Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
15 CHAPTER 3 IDENTIFICATION OF CANDIDATES FOR CASE STUDY ANALYSES The research team was charged with selecting four to The team then condensed individual nominations into a six DOTs for case study analyses. These were to be DOTs single list recommended by the team. The recommended case that have been particularly thorough, innovative, or repre- study departments are as follows: sentative in their approaches to meeting the GASB 34 requirements, in particular with respect to the key issues · Illinois--depreciation approach, AASHTO Region 3, identified. GASB 34 skeptic; · South Carolina--depreciation approach, AASHTO In particular, the researchers considered the responses to questions dealing with the intended purposes for the GASB Region 2, change in approach anticipated; · Tennessee--modified approach, AASHTO Region 2, 34 reports and how extensively the DOT implemented the GASB 34 champion; new reporting approach. In the interest of having a represen- · Texas--combination approach, AASHTO Region 4, tative sample, the team also viewed it as appropriate to iden- major system modifications; tify at least one department that expressed skepticism regard- · Vermont--depreciation approach, AASHTO Region 1, ing the utility of the GASB 34 exercise. interest in using GASB 34 information; and With all of these considerations in mind, the research · Washington--modified approach, AASHTO Region 4, team members each developed a list of nominations. In emphasis on condition assessment. doing so, members were mindful that both the depreciation approach and the modified approach had many adherents At the May 12, 2003, meeting of NCHRP Panel 19-04, the among the state DOTs. The team thought it appropriate panel members decided to substitute Michigan for Illinois in that there be a similar division between the case studies. view of Michigan's leadership role in asset management. In Another consideration was geographical diversity--the addition, the panel authorized the research team to conduct team thought that each of the AASHTO regions should be two of the interviews by telephone and the remaining four represented. interviews in person.