Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

- Peer Exchange Report -

Peer-to-Peer Exchange on the Electronic STIP Amendment Project (E-STIP)

I. Summary

The following report summarizes the results of a Peer Exchange held through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) hosted this two-day Peer Exchange in Lansing, MI in order to learn the electronic Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) amendment procedures practiced in New York. This exchange was aimed at exploring the possible adaptation of the New York E-STIP process for Michigan. Held on June 15-June 17, about 25 participants from MDOT, FHWA MI Division, New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and FHWA NY Division Offices of Planning and Information Technology participated in the discussion.

The objectives of the Peer Exchange were to understand the similarities and differences in the STIP amendment and approval processes practiced in Michigan and New York, to obtain an overview of the New York electronic STIP amendment process through a demonstration of the system, and to learn the procedures specific to the system operations and maintenance. At the exchange members shared information on their practices and experiences related to the STIP amendment approval process in each office. As a result of the exchange, participants were able to articulate MDOT‘s options regarding next steps toward the development of an automated STIP system.

II. Background

The staff of FHWA NY Division, in cooperation with NYSDOT, has created an electronic STIP amendment process for New York that has greatly enhanced the efficiency of the STIP/TIP approval/amendment process for New York MPOs, NYSDOT and the FHWA NY Division. Although the technology does not assist in determining when amendments are required, nor is it for amendment approvals, it does reduce paperwork and decreases processing times. Creating this E-STIP application was a complex and time-consuming endeavor for the FHWA NY Division. The project information in the STIP, including project name, scope of work and funding information had to be reproduced into a database that would be accessible to both NYSDOT and the FHWA NY Division. Protocol was established for the database, including parameters for amendment approvals, changing data, reports generated, etc. The FHWA NY Division team that created the E-STIP application included computer specialists who wrote the code for the program and established the hardware set-up, and a planner who identified the functions and information necessary for the database in order to process STIP amendments. An amendment is typically initiated in the database at NYSDOT and then a notice is sent electronically to the FHWA NY Division, where planners view the information. It is anticipated that the implementation of an E-STIP in Michigan would hasten the process for STIP amendment approvals. If MDOT can modify its business process and agreements with the FHWA MI Division, it intends to duplicate the E-STIP system that New York uses. This peer exchange provided a forum for staff from New York and Michigan to exchange, discuss, and analyze the technical and business information necessary to transfer this technology to Michigan.

III. Participant Perspectives

The Peer Exchange discussion focused on the following subject areas:

1. Understanding the STIP amendment processes in Michigan and New York and identifying common elements between the two.
   

   1.A TIP amendment processes
   1.B STIP amendment processes
   1.C Topics for discussion

2. Understanding the New York system through a review of the E-STIP business interface, fiscal constraint and interagency agreements
   

   2.A The E-STIP business interface
   2.B Fiscal constraint

3. Understanding New York procedures specific to system operations
   

   3.A Ad hoc reporting
   3.B E-STIP‘s System configuration
   3.C E-STIP‘s System maintenance
   3.D E-STIP‘s Code maintenance

   1. Understanding the State Transportation Improvement Program amendment processes in Michigan and New York and identifying common elements between the two.
      
      1 A. – TIP Amendments
      To begin the exchange, MDOT participants shared information about the steps involved in processing TIP amendments in their office. Participants from New York provided feedback on the degree to which each step practiced at MDOT resembled their own practices. In Michigan, the process for approving TIP Amendments is formally broken down into 19 steps. MDOT did not discuss each step in great depth, but did highlight the following information about specific steps involved in the process:
      
      Step 1: Implementing agency identifies amendment need
      At this stage, the implementing agency submits its TIP amendment request to the MPO staff. Following staff review, the amendments are sent to the MPO. After steps four, five, and six (described below), and after conducting the appropriate analysis and receiving approval from the MPO, the MPO staff submits the request to MDOT. As next steps, MDOT reviews the analysis and sends a letter to the FHWA MI Division seeking approval for the amendment. Once approval has been granted by FHWA, MDOT notifies the MPO so that it is eligible to receive funding. This step is handled similarly in New York.
      
