Reallocate Staff to Improve Support of District Operations
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has a large decentralized workforce spread around the state located in 25 district offices, 119 area offices and 288 maintenance sections. The agency also has considerable central staff in Austin with engineering skills that are needed in the field offices. TxDOT should evaluate moving more production staff positions to the districts and more administrative functions to Austin to maximize efficiency.
TxDOT has one of the most decentralized organizational structures of any state department of transportation (DOT) in the country, with considerable latitude given to its 25 district offices in setting priorities for design and construction projects, maintenance, and operations activities. The districts are supported by central divisions and offices that act as technical advisors and policy development centers that work towards consistency among the activities in the districts. As in other state DOTs, TxDOT is faced with an organizational and staffing trade-off between the close-to-the-customer responsiveness and autonomy of a decentralized structure versus the efficiency inherent in centralizing certain functions and staff either in the districts or in the Austin headquarters or both.
TxDOT has responded to the considerably increased TEA-21 federal transportation funding. There is potential to respond further to the challenges, however, by reallocating some technical FTEs (full-time equivalent employees) in order to improve support of the districts.
Type of Office Total FTE Allocations Districts, including area and maintenance offices 11,882 ‘Heavy engineering’ divisions (Note 1) 929 Other modal divisions/offices (Note 2) 390 Central support divisions/offices (Note 3) 1,098 Vehicle titles & registration 427 Total 14,726
Source: Texas Department of Transportation.
1. For example, Bridge, Construction, Design, Traffic Operations divisions
2. For example, Aviation, Motor Carrier, Public Transportation, Travel divisions/offices
3. For example, Administration, Audit, General Services, Human Resources, Information Systems divisions/offices
For years, TxDOT has attributed the need for a substantially decentralized structure to the geographic size of the state and the costs associated with traveling long distances. It also is a current operational philosophy to provide in each of the 25 districts practically all the resources they need to accomplish their mission, to create, in effect, 25 “mini-DOTs.”
The districts are organized according to one of three structural models – metro, urban, or rural. All districts enjoy approximately the same types of functions within the three models, and vary significantly in numbers of personnel. The metro districts (Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio) average nearly 1,000 FTEs, with Houston, at 1,453, the largest. The smallest districts, such as Brownwood, Childress, Laredo, and San Angelo, have less than 300 FTEs each.
The vast majority of all district employees (over 90 percent in most cases) are in core production roles. That is, they are directly managing or carrying out planning, design, maintenance, operations, and/or construction activities. This is appropriate in that TxDOT has a) the largest capital program in the state’s history, b) a continued drain on technical expertise in the form of retirements and resignations, and c) an extensive number of outsourced stable design, construction, and maintenance consultants and contractors to manage. This leaves roughly 1,000 employees out of 11,882, or about 8.4 percent, in various administrative support roles housed in the 25 districts, or about 40 per district.
As noted, districts are structured in one of three basic ways, and within each is a wide range of functions and services. Maintenance of roadways and bridges is the most pervasive function in every district. The actual maintenance work may be performed by TxDOT employees, many housed in area offices and maintenance offices, or by outside contractors (over 50 percent in recent years). The districts are also responsible for the construction program, which is performed by private contractors. The Transportation Planning & Development unit typically houses design, right-of-way, environmental, public transportation, and other functions, depending on the size and complexity of the district. There also is a separate Transportation Operations function, which may include signs and signals, Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) activities, railroad coordination, pavement markings, and other items, again depending on the nature and extent of the district. Each district also has various support functions, including accounting, warehousing and purchasing, human resources, information systems, fleet management, public information, and safety, among others. Accordingly, each district is in essence fully equipped to carry out its mission autonomously.
Typically, other state DOTs’ districts are focused on more limited functions, primarily maintenance and construction, sometimes only maintenance. Primary design activities are performed only at the headquarters office in 21 of the state DOTs and at both headquarters and districts in 19 other states. Other states tend to rely heavily on centralized traffic operations rather than staffing these functions in the districts. Overall, the largest states in both size and population tend to have more autonomous district operations—and thus more decentralized functions—than do the smaller states.
Central Divisions and Offices
Although TxDOT is structured as a decentralized organization with program and project delivery emphasized in the districts, it also has a substantial centralized, Austin-based structure in place to support, coordinate, and review the work of the districts. The functions performed in the districts typically have a supporting central headquarters division. The divisions work to ensure consistency across the districts, and they serve as experts on various matters in support of district activities. The central office supports activities in roadway and bridge design, construction and maintenance, and traffic operations, as well as basic support services such as human resources, information systems, and purchasing. The central divisions and offices also provide services such as civil rights, general counsel, and legislative affairs that are not generally housed in the districts.
