Implementing Transportation Knowledge Networks (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6Interviews with Transportation Stakeholders Scope of Interviews The research team conducted interviews with stakeholders to understand current perceptions about the need for improve- ments to transportation information access, to ascertain what types of TKN products and services will be of most value, and to solicit opinions about key barriers to successful TKN imple- mentation and potential funding sources that could be tapped. The following individuals were interviewed: • Steve Dillingham, Director, U.S.DOT-RITA, Bureau of Transportation Statistics • John Augustine, Senior Advisor, U.S.DOT-RITA, Office of the Administrator • Kelly Leone, Deputy Associate Administrator, U.S.DOT- RITA, Office of Research Development and Technology • Tony Kane, Director of Engineering and Technical Services, AASHTO • Joe Toole, FHWA Office of Professional and Corporate Development • Rolf Schmitt, FHWA Office of Operations • Judy Skeen, Chief Information Officer, Texas DOT • Nick Mandel, Director of Quality Management, New Mex- ico DOT • Gary Allen, Chief of Technology and Innovation, Virginia DOT • Maureen Hammer, Director, Virginia DOT Knowledge Management Division • Lance Grenzeback, Senior Vice President, Cambridge Sys- tematics, Inc. • Hal Kassoff, Senior Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. • Burr Stewart, Strategic Planning Manager, Port of Seattle • John Inglish, General Manager, Utah Transit Authority, Vice Chair of the APTA Research and Technology Com- mittee, and Member, ITS America Executive Committee • Matt Barrett, Librarian, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Amanda Wilson, Director of the National Transportation Library, U.S.DOT-RITA • Jerry Baldwin, Library Director, Minnesota DOT • Ken Winter, Library Director, Librarian, Virginia Trans- portation Research Council • Toby Pearlstein, Manager of Information Services, Bain & Co., former librarian for Massachusetts Highway Depart- ment and CTPS (Boston MPO staff) • Lisa Harris, Kansas University LTAP (outgoing NLTAPA president) • Marie Walsh, Louisiana State University LTAP (current NLTAPA president) Interviews were also conducted with representatives of lib- rary networks in the medical and agricultural fields: • Melanie Gardner, AgNIC coordinator, National Agricul- ture Library • Michelle Malizia, Public Health Outreach Coordinator, National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM), South Central Region Key Findings Findings are summarized below in five groupings: FHWA/ AASHTO/DOT Executives, Transit and Port Executives, LTAP Representatives, RITA, Transportation Librarians/ Information Professionals, and Non-Transportation Library Networks. FHWA/AASHTO/DOT Executives. Individuals inter- viewed within this part of the transportation community artic- ulated the continuing need to support sharing of best practices in the core engineering areas of concern to DOT CEOs, with particular emphasis in emerging areas such as outsourcing and C H A P T E R 2 Initial Outreach Effort

public/private partnerships or new technologies. TKNs will be of value to this community if they provide an effective, elec- tronic means to locate current information about “who is doing what” in different DOTs. TKNs will be an easier sell if they recognize the distinct subgroups within which information is naturally shared (e.g., geotechnical engineers, statewide planners) and build upon and coordinate with already existing initiatives to share best practices. Such initiatives include FHWA’s Communities of Practice, AASHTO’s transportation.org Web site, the Center for Environmental Excellence, and the Highway Engineering Exchange Program (HEEP). Interviews also indicated the importance of effective information dissemination. For example, packaging informa- tion into tutorials or newsletters will have more impact than simply compiling information resources and making them accessible via search engines. Transit and Port Executives. Interviews with one tran- sit agency executive and one port executive identified several needs that could be addressed by TKNs: • Information sharing about current topics of interest, includ- ing new vehicle technology, energy efficiency and carbon footprints, labor relations, and asset management; • Information syntheses to help executives understand what new technologies should be considered for adoption by agencies of their size and characteristics; • Cross-modal sharing of technology information (the abil- ity to take lessons learned from an application of a given technology in one mode and apply it to another); and • Services to identify and share information that could be used to demonstrate the value of public transit. One interviewee noted that the American Public Trans- portation Association (APTA) already has a structure for capturing and disseminating information on current prac- tice; TKNs should coordinate with this and other existing information-sharing efforts. The port representative suggested that TKNs tap into information resources produced by non- governmental organizations (NGOs). He also thought that MPOs will be growing in importance as regional information providers and noted that regionally based information-sharing efforts could be supportive of collaborative efforts across agen- cies to build regional competitiveness. Collaboration would be greatly enhanced via a shared base of information. LTAP Representatives. The LTAP representatives inter- viewed cited the need for sharing of training materials, infor- mation about funding programs available to local agencies, best practices related to use of available funding, and for pro- viding an integrated view of research activities across academic institutions. They stressed that the needs of local agencies are very different from those of state DOTs: “they are trying to manage transportation systems with very limited resources” and “need answers, not complicated reports.” They acknowl- edged the problems of information overload, fragmentation of information across multiple sources, and duplication of effort across agencies to compile useful information resources. They mentioned several product and