      Step 4: Determine if the amendment is regionally significant
      Typically, in Michigan, the MPOs determine whether or not an amendment is regionally significant when it is included in the TIP. MDOT reviews the assessments made by MPOs and may question them if necessary. The key to this step is to determine the regional significance for air quality. This step is handled similarly in New York.
      
      Step 5: Determine if the amendment is in the Regional Transportation Plan/Long Range Plan
      Michigan‘s Long Range Plan is similar to The State Master Plan in New York. In New York, NYSDOT determines whether or not the amendment is consistent with the New York State Master Plan.
      
      Step 6: Determine if the amendment requires Air Quality Conformity
      In Michigan, an interagency working group within each MPO, composed of representatives from FHWA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), determines whether or not the project is regionally significant with respect to air quality. It has been pointed out that some of the smaller regions in Michigan lack the resources required to make this determination effectively. In New York, air quality is determined at the local level and the interagency committee confers. Ultimately, the MPO draws from the interagency consultation process to make the final determination with respect to conformity analysis. However, both the central and regional offices participate in the process.
      
      Step 9: Determine if the amendment is in the General Procurement Account (GPA)
      Often 10-20 projects will be grouped together in a GPA. In Michigan, GPAs are small projects that are grouped according to the provision of 23 CFR 450:324(i). This step involves ensuring that the individual projects listed in the amendment are not already included in a GPA. A similar step is taken in New York; however, the GPA is referred to as a "Block".
      
      Step 10: Determine if the amendment is in the STIP
      At this point in the process, the amendment package has been approved by the MPO, and MDOT must determine if there is a need for Federal action. Federal action is needed when a project is added to the STIP, deleted from the STIP, or the scope of work, including termini and/or type of work, is changed from the current program of projects.
      
      1 B. – STIP Amendments
      After reviewing steps involved in the TIP approval process, MDOT participants shared information about the steps involved in processing STIP amendments in their office, noting in particular whether or not each step is processed via paper or electronically. Participants from New York provided feedback on the degree to which each step at MDOT resembled their own practices. In Michigan, the process for approving STIP Amendments is formally broken down into 8 steps. MDOT highlighted the following information about each step involved in the process:
      
      Step 1: MDOT Statewide Planning reviews amendment request to verify requirements
      Michigan conducts amendment requests through a paper process. In New York, it is also handled as a paper process although notification of MPO concurrence is also conveyed to FHWA via the electronic amendment request.
      
      Step 2: Determine if the Environmental Justice Review is complete
      Environmental Justice Reviews occur to ensure that projects have no disproportionate impacts on low income and/or minority populations and that the needs of such communities are being fairly considered when transportation projects are advanced. MDOT‘s review process includes receiving documentation from MPOs indicating the status of the environmental justice review for each project. MDOT then reviews and verifies each project‘s documents for environmental justice compliance. In New York, the Environmental Justice Review of individual projects is delegated to the MPOs. NYSDOT evaluates the overall environmental justice review process used by MPOs rather than reviewing each project. In both offices this step is processed via paper.
      
      Step 3: Determine if the Financial Constraint Analysis is complete
      MDOT reviews financial tables submitted electronically from MPOs and notes any financial changes requested, the project‘s funding type, and the financial impact of the change before updating the Map Project Information System (MPINS) database. The same financial information is required and available in both Michigan and New York. However, in New York the responsibility for maintaining fiscal constraint is delegated to the regional level whereas in Michigan it is handled at the state level.
      
      Steps 4 and 5: Determine if Air Quality Conformity is needed and complete
      In both Michigan and New York, interagency groups at the MPO level determine which projects are subject to conformity prior to the amendment process. State agencies verify that air quality paperwork has been submitted and, once step eight (described below) is completed, proceed with all projects other than the few that are not exempt from air quality/conformity determinations. It was noted that the process is affected by the 30-day EPA review period, and that non-exempt projects cause extra work and delay. In New York, the air quality status of projects is indicated via a drop down menu presenting the project‘s air quality status as "exempt", "non-exempt" or "non-applicable" in the E-STIP application.
      