Divisions and offices create and implement policy for the districts, and they serve as a centralized resource for specialized technical information and programmatic guidance. As a practical matter, however, the central divisions and offices typically exercise little authority to enforce policies and procedures at the district level. Rather, the divisions serve primarily in an advisory, policy development, review, and coordination capacity and are an on-call resource for the districts. With about 2,800 employees in the central offices, there is one headquarters employee for every 5.4 district employees, excluding divisions such as Vehicle Titles and Registration, Motor Carrier, and Motor Vehicle that have little direct impact on the construction and maintenance of the highway system.
In some cases, such as the Maintenance Division, managers influence the allocation of resources to the districts through the evaluation of the quality of roadway facilities. The Maintenance Division also provides various training and examinations for certifications, provides oversight for ferry operations, and develops safety rest areas, among other things. In the Design Division, managers review and evaluate plans and specifications prepared by or on behalf of the districts. This review process includes the interpretation and application of national and state design standards and thus is a true oversight role. The division also manages the Enhancements Program, provides standard construction specifications, and maintains the pavement management program, among other things. Responsibility for the overall construction letting program is shared by the Design Division and the Construction Division. The Design Division handles the scheduling of construction projects for letting, prepares proposals and bidding documents, handles necessary addenda, and ensures all requirements are met to enable receipt of bids. The Construction Division provides proposals to prospective bidders and handles the receipt of bids and the award of contracts. The Construction Division also handles quality assurance for materials, coordination of core drilling and testing equipment, and management of the Technology Transfer System, among other things. In fact, the divisions and offices assume myriad additional duties and responsibilities. Division/district disputes are referred to senior headquarters staff for resolution.
Conclusions about Centralization and Decentralization
As noted, each district is supported by central divisions and offices that act as technical and policy development centers for specific functions in the districts. Other than this technical and policy support, however, the districts are nearly autonomous. This has proved to be a successful approach in past years, consonant with the state DOT trend towards decentralizing project development and production functions. This decentralized approach emphasizes and reinforces the established culture of the agency, which focuses on locating engineering and other expertise at the lowest possible level, often within each county at area or sub-area engineer and maintenance offices.
However, the Legislature’s cap on FTEs, TxDOT’s resource allocation for engineers, and the increased workload from increased federal funding result in a need for more production resources in the districts. Additional design production is needed to get more plans “on the shelf,” additional capacity is needed to accelerate rights-of-way and utilities settlements, and an increase in construction engineering and inspection would provide additional checks and balances in the construction program. Limitations on FTEs have somewhat curtailed the rotation of young engineers among transportation operations, maintenance, design, and construction. In fact, there is a much greater need for engineers in the field, as may be expected based upon the allocation of FTEs between headquarters and the districts, and if additional positions were available to TxDOT, the vast majority would be sent to the districts. Finally, based on year-to-date information, TxDOT is experiencing an overall turnover rate of over nine percent among engineering and engineering support positions and has been at about this level for several years. This means over 350 such positions will need to be filled this year, assuming no change in the FTE count.
Many of the personnel in the central “heavy engineering” divisions are registered professional engineers (RPEs) and other skilled technicians. Were they not focused primarily on policy development, advisory, and coordination roles, some could be used to supplement “production” forces in the field districts. Today, there are approximately 500 such positions in Austin, of which 187 are RPEs, and TxDOT management acknowledges that there is a greater need for engineering and technician talent in the districts, as noted earlier. Thus, on balance, the existing resource allocation results in too-large staffs in some divisions and offices as compared to the districts. Even so, division/office initiatives, such as the Statewide Hazard Elimination Program, are best provided centrally, from Austin. Also, “highly specialized subject matter experts”—such as those dealing with statewide Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) matters—would remain in Austin. However, not all engineers or technicians in Austin meet the “highly specialized subject matter experts” criterion, and “expertise on national trends and standards” should indeed be a part of the tool kit of every designer in the field. Trends would seem to be relatively important and easy to provide via written and electronic correspondence, and standards must be in the province of all designers, in-house or outside, in the districts, and in the divisions.
