Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks (2014)

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.

Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks Project No. C37 Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. 9400 Ward Parkway Kansas City, Missouri 64114 In partnership with High Street Consulting Group 2306 Washington Avenue Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Parris Communications 4510 Belleview, Ste. 110 Kansas City, MO 64111 Tom Warne & Associates 9874 S Spruce Grove Way South Jordan, UT 84095 October 2013

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 1.0 MARKET RESEARCH ................................................................................................ 6 1.1 INITIAL MARKET RESEARCH 1.2 FOCUS GROUP: BRANDING DISCUSSION 1.3 AASHTO REGIONAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHOPS 2.0 BRANDING METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 12 2.1 BRANDING CRITERIA 2.2 BRANDING DEFINITIONS 3.0 BRAND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 14 3.1 INITIAL CONCEPTS 3.2 REFINING NAMES AND TAG LINES 3.3 APPLYING GRAPHIC TREATMENTS 3.4 APPLYING COLOR PALETTES 3.5 FINAL BRAND ELEMENTS 4.0 FEEDBACK ON DRAFT FINAL BRAND ELEMENTS ...................................................... 24 4.1 SURVEY OVERVIEW 4.2 SURVEY RESULTS 4.3 RESULTS BY JOB FUNCTION 4.4 COLOR PALETTE 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A INITIAL MARKET RESEARCH B FOCUS GROUP RESULTS C ELECTRONIC SURVEY D ELECTRONIC SURVEY ANALYSIS E ELECTIONICS SURVEY: OTHER SUGGESTIONS F SUGGESTED STYLE GUIDANCE G LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS * * * * *

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Burns & McDonnell team was selected to develop a marketing plan for the tool known as Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) as part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), Capacity Project 37 (C37). This white paper reviews market research associated with rebranding and presents the research team’s conclusions about rebranding. Additionally, marketing information developed as a part of C37 is presented in the appendices. The conclusions presented, which are consistent with the AASHTO assessment workshop conclusions, may help inform future improvements to, or the marketing of, TCAPP. Note that, for the purposes of this white paper, the consultant team refers to the tool by its current name, TCAPP. Background TCAPP is a web portal designed to support collaborative decision making in the transportation planning and project development process. TCAPP is one of many tools developed through the SHRP 2 charge authorized by Congress. In late 2012, with the research and development phase of TCAPP substantially completed, the Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), with support from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB), directed AASHTO staff to develop an assessment process to better understand the usefulness, usability and longevity of the TCAPP tool. Through this process, it was determined that the name TCAPP should be rebranded. Conclusions Multiple names, tag lines, logos, and color palette combinations were developed as part of the C37 rebranding effort for TCAPP. These brand elements were evaluated using a three-pronged approach: (1) comparison of elements against specific branding criteria; (2) feedback from a broad range of stakeholders; and (3) consultant team review for future marketing potential. This report offers the following conclusions: While the scope of the project evolved over time, it has been clear that the name TCAPP does not communicate well and most stakeholders, even from the earliest interviews, have suggested that a rebranding effort should be undertaken. Branding is part science and art. That’s why a three-pronged approach was used to evaluate options. The survey results are only intended to provide feedback—results are not scientific, but they reinforce that both PlanWorks and Project Planning Advisor are solid branding options.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 4 • The TCAPP name is not well supported using the branding criteria, stakeholder feedback, or consultant review. • While the name Navigator is well supported using the branding criteria, it is not as well supported based on stakeholder feedback and consultant review, given the relatively larger negative reaction to the name. • The name Project Planning Advisor doesn’t fare as well using the branding criteria, but is well supported by the stakeholder feedback. The consultant review is not as positive, because the name is likely to be converted to an acronym and describes the function of the tool rather than being a stand-alone name. However, this is a solid option. • PlanWorks is well supported using the criteria and based on stakeholder feedback and consultant review. Two tag-line options were evaluated, and the consultants think “Better planning. Better projects” is simpler, more memorable, and has better cadence than “Partnership for better projects.” The consultants also see strong marketing potential in this name. • While the “energy and efficiency” color palette is most strongly supported, the consultant team concludes that both the “energy and efficiency” and “bold action” color palettes provide strong visual interest. However, the team also recognizes the value of the “simplicity and sophistication” palette in coordinating well with other FHWA communication tools. Following are graphs that summarize stakeholder feedback regarding branding concepts. This feedback was gathered via hard-copy and electronic survey. Respondents were asked to rate their impressions of names, tag lines, and logos on a scale of 1–10. A rating of one represented the most negative impression and a rating of 10 represented the most positive impression.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 5 Figure ES.1. Overall Stakeholder Survey Results Figure ES.2. Stakeholder Survey Results on Proposed TCAPP Concepts by Job Function 3 Planners (66) Overall Engineering (13) Project Mgmt. (30) Sr. Leadership (31) 0 4 5 6 7 10 4.5 4.6 5.2 4.5 3.8 5.4 5.5 6.6 5.8 5.2 5.4 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.6 6.2 5.9 5.8 6.1 5.8 23% 26% 24% 4.5 5.4 5.9 5.8 5.8 49% 34% 22% 12% 21% 23% 17% 30% 53% 56% 51% 59% Negative Mean Neutral Positive