      Step 6: Determine if Public Involvement Activities are complete
      MDOT staff attend public involvement meetings. In New York, the State DOT satisfies the public involvement requirements using the MPO processes. The NY Division Office receives notification toward satisfaction of public involvement requirements as part of the STIP amendment request submission. This notification is provided in a "text box" that is part of the web based STIP amendment request. Verification is provided by separate hard copy submittals made by the MPOs.
      
      Steps 7 and 8: MDOT approves amendment request and drafts Transmittal Letters
      At this point all necessary steps should have been completed for amendment of the STIP. MDOT drafts an approval letter confirming that all requirements have been met, and sends it via inter office mail to the FHWA MI Division. In New York, there is no need to draft a letter. Rather, the approval is indicated via a binary check box on the web-based E-STIP application. It was noted that Michigan could benefit tremendously from the time-savings involved with no longer having to process letters at MDOT that would be created by emulating the way New York submits approvals electronically.
      
      1 C. – Discussion Topics
      Throughout the discussion participants addressed various differences between practices at NYSDOT/FHWA NY Division and MDOT/FHWA MI Division. Topics discussed include the following:
      
      
      • Evolving nature of E-STIP application
        The capabilities of the E-STIP amendment process are continually evolving to cover a greater breadth of information. By December 2004, the system will incorporate the TIP management activities conducted by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the MPO for the City of New York. Currently, New York is in discussions with the New Jersey Institute of Technology to explore the feasibility of incorporating an E-STIP application into the Transportation, Economic and Land-Use System (TELUS). This would provide all MPOs nationwide with a means to manage and prioritize their projects electronically.
      • Triggers to an amendment
        Participants distinguished between situations that require Federal action and those that are covered by "project selection" actions where no FHWA approval is required. Federal action is required when adding or deleting a Federally funded project or when changing a project‘s scope. Federal Action is also required in New York and Michigan when there is a change in air quality status from exempt to non-exempt. In New York, other changes such as a change in funding source and project cost are monitored internally at the MPO level and managed by the state partners in reflecting such changes in the approved STIP.
      • Materials included in MPO Documentation Package
        
        When MDOT receives a documentation package from an MPO the following information is included:
        
        
        1. MPO documentation such as meeting minutes, copies of resolutions, and public involvement information
        2. Project description
        3. Project costs including the Federal and state cost breakdown
        4. Scope of work
        5. Financial tables, and
        6. TIP replacement pages
      • Oversight delegation
        In 1992, capital program oversight in New York was delegated to NYSDOT Regional Offices enabling the NYSDOT Headquarters office to delegate TIP coordination. As a result, program and project management in New York happens largely at the regional level and the regional offices attend planning and policy committee meetings. In Michigan, on the other hand, capital program oversight has not been delegated to the regional level, but rather, STIP and TIP management still occurs at the state level.
        
        
   2. Understanding the New York system through a review of the E-STIP business interface, fiscal constraint and interagency agreements
      
      2 A. – Business Interface
      As part of the exchange, the participants from New York provided a demonstration of its E-STIP amendment approval process. The E-STIP application is a web-based database that complies with FHWA regulations, contains all project information, and enables NYSDOT and FHWA NY Division to submit and approve program amendments electronically. Using E-STIP, users can select any of the following criteria to search for projects:
      
      
      1. Project Number
      2. Amendment Number
      3. Region Number
      4. Fiscal Year
      5. Fund Type
      6. Phase
      7. Description
      8. County Name
      The system is coded to provide different users with different levels of access. For example, transportation planners at NYSDOT and FHWA NY Division have read/write access and can use it to add or update project information. When a record is updated in the system at the state level, it is included among a group of projects that require approval at the Federal level. Before approving any project, the Program Assistant at the FHWA NY Division verifies the status of the project and clarifies any points of confusion. The project may then be approved electronically on the system, at which time it is eligible to receive Federal funds. Information on every transaction is stored in the system including who initiated the project and on what date, and who authorized the request and on what date.
      
      User input was solicited in developing the application. Based on feedback received from users across the state, a number of features were included to help make the application of service to a spectrum of planning professionals. Popular features of the system include being able to view projects with construction costs over a certain dollar amount, viewing projects by county, pin number or region, and looking up project approval status. Pre-formatted project phase, project summary, fiscal and STIP historical reports are also available on the system.
      