service ideas for TKNs that might be of interest, including a central information portal, a searchable collection of training videos, access to information not currently widely available, a consolidated calendar of con- ferences, provision of directories of organizations providing services to local governments, and tools or services that filter information to cull important information. The FHWA currently sponsors an information clearing- house (provided by ARTBA) that includes a searchable resource base for LTAP/TTAP centers. A listserv for LTAP/TTAP cen- ters, T2ALL, allows for informal information exchange. Given these existing services for LTAP/TTAP centers and their mar- ket, TKNs will need to demonstrate significant new value to be of interest, particularly if cost is involved for participation. RITA. NTL staff has indicated general support for the recommendations of TRB SR 284, and the NTL continues in its national leadership and coordination role for TKNs. Efforts have also begun to consolidate U.S.DOT libraries, an impor- tant step toward building greater coordination of federal- level transportation information resources. Staff of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and RITA indicated agree- ment that RITA could be a logical home for the national coor- dination function recommended in TRB SR 284. However, current resource limitations prevent RITA from taking on new responsibilities. The BTS’s core function is to serve as a statistical agency. Accordingly, maintaining and enhancing the popular BTS TransStats Web site (currently getting 19,500 hits per day) is a priority. On the RD&T side, much work remains to organize and catalog information about U.S.DOT-funded research initiatives. This work is viewed as “job one.” Even if more resources were made available, RITA would need to weigh the best use of those resources. Investments in knowl- edge networks would compete against other priorities, such as additional efforts to coordinate research activities across administrations. Thus, the ability of RITA to fully implement the recommendations of TRB SR 284 would likely depend both on obtaining additional resources and on clear statutory direc- tion with respect to activities and resource allocation. Transportation Librarians/Information Professionals. Transportation librarians interviewed stressed the need for an improved understanding of and appreciation for the value pro- vided by libraries. They believe that strong networks of well- funded libraries are required to move from an “information push mode” to providing information on demand. These 7

networks should be inclusive and recognize the diversity of information needs within the transportation community. Librarians acknowledge that technology is part of the solution, but indicated that it cannot be a substitute for the services of a skilled library professional. They also see a need for improv- ing information capture at their source, paying more attention to resource preservation, and improving access to for-fee resources (e.g., databases and association standards or guidance documents). These librarians feel that networks can serve many valuable functions, including coordination of collections devel- opment, leadership and professional capacity building within the transportation librarian community, increased participa- tion in TLCat, interlibrary loan agreements, and negotiation of favorable group rates for memberships and subscriptions. They value the opportunities provided for face-to-face communica- tion with their peers. Non-Transportation Library Networks TRB Special Report 284 summarized the operations, staffing, and budgets of several national libraries (see pp. 37–45.) The networks of the National Agriculture Library (NAL) and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) were selected as models for transportation. The NCHRP 20-75 research team con- ducted supplemental interviews with a representative of the library networks in place for medicine and agriculture. Net- work models and scale of operation for these two library net- works are very different: • The Agriculture Network Information Center (AgNIC) is a voluntary partnership with 60 members, primarily uni- versities; the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) has 5,800 members, which includes academic medical libraries, hospitals, pharmaceutical and other spe- cial health sciences libraries, and public libraries with con- sumer health collections. • AgNIC has a modest, centralized infrastructure. NN/LM is much larger and is organized regionally, with eight compet- itively awarded contracts for coordination activities within different geographic areas. • AgNIC is funded primarily through membership fees; NN/LM is funded through the NLM and membership is free. In both cases, members agree to share their informa- tion resources. • Both AgNIC and NN/LM provide Web portals and work with their respective national libraries on shared thesauri and information-sharing standards. Additional background information on the AgNIC and NN/LM is provided below. AgNIC began in 1995 as a partnership between four land grant universities and the NAL. AgNIC’s focus is “providing electronic access to reliable, evaluated agricultural infor- mation enhanced by the application of shared technology and standards.” A GSA grant ($250,000) provided funding to set up the initial information infrastructure. By 1996, the AgNIC home page was receiving half a million hits per day. In 1998, a formal governance structure was established that includes a coordinating committee and an executive board. In 2000, a new technical architecture for information shar- ing was designed and a “one-stop shopping” portal was put in place. Web site hits increased to over 31 million. In 2002, the NAL and AgNIC created the NAL thesaurus, provided as a Web service. Further improvements to the portal and asso- ciated Web services were made in 2004. At the 10-year point, the AgNIC membership included 50 universities and agri- cultural organizations, and sites were getting 125 million hits per day. AgNIC is supported from membership fees. Three levels of membership are available, with different levels of partici- pation. Sustaining members