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 6 Figure ES.3. Stakeholder Survey Results on TCAPP-Proposed Color Palettes 40% 5.3 4.3 5.0 35% 52% 18% 20% 18% 48% 28% 42% Negative Mean Neutral Positive Energy & Efficiency Simplicity & Sophistication Bold Action

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 7 MARKET RESEARCH The initial C37 research project was designed to deliver a comprehensive marketing plan for TCAPP. In the early phases of the project, the consulting team conducted a series of market research activities related to marketing TCAPP, including an examination of whether TCAPP should be rebranded. Those early market research activities included • Interviews of key stakeholders and electronic surveys of organizations that would likely be interested in TCAPP (Summer 2012) • Two focus groups (Fall 2012) In late 2012 and early 2013, it was decided that the TCAPP tool should be broadly assessed in terms of usefulness and usability. The consultant team helped design and facilitate the AASHTO-sponsored TCAPP assessment workshops in spring 2013. One of the key conclusions of those workshops was that TCAPP needed to be rebranded. The C37 consultant team was charged with taking on a more comprehensive rebranding effort and worked closely with a core group of representatives of SHRP 2, AASHTO, and FHWA. That core group provided significant input and worked together to develop the set of branding options that are presented in this white paper. 1.1 Initial Market Research To gather background information on TCAPP and shape the focus group discussion, the consultant team conducted telephone interviews with the key stakeholders listed below. The telephone interviews were structured to learn more about the original purpose of TCAPP, how the tool evolved over time, likely user groups, and potential marketing strategies. SHRP 2/TRB/FHWA • Stephen Andrle, SHRP 2 • Linda Mason, SHRP 2 • Neil Pedersen, SHRP 2 • Dave Plazak, SHRP 2 • Shari Schaftlein, FHWA • Gloria Shepard, FHWA • Spencer Stevens, FHWA Contractors for SHRP 2 Work • Beverly Bowen, ICF International • Janet D'Ignazio, ICF International • Mary Beth Hines, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center • Benjamin Irwin, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 8 • Elizabeth Sanford, Cambridge Systematics Pilot Study Participants • Craig Casper, Transportation Director, Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments • Robin Mayhew, Program Manager, Puget Sound Regional Council • Matt Shands, Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT) • Shuming Yan, Deputy Planning Director, Urban Planning Office, Washington State DOT Potential Users/Critical Audiences • Matt Hardy, Program Director for Policy and Planning, AASHTO • Carol Legard, Transportation Liaison, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation • Rich Denbow, Director of Technical Programs, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) • Rich Perrin, Executive Director, Genesee Transportation Council (Metropolitan Planning Organization [MPO]) • Rob Quigley, State Project Management Engineer, Florida DOT • Lauren Diaz, Program Manager/National Transportation Liaison, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Roberta Gerson, Regional Transportation Coordinator, Sacramento, CA; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) The research team also sent an electronic survey to members of organizations with ties to TCAPP (e.g., SHRP 2 state coordinators, Local Technical Assistance Program [LTAP] leaders, and TRB committees). The survey invited participants to offer their feedback on TCAPP. It focused on how to engage people who were not familiar with the tool and assessed the value of TCAPP to frequent users. Respondents were encouraged to forward the survey link on to their colleagues. Nearly 200 people responded, helping to build the TCAPP users’ database and the focus group recruitment pool. Additional information gathered from the interviews and survey results are summarized in Appendix A. 1.2 Focus Group: Branding Discussion As a part of C37, two focus groups were assembled to explore how to best market TCAPP. A total of 17 practitioners involved in transportation planning, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, engineering, and public engagement were brought together on September 12 and 13, 2012, to explore and test: • How practitioners experience TCAPP and how those experiences translate to words that resonate for marketing TCAPP; and Based on the early interviews, the team noted, “There’s a big problem with the name ‘TCAPP.’ It doesn’t make it clear what TCAPP does.”

