Click for next page ( 10


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 9
10 CHAPTER TWO DATA COLLECTION AND CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ADVANCED PROCESSES The intended methodology of data collection associated with Construction, and then to DOT contacts who were not mem- this study consisted of an initial survey questionnaire that bers of the committee. The response to the survey, after five would identify DOTs for successive in-depth interviews. e-mail campaigns and four months, is shown in Table 1 and A draft questionnaire was created and distributed to DOTs of Figure 4. the Synthesis Panel participants. The draft questionnaire was then refined with Panel member recommendations and As a result of the survey data and recommendations approved for dissemination to the entire pool of DOTs. This from Synthesis Panel members, the following four states questionnaire is Appendix A. were initially selected for detailed interviews and data- flow diagramming: The final survey consisted of a series of redundant ques- tions grouped by DOT functional areas (planning, design, Florida DOT (FDOT), procurement, construction, and operations/maintenance). The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), intention was to plant the survey initially with a "champion" Minnesota DOT, and who could route the survey to persons knowledgeable to New York State DOT. complete their specific functional area's questions. Once all survey questions were answered by all five functional area sections, it was to be returned to the consultants for review In an attempt to save time and get the synthesis project and compilation. back on schedule, the decision to contact these four agencies was made before all of the survey questionnaire data were This plan required persistence to ensure that the question- received. Therefore a disparity exists between agencies that naire was partially completed and routed through several func- were actually interviewed, and some of the final survey results tional areas, to the appropriate personnel, gaining acquired that reveal several agencies with high digital scores which information throughout its route within the DOT organization. would have been included in the study given more time and This was originally to be performed with a web-based survey resources. software application provided by NCHRP. Technical difficul- ties with serving the application and problems with persistence The consultants weighted the agency responses and issues forced the survey to another format. developed a digital score based on the number of func- tional areas reported and the instances and magnitudes of The survey questionnaire was converted and delivered in digital data transfer. This methodology can be viewed in an Adobe Acrobat Version 8 file. This format was chosen for Appendix B. its ability to provide the persistence feature and a unique fea- ture that allowed the questionnaire data (not the file itself) to Based on the survey responses, an interview form was be forwarded to the investigators by means of e-mail once the generated for the in-depth interviews (see Appendix C). entire survey was completed. Oklahoma DOT was interviewed in an effort to develop a standardized interview form and generic Integrated Defini- Nonetheless, there were considerable issues with the survey tion 0 (IDEF0) diagram for each functional area; however, and the responses to it. The Adobe file itself may have been too this was dropped once the interviews began as the processes large for sharing through e-mail between departments, some were not necessarily matching generic or functional area were returned only partially completed, there were multiple formats. responses from the same business function with differing answers, and there was inconsistency with how the survey This report uses the IDEF0 flowcharting method. IDEF was returned to the investigators. methodology is a suite or family of methods that is capable of modeling activities, functions, information, and processes The survey was initially sent by means of e-mail of an enterprise and its business areas. An example of IDEF0 broadcast to members of the AASHTO Committee on flowcharting can be seen in Figure 5.

OCR for page 9
TABLE 1 AGENCY SURVEY RESPONSES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA Responses Received by Functional Area Agency Operations and Planning Design Procurement Construction Maintenance AK DOT AL DOT AR DOT CA DOT CT DOT FL DOT GA DOT HI DOT IA DOT IN DOT KS DOT KYTC MD DOT MI DOT MN DOT MT DOT NE DOT NH DOT NM DOT NY DOT OK DOT OR DOT PA Turnpike SC DOT SD DOT TN DOT TX DOT VA DOT WADOT Survey Prototype Only WI DOT WY DOT Total Agencies Totals by Functional Area 30 23 23 25 26 22 FIGURE 4 Agency survey responses with functional area completions in parentheses.

OCR for page 9
12 For IDEF0 diagramming purposes in this study, a func- tion will be defined as primary tasks performed by the CONTROL functional units or an activity that transforms inputs into outputs. INPUT FUNCTION OUTPUT Input is defined as information (data) that is required to perform a function. A control is a condition or circumstance that constrains a functional activity. MECHANISM A mechanism is a person, machine, or software applica- tion that performs a functional activity. An output is the product of a function and possibly the FIGURE 5 IDEF0 charting example. input to a successive function.