This performance review did not examine each of the divisions and offices to determine which specific positions could be transferred to the districts. Clearly, the primary candidates are positions from the (Roadway) Design Division, where design review in Austin could be curtailed, and other engineer-laden divisions such as Traffic Operations, Transportation Planning and Programming, Construction, and Maintenance. (As noted elsewhere, plan review would remain in the Design Division for complex projects, and would be increased in the districts for typical projects prepared both in-house and by consultants. There would no intention to reduce quality control of plans.) Colorado Department of Transportation moved headquarters engineering personnel to the field specifically to increase production there. At TxDOT, the objective would not be to meet an industry standard, but rather, to reinforce those district functions involved in the production and delivery of a substantially larger capital program.
With regard to benchmarking and industry standards, it should be noted that real differences among state DOTs, their historical unwillingness to compare performance, and the difficulties of doing so fairly has resulted in a dearth of printed information. The National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board notes that “...changes taking place and the innovations being introduced are not documented or widely understood. There is no ‘literature’ on state DOT change management....”
Some functions performed at the district level lend themselves to either consolidation with an adjacent district or sharing of resources among districts. One example is warehousing and distribution, while others include the pooled use of core drilling equipment across district boundaries, the design assistance sometimes provided one district by another, and the statewide leadership in Intelligent Transportation Systems deployment, as is the case at present in San Antonio. Another example is the shared use of right of way personnel across district lines. The sharing of resources across district boundaries recognizes that for some functions a regional (i.e., multi-district) approach is more efficient and cost-effective. TxDOT appears to be using a regional approach to good end for selected activities, maintaining the flexibility to do so without transferring employees permanently.
Although travel around the state remains time-consuming and expensive, technology advances provide for a more timely, frequent, and interactive level of internal communication. E-mail and video conferencing provide improved communications among districts and between the districts and Austin headquarters. Even with new communications capabilities, however, it is clear that certain operational functions need to remain decentralized to the district level: infrastructure maintenance, construction, and as discussed elsewhere, design of district specific projects. These functions–with the exception of design–must be performed where the projects and facilities are located for timely and least expensive access, contact with the public, and knowledge of local conditions.
Interestingly, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reported in 1998 that 25 of 48 responding state DOTs “decentralized project development functions” (procurement, planning, environmental design, and construction). They also reported that 15 state DOTs “centralized some major support functions” (information systems, finance, human resources, and quality assurance) since the implementation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). These rather substantial changes thus took place from 1992 to 1997, a period of only five years. That this much process and organizational change would take place in a third to a half of the states in so short a period is testimony to the responses of state DOTs to the new challenges facing them.
At the top level of TxDOT, the executive director has created a flat, non-traditional organizational structure. Essentially, more than 40 individuals report to him, with the deputy executive director and two assistant executive directors serving primarily as resource staff to the divisions, offices, and districts. According to TxDOT, these three senior managers also “...play an active role in managing the affairs of the department and directing the activities of agency work units.” The executive director provides the individual performance evaluations for the district engineers, and the deputy and assistant executive directors provide the performance evaluations for the division directors.
Further down the organization, however, numerous layers of management and supervision create a structure that becomes decidedly hierarchical. Throughout the department, there are many small units of only a few individuals, substantially reducing the employee to manager/supervisor ratio.
The State Auditor’s Office defines “managers” and “supervisors” as follows:
• A manager has the responsibility for strategic operations and planning ANDformulates statewide policy or directs the work of an agency, higher education institution, or subdivision, OR
• administers one or more statewide policies or programs of an agency, higher education institution, or subdivision, OR
• manages, administers, and controls a local branch office of an agency, higher education institution, or subdivision, including the physical, financial, or human resources, OR
• has substantial responsibility in human resources management, legislative relations, public information, or the preparation and administration of budgets, AND
• exercises supervisory authority that is not merely routine or clerical in nature and requires the consistent use of independent judgment.
A supervisor is an employee who has responsibility for daily operations and the authority to do, or effectively recommend, most of the following actions:
• discipline (demote, suspend, terminate)
• reward (grant merit increases, promotions, bonuses)
• assign/reassign duties
• approve leave requests
• resolve/settle employee relations problems
• formally evaluate employee performance.
Examples of working titles that are often supervisors include Custodial Crew Leader, Accounting Supervisor, Data Processing Supervisor, Office Manager, and Clerical Pool Supervisor. A supervisor may have both hourly and salaried employees.