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 9 • Possible definitions of TCAPP, along with potential brand look and feel, name, and tag line, should the decision be made to rename and rebrand TCAPP. A summary of the focus groups’ branding discussion is provided below. Appendix B contains the full report of the focus group findings. Look and Feel of TCAPP Website Focus group participants chose several words to describe the look and feel of TCAPP. These words represent how the website should resonate with users when they’re visiting TCAPP. Participants mostly preferred words that focus on a website that is easy to use and practical—the website needs to give the user what they’re looking for when they’re looking for it. Focus Groups: Words that Resonated vs. Words that did not Resonate RESONATE DID NOT RESONATE LO O K Clean Complex Sharp Bold Clear Simple Bright FE EL Flexible Social Real World (case studies) Problem Solver Practical Comprehensive (guide) Efficient (navigation) Traditional yet modern Fresh (up-to-date) Figure 1.1. Focus Groups: Words that resonated vs. words that did not resonate. TCAPP Definition Focus group participants identified TCAPP as a comprehensive resource guide most likely to help younger to mid-level transportation planning professionals. They cautioned against overselling TCAPP as a problem-solving tool and reiterated TCAPP’s benefit as a reference. Participants were concerned with the credibility of any product that says it can deliver something but then does not actually deliver it in practice. After using TCAPP, participants stated that they liked viewing the overall planning process on one site and seeing how the various planning pieces and processes integrate. Many concluded that the site provides a good outline for practitioners to follow for smoother project delivery.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 10 Participants were asked to brainstorm definitions for TCAPP. Many emphasized shorter definitions, since lengthy responses don’t keep people’s interest (both verbally and in text). Several groups identified similar words when creating definitions: • GUIDE (what the website is) • EXPERIENCES (what the website contains) • TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS (who the website is for) Focus group members modified existing definitions provided by the project team. One of the provided definitions included the language “decision support tool” and many groups initially worked from this phrase. However, after using the tool, both focus groups agreed that TCAPP was more of a reference tool and did not meet some users’ expectations that TCAPP could solve their planning-related challenges. As a result, “guide” and “reference” were words more commonly used to describe TCAPP. Table 1.1. Focus-Group Developed TCAPP Definitions TCAPP IS . . . a comprehensive GUIDE that walks you through EXPERIENCES and decisions of TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS and stakeholders. Real-world projects and challenges show the steps to make better, more informed decisions. a planning support tool built from the EXPERIENCES of transportation partners and stakeholders for collaboration, for getting projects and plans done better, cheaper, and faster. your practical decision support tool built from EXPERIENCES of transportation professionals that provides the how-to for TRANSPORTATION PLANNING challenges through the use of checklists, adaptable documents, step-by-step strategies, and supportable results. a decision support tool, built from the EXPERIENCES of transportation partners and stakeholders, providing how-to information when it is most needed. TCAPP Names and Tag Lines After identifying words and definitions that describe TCAPP, the focus group participants looked at the names and tag lines that could replace and/or enhance the TCAPP brand. Participants stressed their contention that tag lines, like the definitions, need to be short and explanatory; both the name and tag line should give the user a clear sense of what the website does while enticing users to visit.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 11 Table 1.2. Focus Groups: Names and Tag Lines Names Tag lines Ike Transportation Planning @ Its Best Ike Integrating knowledge and experience PlanGuide Share ideas. Deliver projects. Planning Yard Faster projects. Better results. TranspoToolbox Go plan it! 1.3 AASHTO Regional Assessment Workshops In late 2012, with the research and development phase of TCAPP substantially completed, the Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), with support from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB), directed AASHTO staff to develop an assessment process to better understand the usefulness, usability, and longevity of the TCAPP tool. To assess the usefulness and usability of the TCAPP tool, more than 140 people participated in workshops conducted in each of the four AASHTO regions: • Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota: April 2–3, 2013 (AASHTO Region 3) • Seattle, Washington: April 24–25, 2013 (AASHTO Region 4) • Atlanta, Georgia: April 29–30, 2013 (AASHTO Region 2) • Washington, D.C.: May 20–21, 2013 (AASHTO Region 1) Representatives of 37 DOTs and 21 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) participated in two-day workshops. The first day of the workshop was dedicated to training participants how to use TCAPP, while the second day of the workshop focused on applying and assessing the usefulness and usability of TCAPP. Key Conclusions from the TCAPP Assessment The C37 rebranding efforts during the summer of 2013 were informed by and built upon the focus group work conducted in the fall of 2012.