government, but many of the solutions need to come from government itself. Federal agency strategic planning needs to focus on streamlining the application process and improving recruitment while accomplishing the mission. Part of that strategy should be the engagement of young professionals in the federal government who can contribute to improving the perception of the public sector and serve as recruiters, particularly by sharing their own experience in entering and selecting careers in public service.

The Young Government Leaders (YGL) organization plans to take on some of these issues using a bottom- up, cross-government approach. With over 450 young federal employees in many different agencies, YGL has created a forum for addressing not only issues that young workers face after they have entered the public-sector workforce, but also a longer-term strategy for growing that workforce and preparing them to be tomorrow’s government leaders. By finding ways to change the perception of public service, YGL hopes to catalyze a government recruitment campaign and take part in safeguarding the federal workforce.

Adrienne Spahr, a member of the Young Government Leaders organization, is an analyst with the international affairs and trade team at the U. S. Government Accountability Office. She can be reached at spahra@ gao. gov.

Featured Articles

A Firestorm Ignited: Pipeline Rupture in Clarke County

Government 2.0—Fact or Fiction?

The T-REX Megaproject: Denver’s Showcase for Innovation and Collaboration

Strengthening Workforce Resiliency in The Public Sector

Realizing a Performance Culture in Federal Agencies

Citizen Involvement in The Digital Age

Attracting Graduates to Government