Click for next page ( 8


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 7
7 Required elements or sections, Software type and versions to be used for development, Format, and Work plan outlining the general approach for develop- Size of each section and whether it is fixed or variable. ment of each component, Testing/training plans, The project team was also to identify (1) elements that pro- Distribution plans, and vided the user with a list of acceptable values from which to User support plan (if any). select and (2) elements that had to be free text. The design phase would be documented in a requirements In order to develop realistic hardware requirements and definition and a detailed design. The requirements definition system architectures, URS was to contact 10 states from the document would summarize the proposed functionality (i.e., original Phase 1 survey by telephone and/or e-mail. Building what the application was expected to do). This summary upon the previous Phase 1 study, a new questionnaire would would be the first step in translating the user's needs into a be developed, which would begin by asking questions such document for programmers. The detailed design was to be a as "If IT systems are developed, will you actually use them? specification that programmers would use to develop the sys- If not, what would it take to induce you to use such a system tem. When the system was verified as working correctly, it or systems?" In addition, basic information about the hard- would be finalized. The URS project team would also iden- ware and software available to the states would be collected. tify one state agency (probably either an SHPO or a state States that were the most responsive to the original survey transportation agency) that would agree to test the prototype would be included in this second survey, but an attempt to Historic Context Development Tool. balance this small sample would be made by including both states with advanced IT systems and those with very basic IT Tools 25: A Historic Significance Attribute systems. The results of this second survey would be shared Table, an MS Access Database, a Common with the members of the focus group before their meeting. Electronic Format for Contexts, and ESRI's Based on the recommendations made by the focus group, Geography Network URS would then finalize the descriptions of each prototype, including the proposed system architecture, testing plan, and Prior to developing and testing the four remaining tools, other details. An important component of the testing plan the NCHRP panel recommended the convening of a focus would be the selection of a sample of state agencies (i.e., DOTs group of IT professionals to review the four options. The pur- and SHPOs) to use and review the prototypes. Costs associ- poses of this meeting would be to evaluate the utility of these ated with each option would also be outlined. The NCHRP tools from an IT developer and user perspective. The recom- panel would subsequently review the recommended IT options. mendations of the focus group would then be presented to the The panel would also determine if these options would be panel, and the panel would determine whether or not a spe- advanced to the full development and testing stage during the cific prototype would be advanced to the full development second phase of the study. and testing stage of the Phase 2 study. The focus group would consist of IT experts currently involved in IT management of historic preservation data and files. To assist the focus group members in their deliberation, REPORT ORGANIZATION URS would develop a more detailed description of each tool that included the system architecture, the testing plan, and The following chapter describes the process used to select other details that IT professionals would need in order to the IT tools for development during Phase 2. This discussion make informed recommendations. These detailed descrip- includes the results of the IT professional focus group meet- tions (i.e., a "Business Case") would include, but would not ing and the NCHRP panel's recommendations based on the be limited to, focus group meeting. Chapter 3 discusses the design and test- ing of the prototypes selected by the NCHRP panel. Chapter 4 Minimum and recommended requirements for the user's presents an implementation plan for the dissemination and hardware and operating system, use of the IT tools and the conclusions of the Phase 2 study.