The following table and text summarizes TxDOT data on staff to manager ratios:
Organization Total Employees Managers/Supervisors Ratio Districts (25) 11,954 1,797 6.7:1 Divisions (20) 2,608 561 4.6:1 Offices (8) 126 32 3.9:1 Total 14,688 2,390 6.1:1
Source: Texas Department of Transportation.
Note: Total employees decrease by 38 from TxDOT data provided earlier.
Overall, TxDOT has an employee to manager ratio of 6.1:1, or one manager for every 6.1 staff members. Meanwhile, Texas state law provides that “A state agency shall develop procedures for use in achieving a management-to-staff ratio of one manager for each 11 staff members.” TxDOT has noted that “...each agency has the flexibility to categorize positions in a way that is most reflective of its organizational structure and agency mission.” The agency acknowledges moving people into manager and supervisor positions to receive higher salaries. TxDOT also notes that many of department managers and supervisors are “working” managers and supervisors; clearly, this is in keeping with the definitions provided by TxDOT and intended to be applied throughout Texas state government.
Among the 25 districts, the ratios range from 5.2 (San Angelo) to 8.4 (Childress). Both of these districts are small, with about the same number of employees; the five Metro districts range from 6.0 (Austin) to 7.7 (Dallas). There is no substantial correlation between the size (in number of employees) of the district and the staff to manager ratio. In the maintenance units alone—comprising about 7,000 employees—TxDOT claimed a ratio of 19:1 in a 1999 national survey. (This apparent paradox may be due to definitional issues or it may be that district headquarters staffs have an employee to manager ratio paralleling that of the divisions in Austin.)
None of the seven central offices has more than 25 employees, and they average only 16; one may thus expect the staff to manager ratio (3.9) will be lower than for larger organizational units. The divisions average 130 employees each, with staff to manager ratios ranging from 2.7 (Roadway Design) to 9.6 (Information Systems) and an overall ratio of 4.6:1. Outside of the Information Systems Division, the highest ratio is 7.4 in the Motor Carrier Division.
In some units, the agency has too many layers of management between the executive level and the first line supervisor, especially in those cases where there are ‘one-over-one’ reporting relationships, e.g., where an organizational unit has a deputy or there are assistant directors in various sections. This is particularly so for units that have relatively few employees, such as the Office of the General Counsel, Office of Civil Rights, Aviation Division, Environmental Affairs Division, and the Texas Turnpike Authority. Also, nine of the 25 districts have deputy district engineer slots, including several small to mid-size districts. Overall, more than one-third of all districts, divisions, and offices has at least one “one-over-one” reporting relationship at the top. With such low staff to manager ratios–e.g, with a member of small organizational units-throughout the department, the “one-over-one” situation is particularly unnecessary.
Undoubtedly, many of these deputy or assistant positions and small units were created over time to satisfy the need to promote or otherwise distinguish employees from their peers. TxDOT, as in other units of state government, is severely limited in its ability to provide incentives and rewards for outstanding individual and unit performance, and merit pay increases have not been widely used to distinguish outstanding performers, regardless of intent. In fact, as documented elsewhere–and as loudly claimed in the results of the employee survey–salaries substantially lag the industry in engineering fields, if not in others as well. Historically, however, creating new, higher level positions in order to reward employees eventually leads to unnecessary layers of management and thus lowers the ratio of employees to managers.
A recent publication by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, “The Changing State DOT,” notes that “Reductions in force through policy and retirement have been the common experience of 30 state DOTs since Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA.)” One significant aspect of this response has been “flattening,” including:
• Reductions in manager-to-workforce ratios [e.g., more employees per manager];
• Elimination of some middle management functions; and
• Reallocation of staff by responsibility and location, to improve handling of priority functions.
The twenty-first century state DOTs may look increasingly less like the standard model of the 1990s.
The prevailing trend in the private sector is toward smaller corporate staffs, with most of the resources in the field as part of decentralized business operations. Decentralized organizations with high levels of authority delegation create the necessary flexibility and responsiveness, while reducing overhead and bureaucratic procedures that diminish resource productivity. TxDOT meets this criterion in large part, although there are opportunities to supplement additional engineer needs in the field. At the same time, certain activities are better centralized for most private and public entities, among them finance and accounting, and information services. TxDOT does not meet this criterion. Overall, 81 percent of agency FTEs are assigned to districts. Whether this level is appropriate to today’s TxDOT challenges is a matter of judgment and operating philosophy.