      A possible short-term improvement includes adding an auto mail feature that would cause those who approve projects to receive an email notification that a project requiring their approval has been entered into the system. Another improvement includes adding a batch approval feature that would enable those responsible for approving projects to approve a number of projects simultaneously using the application. The major benefit of the system is the time savings in the move from a paper to an electronic project management system. In 2002, the system received FHWA‘s "Program for 2002 Administrator‘s Award for Teamwork and Innovation".
      
      2 B. – Financial Review
      Participants shared information on the way in which fiscal constraint is managed in each office and they compared similarities and differences between the two. As it is Federally mandated, it was not surprising to learn that both offices must demonstrate fiscal constraint for the Congestion Mitigation (CMAQ), Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR), National Highway System (NHS), Interstate Maintenance (IM) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding sources. Both offices also have systems in place to provide flexibility to their programs such as advance construction. The advance construction program affords the ability to include projects in the STIP for which Federal funds are not currently available. However, state and local areas must have the money to fund Air Conformity projects. By debiting out of a future apportionment this tool expands the number of projects that can be programmed into the STIP. If a region fails to meet fiscal constraint requirements, program actions offsetting the over-programming of available resources are taken. A primary difference between the New York and Michigan systems is that servers in Michigan are connected to the Federal Management Information System (FMIS) whereas in New York they are not.
      
      The financial summary information provided in Table 1 (below) is derived directly from the New York STIP database. It is a standard report available through the "Reports" module of the web based STIP application. There are a variety of variations of this Table available in the application, each designed to assist the NYSDOT Program Coordinator in managing the fiscal aspects of the STIP. It should be noted that the costs reflected in Table 1 are the TIP/STIP planning estimates and reflect the amounts obligated and unobligated by Federal funding sources; no estimate of resources remaining available are included in this Table. NYSDOT separately submits the actual official "Fiscal Constraint Demonstration" to the FHWA NY Division on a quarterly basis and reflects actual amounts of funds obligated and funds available as reflected in FHWA‘s Financial Management Information System (FMIS).
      
      Table 1: NY STIP Fiscal Constraint Analysis
      
      (see text version)
      
      
      Table 1. This table is an example of the summary reports available in the New York E-STIP. Other similar tabular summary reports are available as part of the E-STIP.
      
      2 C. – Interagency Agreements
      Participants determined that understanding any interagency agreements between MDOT and the FHWA MI Division would be crucial to the successful development of an automated STIP application in Michigan. It was discovered during the meeting that many interagency agreements currently in place in Michigan are verbal and, although there are a number of letters concerning program expectations, it would be beneficial to have more written agreements. Before setting up the electronic database, participants from Michigan agreed that they would need to formally review their interagency agreements in a separate meeting and determine which, if any, would need to change in order to enhance the system. As a start, participants created a working agenda for a future meeting on interagency agreements. Identified agenda items are as follows:
      
      
      1. Determine how security will operate (i.e., who will have read only access, and who will have read/write access).
      2. Determine how electronic signature authority between MDOT and the FHWA MI Division will function.
      3. Determine steps toward the development of a working agreement with FTA, Region 5.
   3. Understanding New York procedures specific to system operations
      
      3 A. – Ad Hoc Reports
      In developing the E-STIP database, it was determined that the need for ad hoc reports would be minimal and that making pre-formatted reports available would be more useful. New York‘s system does not facilitate ad hoc reporting. In the case that a New York State partner requires a report that is not available in the system, the report would be added to the list by computer programmers at the FHWA NY Division.
      
      3 B. – System Configuration
      The FHWA NY Division and NYSDOT servers are connected via a router. However, the system is configured so that there is firewall protection between the agency systems. For security purposes, NYSDOT does not have direct access to the FHWA NY Division‘s system and vice versa. The E-STIP application requires less than 500 megabytes for storage space, which is considered to be a relatively small amount of space. Computer applications that the system employs include Crystal Reports Version 8, ASP Classic, ASP Premier and Microsoft Sequel 2000.
      