support one or more selected set of subject areas and maintain Web pages with informa- tion on those subjects. For example, the New Mexico State University Library maintains a page on chili peppers. The coordinating committee has representation from all members. It elects an executive board that votes to accept new partners into AgNIC. AgNIC operates with an annual budget of $430,000. Its staff of three FTEs maintains the Web site, performs coordination and outreach, and works on special projects (e.g., for digitiza- tion of documents.) Resources are tight, and AgNIC relies on voluntary efforts of its partners to maintain information resources. A recent survey found that only 5 hours per week are spent updating all of the AgNIC Web sites. The network has, however, provided an effective complement to the NAL’s pro- grams, extending its reach and providing a coordinated set of specialized information resources. Coordination on standards has produced a single taxonomy of terms and an approach that enables metadata harvesting from Open Archive Initiative (OAI) compliant repositories of member agencies. The charge of the NLM is to provide all U.S. health profes- sionals equal access to biomedical information and to improve the public’s access to information to enable them to make informed decisions about their health. The Regional Medical Library system came into existence in the mid-1960s to bring NLM services to the local level. NLM contracts with eight major institutions to administer and coordinate NLM serv- ices within different geographic regions. These contracts are awarded on a competitive basis. Contracts vary but are sizable. For example, the South/Central region (serving 854 members in five states: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas) had a budget of $1.2 million for FY06. The regional libraries provide training and outreach services. Nationwide membership of NN/LM is currently over 5,800. Membership 8

is free. Full and affiliate memberships are provided. Full members must maintain their own information collections and agree to provide reference and search services and participate in DOCLINE, the NLM’s interlibrary loan service. All members must agree to provide updated information on their collections and services for the network registry. Members are eligible to compete for certain funding opportunities. Affiliate members far outnumber full members. A central server is hosted for the NN/LM’s Web site, wiki, and blog by the University of Washington. The NLM hosts DOCLINE from its offices in Bethesda, Maryland. Web Survey The purpose of the Web survey was to gather input from transportation researchers, librarians, and practitioners, and to use this input in developing the business plan for TKNs. Requests for responses were e-mailed via the TRB electronic newsletter to AASHTO RAC members, University Transpor- tation Center (UTC) directors, the TranLib Listserv, and the LTAP Listserv. The e-mail request asked recipients to forward the survey to others in their organizations. Results reflect responses received between July 4, 2007 and September 25, 2007. The study team received a total of 150 responses. Of these, 126 respondents completed the entire survey; the remaining 24 completed a portion of the survey. Responses were distributed as follows: • 103 (69%) from state DOTs; the remainder from U.S.DOT, universities, local agencies, and consultants. • 39% from managers/executives; 18% from transporta- tion librarians; remaining 43% from engineers, planners, researchers, other professionals. Appendix B contains the survey instrument with a sum- mary of responses to non-open-ended questions. Appendix C contains open-ended responses from the sur- vey. The survey provided a rich source of information on the information resources currently in use and on unmet informa- tion needs. Question 8, which asked what tasks respondents would assign to a full-time personal assistant, yielded detailed information that can be used to infer the kinds of TKN prod- ucts and services that would likely be of value. Question 10, which explicitly asked what improvements to information would be of most value, and question 11, which asked for advice on the business plan, yielded a diverse set of opinions that was extremely helpful in crafting the business plan. Findings and Conclusions Key findings from both the interviews and the Web survey are organized around the following three questions: • Is there a problem related to transportation information access that merits attention and investment of resources? • What products and/or services could address the problem? • How should TKN implementation proceed? Does a Problem Exist that Merits Attention and Investment? The need for a coordinated approach to information sharing in transportation is well supported by TRB Special Report 284 and prior investigations of this topic. Interviews conducted for this project and comments on the on-line sur- vey indicated, however, a wide diversity of opinion about the nature of the problem and the priority for taking action. For some, additional investment in information-sharing initiatives is a low priority given extremely tight budgets and difficulties in addressing core business needs. Some opined that trans- portation professionals don’t place a high value on being kept aware of what others have done: engineers derive satisfaction from solving problems by themselves, many workgroups have a “not invented here” syndrome, and the profession is rela- tively slow moving (in contrast to high tech or medicine), which makes access to the latest information less critical. In contrast, others feel strongly that transportation is far behind other industries in the information sharing arena. They feel that there has been significant underinvestment in this area that is short sighted and does not make good business sense, particularly in light of the challenges ahead, the need for inno- vation, and the explosion of available information. One exec- utive commented that without more attention to information capture and sharing, organizations inevitably end up “paying for the same information more than once.” Others expressed frustration about the amount of time it takes to find informa- tion