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.

72 Overview A focus group was held on Wednesday, August 27, 2008, from 1:00-2:00 p.m. CDT. It was conducted via conference call and the Internet. Its purpose was to gather reactions and ideas to elements of the business plan, to the tools that could be developed to assist in the search for information, and to the process for procuring and maintaining information resources. The session was facilitated by Gina Baas of the University of Minnesota and Frances Harrison, and Hyun-A Park of Spy Pond Partners. Generally, the participants liked the idea of TKNs and an information portal, provided the resources were available to develop and maintain them as described in the slides. Some specific suggestions from the participants include: • May want to consider the public television/public radio model of funding using advertising for contributing funds to maintain the information portal. • Rather than having a single topic leader to maintain topi- cal information, have a team of individuals to provide a more balanced and diverse view. • All emphasized importance of the portal being compre- hensive and up-to-date; it’s critical for the business plan to address how that would happen. • In terms of organizations’ willingness and ability to share their own information, it would help to have an automated process of sharing; it’s the “right” thing to do, but needs to be easy, automated. Perhaps incentives need to be put into place to ensure that needed information is shared. • One participant suggested that the regional transportation knowledge networks could provide a good model for build- ing information by taking advantage of connections with local and regional MPOs, agencies, etc. However, three regions are probably not enough. A recording of the focus group is available online: https:// umconnect.umn.edu/p17878894/ (Length: 1 hour, 2 minutes). Attendees The invitation was initially sent to about twenty members of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP). Three states responded, and members of the research team followed up with others to obtain representation from five states. Participants were: • Alaska DOT: Jack Stickel, Transportation Data Services Manager, Division of Program Development (Planning Division), jack.stickel@alaska.gov • Idaho DOT: Inez Hopkins, Roadway Data, Research, Librarian inez.hopkins@itd.idaho.gov • Michigan DOT: Debra Alfonso, Manager of Intermodal Services Section, Department of Planning, alfonsod@ michigan.gov • Oregon DOT: Robert Maestre, Long-Range Planning Man- ager, Robert.A.MAESTRE@odot.state.or.us • Virginia DOT: Ben Mannell, Assistant State Transporta- tion Planner, Ben.Mannell@VDOT.Virginia.gov Summary of Presentation and Discussion The focus group began with introductions by members of the research team and the participants, followed by a couple of ice-breaker questions. Question #1 was: What is your greatest challenge in man- aging the information and resources needed to do your job? Responses included: • “There’s too much [information].” • Staff spend too much time searching the Web. • Need for meet information needs related to staff turnover, including business process documentation and training materials. • TRB Synthesis reports have been helpful in getting going on new project areas. A P P E N D I X E Focus Group Summary

73 Question #2 was: How does your organization manage and disseminate its own information and products? Responses were: • Virginia: VDOT manages internal information through departmental policy memoranda; internal Web site; infor- mation memoranda; and team sites for specific projects, such as Bicycle and Pedestrian, Operations, Transporta- tion Demand Management team sites. Also, monthly videoconferences held with regional offices to share infor- mation. VDOT has a KM Center that they use fairly regu- larly. In terms of external information, many VDOT staff members participate on TRB panels, resulting in the shar- ing of best practices. • Idaho submits reports to TRB (for TRIS online) and OCLC; state library depository system. • Alaska has elements of what VDOT and IDOT have, but wants to be further along. Alaska DOT is in the process of developing a comprehensive data business plan, including knowledge management elements. • Oregon: Uses an Intranet, department-wide newsletters, and division-wide newsletters, member of WTKN: dedi- cated transportation knowledge librarian within State Library. One problem is that the regional offices need information from MPOs. • Michigan – disseminate policies and memos well; internal newsletters. Challenges include keeping the flow of infor- mation going between, and managing historical informa- tion (anything that isn’t the latest version). Then, a scenario was presented to the group: “You have 1⁄2 day to prepare testimony for your commissioner on this topic of the implications of mileage-based user fees for your state. What would you do in this situation?” • Oregon: Call Jim Whitty, get a mini-team together at the beginning, do a Web search: mileage-based user fees, with “implications or consequences or legislation,” Make phone calls, cut and paste. • Idaho: Would use the State DOT search engine, TRB’s TRIS Online, and the National Transportation Library’s catalog. • Virginia: Also, get a handle on VMT in your state: TTP, Growth in VMT, TDM Models: impacts on average com- mute lengths. • Oregon: Also, think of how to search related fields: air quality, climate change, trucking, the politics of the issue. The TKN vision and portal concept was presented, show- ing how the portal might be used to address the scenario, and explaining the “behind the scenes” work needed to populate the information in the portal. Initial reactions from the group were: • Oregon DOT: Experts are really key to making this work. He recommended the book: “Wikinomics: How Mass Col- laboration Changes Everything”, by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams. This book shows how innovation spreads by being broadcast to a larger panel. • “Where’s the advertising sidebar to support it?” Should at least consider public television/public radio model of funding/advertising. Will be fairly expensive to keep up, probably $2-5 million per year. Professional and trans- portation-related advertising may be a reasonable way to support it. Responses to Structured Questions 1. Which aspects of this would provide value to your organization? • Alaska: specific application at another state DOT, such as 511, road weather, transportation data, typically buried in a department’s Web site. Would be great to have the pre-work done, with the links provided by subject. • Michigan: needs assurance that it would be a compre- hensive source; what kind of incentives can be put in place to ensure that needed information is shared? • Virginia: Portal idea a good one. How would it ensure that it stays current and comprehensive? • Oregon: Would be better to have national “topic teams” instead of “topic leaders” – this would ensure that you get a balanced perspective and would provide greater credibility. • Virginia: One search engine accessing multiple sources of info. 2. How would you use the portal if it were in place? Are there particular topic areas or types of information that you’d be most interested in seeing? • Revenue generation • Privatization • Climate change • Devolution of responsibility of management of the road- way network • Transportation and Health • Reauthorization and the potential for performance mea- sures and eligibility for federal • Multimodal tradeoffs 3. Would your organization be willing to share information such as presentations or consultant studies that could be of value to others? • Michigan: Biggest challenge is time constraints – infor- mation would need to be organized and that takes time

74 • Virginia: would like one point of contact to funnel information to portal (most likely the VDOT Knowl- edge Management Center) • Oregon: if process was easy & automated • Virginia: suggested a pilot program to share – illustrate the benefits of knowledge exchange, show tangible results 4. What questions do you have about how this would work? • Michigan: needs assurance that it would be a compre- hensive source; what kind of incentives can be put in place to ensure that needed information is shared? • Virginia: Portal idea a good one. How would we ensure that it stays current and comprehensive? Final comments were: • Michigan: suggested the idea of regional knowledge net- works as a feasible model, taking advantage of connections with local and regional MPOs, agencies, etc. • Alaska: Important for the business plan to take into account the ongoing maintenance and updating