      3 C. – System Maintenance
      In order to maintain the system, the FHWA NY Division contracts with a private company that supports the application very effectively and is willing to customize the product as needed. The cost for the contractor service is $2,000.00 per year. In situations that require a change in data logic, the code is re-written by computer programmers at the FHWA NY Division. When a server back up is required, the FHWA NY Division contacts NYSDOT to agree to a 3-hour time slot during which it would be appropriate to perform the back-up without interfering with the State‘s business needs.
      
      3 D. – Code Maintenance
      Minimal code changes are required to maintain the system. Reports are added, as needed, using Crystal Reports software, at system users‘ requests. Drop down menu selections are updated very easily through a Utility Module hosted in the application.

   IV. Next Steps

   Currently, MDOT uses the following four tools for STIP and TIP management:

   • Map Financial Obligation System (MFOS) – Serves as an interface between MDOT and FHWA MI division in obligating funds.
   • Map Project Information System (MPINS) – Serves as an interface for users to enter, maintain and retrieve project data stored on the MAP database.
   • Administrative Customizable Report System (ACRS) – Serves as a query tool used to extract data from the MAP database.
   • Michigan Architectural Project (MAP) – Stores capital project-related data including financial data accessed by MFOS, MPINS, and ACRS.

   As a result of the exchange, various options surfaced as plausible ways for MDOT to build upon their current database systems to create an E-STIP amendment approval process similar to the one created in New York.

   Initially, two options were discussed that involved the FHWA NY Division hosting the Michigan STIP. While these options would have provided a low cost solution for Michigan, further investigation determined that FHWA Information Technology security requirements would prevent these options from working.

   More feasible options included:

   Option 1: MDOT would host the web-based STIP application. This option is more costly than the options discussed above because it requires the purchase of various software applications totaling about $10,000.00.

   Option 2: MDOT would redevelop the application from scratch based on its own needs and standards. In this case there would be the flexibility to use a more commonly supported language that the FHWA NY Division does not currently use, such as Oracle. This option is the most costly because in addition to requiring the purchase of new software applications, it would require resources and expertise to develop new code, and it would not build on the current code already established at the FHWA NY Division.

   V. For More Information

   Key Contact(s): for host agency(s):	Amy Lindstrom
   Address:	State Transportation Improvement Program Michigan Department of Transportation
   Phone:	(517) 335-1510
   E-mail:	Lindstrom@michigan.gov

   
   

   VI. Participants List

   Business Experts (14)
   Name	Organization	Title	Phone & Email
   Denise Jackson	MDOT Statewide Planning	Project Sponsor/Stwd. Plng. Division Administrator	517-335-2962 JacksonDe@michigan.gov
   Amy Lindstrom	MDOT Statewide Planning	Project Manager/STIP Coordinator	517-335-1510 lindstroma@michigan.gov
   Marsha Small	MDOT Statewide Planning	Section Manager	517-373-9193 smallm@michigan.gov
   Dal McBurrows	MDOT Statewide Planning	Unit Supervisor	517-373-9055 mcburrowsd@michigan.gov
   Mark Kloha	MDOT Statewide Planning	Transportation Planner	517-241-3675 kloham@michigan.gov
   Pam Boyd	MDOT Statewide Planning	Transportation Planner MPO Representative	517-335-2803 BoydP1@michigan.gov
   Paul Lott	MDOT Statewide Planning	Transportation Planner MPO Representative	517-335-2948 LottP@michigan.gov
   Linda Jackson (on call)	MDOT Financial Operations	Department Analyst	517-335-2367 jacksonl@michigan.gov
   Jim Cramer	FHWA-MI PPD*	Transportation Planning Group Leader	517-702-1827 James.Cramer@fhwa.dot.gov
   Cindy Durrenberger	FHWA-MI PPD*	Transportation Planner	517-702-1829 Cindy.Durrenburger@fhwa.dot.gov
   Tamiko Brim-Burnell	FHWA-MI PPD*	Planning, Research and T2 Engineer	517-702-1823 Tamiko.Burnell@fhwa.dot.gov
   Sarah Koepke	FHWA-MI PPD*	Planning PDP	517-702-1855 Sarah.Koepke@fhwa.dot.gov
   Tom Kearney	FHWA-NY PPD*	Statewide Planner	518.431.4125 x 218 Tom.Kearney@fhwa.dot.gov
   Bill Hebert	NYSDOT	Transportation Planner	518-457-4081 whebert@dot.state.ny.us
   * PPD = Planning & Program Development