In industry and government, supervisory span of control varies tremendously, depending on the nature of the function, whether it is field or office oriented, the experience of the supervisor and those being supervised, the extent of technology available, and so forth. In any case, the clear trend is toward broader supervisory spans of control as well as higher levels of staff delegation, i.e., towards flatter organizations, as noted above. Coupled with more broadly defined jobs is the need to have higher-level skills in each employee. For example, foremen become working team leaders, supervisors oversee larger numbers of teams, and narrowly defined jobs are integrated into broader positions.
By way of illustrating what is possible, the Georgia Public Utilities Commission directed that Georgia Power Company reduce its layers of management between the chief executive officer (CEO) and the first line supervisors from 14 to five over a three-year implementation period. This objective was achieved, despite an internal struggle, resulting in relatively little downsizing and a much clearer and responsive organization. Within recent years, the Iowa DOT also reduced overall staff as well as the ratio of managerial to technical personnel.
In addressing workforce alignment, “The Changing State DOT” cites survey data from 48 state DOTs supporting the substantial structural changes and modifications in employee skills that has recently—and continues to—take place, including the following:
• changes in organizational structure and staffing patterns;
• adjusting the number of layers and reporting relationships;
• considering the core capabilities necessary to supply the necessary functions; and
• capitalizing on new technology to improve staff effectiveness.
In effect, state DOTs have been re-engineering their organization and staffing to more closely mirror leaner private companies faced with stockholder pressure for customer service and profits. Focus has been on reducing the number of organizational layers, the number of headquarters support personnel, and one-over-one reporting relationships.
It is important that organizations periodically review their structure and personnel allocation to determine which elements lend themselves to centralization and which to decentralization, and which need to be otherwise altered in response to programmatic changes. Criteria should include not only effectiveness and flexibility (often most identified with decentralized entities) but also consistency and efficiency in the provision of internal and external services (often most identified with centralized entities). In effect, two things would happen:
• For those functions that lend themselves to a greater degree of centralization in Austin) the district field staffs should be reduced or reassigned.
• For those functions that lend themselves to a greater degree of decentralization, the central division/office staff should be reduced or reassigned.
Furthermore, TxDOT could evaluate the consolidation of selected functions now separately managed by all or most of the 25 districts into a smaller number of regions or services. Examples include regional warehouses and distribution systems, and pooled services such as core drilling, shared by adjacent districts. Regardless of the sheer size of TxDOT and the geographic extent of the state, substantially increased communications technology, reductions in technical staffs, and new approaches to service delivery make partial consolidation and shared services an appropriate technique in some cases. TxDOT would retain area, maintenance, and project offices in order to provide staffing and facilities for functions such as maintenance and construction management that must be in close proximity to project sites.
In the Austin offices, the possibilities include a significant streamlining and reorganization of the division structure, particularly with regard to the low staff to manager ratio, 4.6 to 1, noted earlier.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) should develop a plan to shift production positions from the Austin headquarters to the district offices and support positions to Austin from the Districts to increase production and efficiency.
TxDOT should undertake a systematic examination of the core business and administrative support units that have substantial representation in both Austin headquarters and in the districts. The most important goal of this review would be to develop a plan to move engineering positions from Austin to the districts. The objective would be to further decentralize engineering operations and staffing to the districts and possibly further centralize support functions to Austin. Moving 20 percent of division engineering positions would make almost 100 engineering positions available to districts. This would achieve a higher level of technical production in the field and a potentially more sophisticated level of centralized guidance in the administrative areas. Improved communications technology could enable the administrative support personnel to serve the districts from Austin.
In planning and engineering, the evaluation should include Bridge and Roadway Design, Construction, Environmental Affairs, Maintenance, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning and Programming. Sufficient personnel should be retained in the divisions to manage current programs. This approach also would help improve the employee to manager/supervisor ratio in the divisions which is particularly low at 4.6 to 1.
Extensive central support, coupled with nearly autonomous district operations, tends to result in more positions than would be required under a tighter personnel allocation. This recommendation would realign personnel assignments by putting more engineers, technicians, and engineering assistants in the districts where production is focused, increasing plan and project delivery, construction inspection, or other technical jobs where TxDOT district engineers identify a need. Overall, district design engineering, construction oversight, and maintenance management would each realize an increase in engineers and skilled technicians.