resources—even within their own organizations. A con- venient way to access current information about practice from peers will be of value. Several people interviewed for this proj- ect were particularly concerned about the lack of a coordinated approach to preservation of valuable information for both cur- rent and future generations of transportation professionals. Several examples were cited of permanent information loss or risk of loss in the near future. In the middle of these two extremes are practitioners who feel they can find the information they need to get by, but also acknowledge that there is certainly room for improvements in information availability, organization, and access. The conclusion to be drawn from this diversity of opinion is that some segments of the transportation community are extremely receptive to and supportive of information-sharing initiatives. Librarians and information professionals are per- haps the strongest advocates for improvement given their firsthand and long-standing familiarity with the issues. How- ever, they are not alone. Their concerns are shared by many 9

managers, researchers, and practitioners. Other segments of the community recognize the problem but are not yet “sold” on the solution. They need to see concrete examples of how information-sharing initiatives will help them cope with infor- mation overload, save time or money, or improve their effec- tiveness. Outreach and education about the nature of the problem and the benefits of proposed solutions are necessary to maximize value from TKN initiatives. What Products and/or Services Could Address the Problem? The most frequently cited need was for a central information repository providing a topically organized “one-stop shopping” transportation information source for published documents, data sets, photographs, contacts, and Web sites. Related to this was the desire for improvements to transportation-specific search tools. Another theme in the comments was the need for value-added services to filter, validate, annotate, and package information resources. Practitioners were also interested in mechanisms to support sharing of best practices and lessons learned among peers. Many people commented on a continu- ing need to capture information beyond nationally sponsored research reports and to increase access to digital documents. Library and information professionals emphasized the impor- tance of cataloging materials so they can be shared across organ- izations and of preserving materials to ensure their ongoing availability. As expected, researchers, practitioners, executives, and information professionals offered different perspectives on what is needed to improve information access. These perspec- tives do not conflict, but rather represent different elements of a complete, coherent information-sharing strategy. Such a strategy involves coordinated, interrelated activities to capture, organize, annotate, filter, catalog, archive, present, and share information resources. Needs expressed by end users of infor- mation can and should provide a focus for action in this arena. However, it is important to recognize the many upstream activities that are required to provide the desired result. These activities take place behind the scenes and are often not appar- ent to end users. How Should Transportation Knowledge Network Implementation Proceed? Considerable input was obtained on the question of how TKN implementation should be approached to maximize value and success. Key findings expressed by the survey recip- ients are: • The TKN initiative should be crafted as a mixture of tech- nological, organizational, and programmatic elements that collectively achieve the intended results. Overemphasis on the coordination and collaboration element without a vis- ible product or a concrete idea of services to be provided will make it difficult to gain strong support. • There is clear support for action at the national level but less clarity of understanding (particularly outside of the library community) about why a regional approach is being pur- sued. This suggests the need for emphasis on national-level actions as well as clear communication about the role envi- sioned for the regional TKNs. • Several people suggested a focus (at least initially) on new technologies, innovation, and emerging issues or “hot top- ics,” rather than a broad-based effort, in the interest of addressing the most pressing need for information sharing. • While many, particularly in the library community, feel a need to increase the level of investment in libraries and information sharing, others feel that there should not be a major new initiative, particularly given today’s tight funding climate. To strike a balance between these viewpoints, it will be important to emphasize that the intent is to improve effi- ciencies by providing a much-needed boost and coordina- tion mechanism for already-existing information-sharing efforts. • TKNs need to have elements of centralized and decentral- ized approaches. Many people seem to be looking for a national transportation “one-stop information shop.” However, many organizations view themselves as the pri- mary source for information within a particular area and do not want to relinquish this role. In addition, transporta- tion organizations are looking for solutions to their own internal information-sharing challenges. Therefore, craft- ing a modular approach to information-sharing tools, pro- viding components that can be plugged in to a national portal but also made available to individual organiza- tions would be an appropriate strategy. An example of this approach is the state DOT search engine developed with the Google custom search engine, which can be easily incor- porated into any Web site. The Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) Open WorldCat search box is another example. • Accountability is critical for this effort. Objectives and performance measures must be clearly defined and mech- anisms for continuing evaluation and improvement should be established. One suggestion was to establish a TKN “brand” that appears on all Web pages associated with TKNs in order to provide wide recognition of what is being offered. 10