   
   
   

   Technical Experts (12)
   Name	Department	Title	Phone & Email
   Bill Hurley	MDOT/MDIT Web Services (Consultant)	Technical Project Manager/Meeting Facilitator	517-241-4679 hurleybi@michigan.gov
   Ron Vibbert	MDOT Asset Management	Strategic Systems Operation & Maintenance Manager/Bureau Automation Mgr.	517-373-9561 vibbertr@michigan.gov
   Wendi Burton	MDOT Statewide Planning	Transportation Programs Specialist/MAP DataTeam Leader	517-241-4299 BurtonWe@michigan.gov
   Abhijit Sarkar	MDOT Statewide Planning	IT Analyst/Data Manager (Planning)	517-241-3437 SarkarA@michigan.gov
   Kay McNeal (on call)	MDOT Financial Operations	Project Accounting Manager/ MFOS System Administrator	517-335-2366 MCNEALK@michigan.gov
   Chuck Baird	MDIT Information Management	Agency Support Services Manager	517-335-2404 BairdC@michigan.gov
   Yvonne Morrison	MDIT Information Management	Web Services	517-373-9041 MorrisonY@michigan.gov
   Virginia Fila	MDIT Information Management	Oracle Database Administration Specialist	517-241-1279 filav@michigan.gov
   Don Bullock	FHWA-MI Executive Coordination	Systems Operations Coordinator	517-702-1824 Donald.Bullock@fhwa.dot.gov
   Vershun Tolliver	FHWA Tennessee	Computer Consultant	615-781-5770 Vershun.Tolliver@fhwa.dot.gov
   Paul Mancuso	FHWA-NY Administration	IT Specialist	518-431-4125 x 210 Paul.Mancuso@fhwa.dot.gov
   Paul Hesse	FHWA-NY Administration	IT Specialist	518-431-4125 x 211 Paul.Hesse@fhwa.dot.gov

   
   
   

   Agenda

   For Automated STIP Amendment Project Meeting
   Tuesday, June 15, 2004 – Thursday, June 17, 2004
   At First Floor Lobby Conference Room,
   Van Wagoner Building,
   425 W. Ottawa Street,
   Lansing, MI

   Introduction
   Tuesday, June 15
   2:00 - 2:30 pm

   Objective: Provide a meeting overview and introduce the participants.

   Agenda Items	Facilitators	Materials
   Welcome (Amy Lindstrom) - agenda overview - proximity of facilities - introduce session facilitators Project Sponsor Greeting (Denise Jackson) General Overview (Amy) - round-table introductions - expectations - suggestions	Denise Jackson, Project Sponsor Amy Lindstrom,Project Manager and Business Facilitator Bill Hurley, Technical Project Manager and Meeting Facilitator	Meeting agenda Whiteboard and dry erase markers Paper documentation materials

   
   

   Process Overview
   Tuesday, June 15
   2:30 - 5:00 pm

   Objective 1: Understand the Michigan amendment process and the New York maintenance processes supported by the e-STIP system and identify the common elements between the two.

   Action 1: Provide an overview of the Michigan amendment process and the New York State and federal regulated processes that are supported by the e-STIP system.