There are numerous reasons for this recommendation. TxDOT’s construction program is the largest in its history and growing. TxDOT claims to not have enough engineers and engineering technicians overall and anticipates continued turnover due to retirements and recruiting by the private sector. The workload in the districts for technical personnel in production roles like design, construction engineering and inspection, and maintenance supervision has increased. At the same time, the ratio of employees to managers in the divisions located in Austin is very low; therefore, some of the manager positions could be transferred to the districts without substantially disrupting programs and processes.
TxDOT should begin this analysis as soon as possible and report results to the 2003 Legislature. The realignment of personnel should begin during the next two-year budget period. Implementation could be accomplished through one of two basic ways: 1) re-assignment of individuals or 2) transferring positions as they are vacated through retirement or resignations. As noted, TxDOT has identified the need to fill over 350 engineering-related positions due to annual turnover alone. Given this, TxDOT should be able to move immediately to increase district technical staff and decrease division staff. As some central division positions become vacant they could be reallocated to district offices.
As part of this analysis, TxDOT should take steps to increase its staff to manager ratio. This ratio provides TxDOT a way to target streamlining opportunities. There are several basic ways the improvement in ratio could be accomplished: 1) “flattening” the organizational structure by eliminating one-over-one reporting relationships; 2) merging small units, eliminating one or more manager/supervisor positions; and 3) reclassification of staff into appropriate categories. These changes may be accomplished through attrition, given TxDOT’s 10 percent turnover rate.
This recommendation could increase productivity and cut costs but the fiscal effect cannot be estimated because it depends on the results of TxDOT’s evaluation. For example, transferring 20 percent of division engineering staff positions to districts would yield 100 engineering and/or engineer technicians positions available to move from Austin to the districts. The districts would gain additional production staff and thus improve and expedite project delivery quality, quantity, and timeliness. This would be true particularly in design, operations, and construction.
[1 ]Letter from Cathy J. Williams, PHR, assistant executive director for Support Operations, Texas Department of Transportation, to Clint Winters, Research and Policy Development Division, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, October 18, 2000.
[2 ]“Texas Department of Transportation FTE Allocations,” table provided by Texas Department of Transportation, April 18, 2000.
[3 ]“Texas Department of Transportation FTE Allocations,” table provided by Texas Department of Transportation, April 18, 2000.
[4 ]Organizational charts for each division and district, provided by Texas Department of Transportation and bearing various dates within May 2000.
[5 ]Organizational charts for each division and district, provided by Texas Department of Transportation and bearing various dates within May 2000.
[6 ]Organizational charts for each division and district, provided by Texas Department of Transportation and bearing various dates within May 2000.
[7 ]“Organizational Charts of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Member Departments,” Administrative Subcommittee on Personnel and Human Resources, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (Washington, DC, revised November 1, 1994).
[8 ]Texas Department of Transportation “Results of Telephone Inquiry: How State Department of Transportation’s Perform Project Plan Design,” May 1998.
[9 ]“Organizational Charts of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Member Departments,” Administrative Subcommittee on Personnel and Human Resources, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (Washington, DC, revised November 1, 1994).
[10 ]Texas Department of Transportation, “General Information,” December 6, 2000 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtodot/geninfo/geninfo.htm). (Internet document.)
[11 ]Letter from Cathy J. Williams, PHR, assistant executive director for Support Operations, Texas Department of Transportation, to Clint Winters, Research and Policy Development Division, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, October 18, 2000.
[12 ]Interview with senior managers, Robert Kovar, Maria Burke and Elizabeth Hilton, Design Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 28, 2000; interview with Kirby W. Pickett, P.E. deputy executive director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, February 7, 2000; interview with senior managers, Thomas Bohuslav, Elizabeth Boswell and Bunny Neible, Construction Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 27, 2000; interview with senior managers, Zane Webb, Denise Pittard and Joe Graff, Maintenance Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 26, 2000; interview with senior manger, John Campbell, Right of Way Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 26, 2000.
[13 ]“Texas Department of Transportation FTE Allocations,” table provided by Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, April 18, 2000.
[14 ]Interview with senior managers, Zane Webb, Denise Pittard and Joe Graff, Maintenance Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 26, 2000.
[15 ]Interview with senior managers, William Garbade and Don Morris, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, February 9, 2000.
[16 ]Texas Department of Transportation, “Maintenance Division Responsibilities,” January 19, 2000 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/mnt/mnt.htm). (Internet document.)
