Software Programs and Processes for Tracking Capital Program Funds

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will soon transition away from using the internally developed Program and Project Management System (PPMS) software program to track funding for transportation expenditures. PPMS was developed primarily to track project schedules, and it evolved over time to track project funding as well. PPMS was not intended to serve the purpose of tracking project funding, and therefore MnDOT has experienced difficulty with maintaining data integrity, in addition to other issues. The new software program and processes chosen to replace PPMS should be robust enough to adapt to state and federal funding changes, and it is desirable that a new tool also produce the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) acceptable for approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Before selecting a new software program to track capital program funding, MnDOT was interested in examining how other state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other public agencies manage and track the funding streams they receive. Results from this project will help inform MnDOT’s decision when selecting a new software program for tracking capital program funding. This State of Practice Transportation Research Synthesis (TRS) examines software programs and processes used by State DOTs to track capital program funding. It also summarizes relevant practices of selected non-DOT entities. This research included surveying State DOTs and compiling results, documenting software programs used by non-DOT agencies, and summarizing four featured State DOT examples as selected by MnDOT. This synthesis includes the following sections: Approach – Summarizes the process used for gathering information via a survey of state DOTs and through targeted contacts to non-DOT public agencies; Summary of Findings – Provides results of the State DOT survey, summarizes information gathered from non-DOT agencies, and provides expanded summaries of four featured examples (Iowa DOT; Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development; Washington State DOT; Wyoming DOT); Conclusions – Provides an overview of key observations and trends; Appendix A – Contains the survey issued to State DOTs; and Appendix B – Summarizes all survey responses received from State DOTs.


  • English

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 01600659
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Created Date: May 25 2016 10:29AM