   Agenda Items	Facilitators	Materials
   1.A. TIP Amendments Review the Michigan TIP amendment approval process and the New York TIP maintenance approval process 1.B. STIP Amendments Review the MI STIP amendment approval process and the NY STIP maintenance approval process- Break -1.C. Identify Shared ElementsIdentify and document the common or shared processes used by both New York and Michigan. Focus on state regulated processes, if similar between states.1.D. Relate to Federal RegulationsIdentify and document required federal processes or support of federal regulations. - Break - 1.C. Identify Shared Elements Identify and document the common or shared processes used by both New York and Michigan. Focus on state regulated processes, if similar between states. 1.D. Relate to Federal Regulations Identify and document required federal processes or support of federal regulations.	Amy Lindstrom Business Facilitator Bill Hurley Meeting Facilitator Knowledge Experts: Present all Michigan and New York processes and answer questions concerning federal and state regulations supported by the system. Present the daily workflow related to performing the STIP processes with the system. FHWA New York: Tom Kearney NYSDOT: Bill Hebert FHWA Michigan: Jim Cramer Cindy Durrenberger MDOT: Marsha Small Mark Kloha (STIP) Pam Boyd (TIP) Paul Lott (TIP)	Projector and screen Michigan and New York process flowcharts and diagrams. Hardcopy of the NY system web pages Hardcopy of the NY system reports Michigan TIP and STIP amendment letters FMIS/MFOS data interfaces MPINS STIP screens FHWA Regulations(23 CFR 450)

   
   

   Process Detail
   Wednesday, June 16
   8:30 am - 4:30 pm

   Objective 2: Understand the New York System through an in-depth visual demonstration and walk-through of the system.
   
   Action 2: Provide a hands-on system demonstration of the system including a walk-through review of the web pages and a discussion of the business processes each web page supports.

   Agenda Items	Facilitators	Materials
   2.A. Web Page/Business Interface Review how each web page supports a specific business process based on state and federal regulations 2.B. Data Requirements Identify and document - federally required data - state required data 2.C. Reporting Requirements Identify and document - federally mandated reporting - state mandated reporting - Lunch - 2.D. Financial Review - demonstrating financial constraint - financial constraint tables and reports - data set compilation - obligated actions/amounts with detail of allocations - FMIS, semi-automation, and manual processes - Break - 2.E. Interagency Agreements Review of all amendment process or policy agreements between FHWA-MI and MDOT	Amy Lindstrom Business Facilitator Bill Hurley Meeting Facilitator Knowledge Experts: FHWA New York: Tom Kearney Paul Mancuso Paul Hesse NYSDOT: Bill Hebert FHWA Michigan: Jim Cramer Cindy Durrenberger Don Bullock Vershun Tolliver (TN) MDOT: Marsha Small Mark Kloha (STIP) Pam Boyd (TIP) Paul Lott (TIP) Linda Jackson Kay McNeal Wendi Burton Abhijit Sarkar	All materials from yesterday Laptop with Internet access to the New York System through the FHWA Michigan Division Office link T1-Internet connection Backup laptop loaded with a presentation of the New York System and Crystal Reports (in case the Internet connection or room fault occurs)

   
   

   Ad-Hoc Reports and System Operations/Maintenance
   Thursday, June 17
   8:30 - 11:30 am

   Objective 3: Understand New York system procedures specific to the system operations.
   
   Action 3: Provide a review of the existing system operations and technical support required to provide the business with ongoing system use.

   Agenda Items	Facilitators	Materials
   3.A. Ad-hoc Reports Review ad-hoc information requests by New York agencies. Discuss how the system handles inquiries using STIP and ad-hoc reporting features. 3.B. System Configuration Identify and document system installation and configuration specifications (O/S, database, servers, backup and restore, capacity, data maintenance, etc.) 3.C. System Maintenance Identify and document periodic system maintenance routines (monthly, quarterly, end-of-fiscal year, etc.) 3.D. Code Maintenance Identify and document program code maintenance (data processing logic, supported functions, etc.)	Amy Lindstrom Business Facilitator Bill Hurley Meeting Facilitator Knowledge Experts: FHWA New York: Paul Mancuso Paul Hesse NYSDOT: Bill Hebert FHWA Michigan: Don Bullock Vershun Tolliver (TN) MDOT: Wendi Burton Abhijit Sarkar Chuck Baird Yvonne Morrison Virginia Fila MDOT System Administrator: To be named	All materials from the last two days

   
   
   

   Objective: Conclude the meeting and identify ongoing activities with the participants.
   Action: Document next steps and action items.
   Amy Lindstrom, Business Facilitator
   Bill Hurley, Meeting Facilitator