[17 ]Interview with senior managers, Robert Kovar, Maria Burke and Elizabeth Hilton, Design Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 28, 2000.
[18 ]Texas Department of Transportation, “Design Division Responsibilities, ” January 19, 2000 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/des/des.htm). (Internet document.)
[19 ]Interview with senior managers, Thomas Bohuslav, Elizabeth Boswell and Bunny Neible, Construction Division, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 27, 2000.
[20 ]Letter from Cathy J. Williams, PHR, assistant executive director for Support Operations, Texas Department of Transportation, to Clint Winters, Research and Policy Development Division, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, October 18, 2000.
[21 ]Texas Department of Transportation, “Construction Division Responsibilities,” January 19, 2000 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cmd.htm). (Internet document.)
[22 ]American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Changing State DOT, (Washington, DC, 1998), p. 12.
[23 ]Interview with Mike Behrens, assistant executive director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, February 2, 2000.
[24 ]Interview with Mike Behrens, assistant executive director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, February 2, 2000.
[25 ]Interview with Mike Behrens, assistant executive director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, February 2, 2000.
[26 ]“Texas Department of Transportation Turnover Rates Engineers,” spreadsheet provided by Texas Department of Transportation.
[27 ]Letter from Cathy J. Williams, PHR, assistant executive director for Support Operations, Texas Department of Transportation, to Clint Winters, Research and Policy Development Division, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, October 18, 2000.
[28 ]Letter from Cathy J. Williams, PHR, assistant executive director for Support Operations, Texas Department of Transportation, to Clint Winters, Research and Policy Development Division, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, October 18, 2000.
[29 ]Telephone interview with William Reisbeck, chief engineer, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, Colorado, April 3, 2000.
[30 ]“Factors Affecting the Future of State Department of Transportations as Institutions,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP 8-36, Task 12B, Part 2, p. 7. Component of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Strategic Plan Background Materials, Planning Session, May 8-10, Baltimore, Maryland.
[31 ]Interview with senior managers, John Kelly, Tony Arredondo and Gilbert Gavia, Texas Department of Transportation-San Antonio District, San Antonio, Texas, February 8, 2000.
[32 ]American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Changing State DOT, (Washington, DC, 1998), pp. 7 and 12.
[33 ]Letter from Cathy J. Williams, PHR, assistant executive director for Support Operations, Texas Department of Transportation, to Clint Winters, Research and Policy Development Division, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, October 18, 2000.
[34 ]Interview with Kirby W. Pickett, P.E., deputy executive director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, February 2, 2000.
[35 ]E-mail from Denise Pittard, Policy Analyst, Legislative Affairs Office, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, June 14, 2000.
[36 ]“Management to Staff Ratio,” table provided by Texas Department of Transportation, June 15, 2000.
[37 ]“Management to Staff Ratio,” table provided by Texas Department of Transportation, June 15, 2000.
[38 ]Section 651.004. Management-to-Staff Ratios, Act 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1035, Sec.88, eff. June 19, 1997.
[39 ]Comments by Texas Department of Transportation representatives, Comptroller’s office meeting, Austin, Texas, October 3, 2000.
[40 ]American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Changing State DOT, (Washington, DC, 1998), pp. 7 and 12.
[41 ]Survey of Department of Transportation Maintenance Units of Selected States, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, North Carolina, March 1999.
[42 ]“Management to Staff Ratio,” table provided by Texas Department of Transportation, June 15, 2000.
[43 ]Organizational charts for each division and district, provided by Texas Department of Transportation and bearing various dates within May 2000.
[44 ]“Texas Department of Transportation Open Ended Responses for Code 1,” Final Report on Employee Survey Results, NuStats Research & Consulting, Austin, Texas, July 7, 2000. (Consultant’s report.)
[45 ]American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Changing State DOT, (Washington, DC, 1998), pp. 11, 12, and 16.
[46 ]American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Changing State DOT, (Washington, DC, 1998) p. 12.
[47 ]“Factors Affecting the Future of State Department of Transportations as Institutions,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, NCHRP 8-36, Task 12B, Part 2, p. 18. Component of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Strategic Plan Background Materials, Planning Session, May 8-10, 2000, Baltimore, Maryland.
[48 ]Ernst & Whinney Management Consulting Services, 1988.
[49 ]American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Changing State DOT, (Washington, DC, 1998), p. 71.
[50 ]American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, The Changing State DOT, (Washington, DC, 1998), p. 39.