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 12 Generally, participants found TCAPP to be a good resource and found that its depth of content added value. Participants generally expressed a favorable impression of TCAPP and the majority of participants said that they would use TCAPP in the future. However, while TCAPP contains good information, the way the information is presented to users needs to be improved. Key improvements identified by workshop participants are summarized into six main conclusions: • Make it a tool—As currently configured, TCAPP is a resource library. Workshop participants want it to be a tool. • Upgrade the site design—The design, look, and feel of TCAPP needs to be updated and improved. • Improve content—TCAPP content needs to be improved before it is implemented. Improvements could range from minor edits and terminology clarifications to expanded content. • Transition to a host to maintain TCAAP over the long term—TCAPP requires a long-term home with an agency that has the commitment and capacity to maintain it. • Train potential users—Training is needed in order to effectively use TCAPP, though the TCAPP website should also be made more intuitive to reduce the need for training. • Rebrand TCAPP—TCAPP needs to be rebranded with a name that more clearly describes the purpose of the tool. o The current name does not resonate with potential users. Participants universally agreed that the current name, which is Transportation for Communities— Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP), does not describe the product. The word “communities” was confusing to many; “advisor,” “decision,” accelerator,” “guidance,” and “planning/program/project” resonated better. o TCAPP’s value and purpose is not clearly communicated by the current website. Participants identified a number of ways that TCAPP adds value, including creating a transparent framework, clarifying role and expectations, providing a method for proactively identifying risks and potential issues, and bringing consistency and credibility to the planning process. These statements of TCAPP’s value need to be clearly articulated and used in the marketing of TCAPP to other potential users. * * * * * Rebranding TCAPP was one of the top six conclusions from the AASHTO workshops.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 13 2.0 BRANDING METHODOLOGY 2.1 Branding Criteria The research team developed a set of draft brand criteria to evaluate potential names for TCAPP and submitted that criteria for review by the core group of TRB, AASHTO and FHWA representatives. To maximize TCAPP’s effectiveness, the brand should follow the criteria below: Table 2.1. TCAPP Branding Criteria CRITERIA DEFINITION Understandable Brand’s wording/images have to make sense to users Relatable Should establish a connection with various audiences Inspiring Brand provokes interest among audience in exploring and staying engaged Visual Brand should rely on images as well as words Memorable Brand has to be easily recognizable and distinctive so it is remembered Cohesive Logo and tag line should work together Beneficial Conveys the purpose and benefits of using TCAPP Delivered in short and simple way Branding—by definition—is concise Welcoming Brand should help TCAPP be approachable for the audience In addition to the criteria listed above, the research team also suggested that potential future names be reviewed for online “searchability” (e.g., not so overused that the new website would be unlikely to be found through a search engine) and that logos be easily reproducible on various materials and in both color and black and white.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 14 2.2 Branding Definitions Below is the list of brand element definitions the consultant team employed during the rebranding effort. Table 2.2. TCAPP Brand Definitions A BRAND IDENTITY INCLUDES  The name, the creative symbol, the typeface, color palette, and tag line—all come together to create a brand image for everyone who will interact with this brand. Each one of those facets individually is part of the TCAPP brand—and all of them come together to solidify the brand.  The brand is what sets this resource apart from any and every similar resource. Every user who sees and interacts with these brand pieces will begin to connect those pieces with the actual TCAPP resource, so when branded well, the brand helps the user remember and connect with TCAPP. THE NAME SHOULD BE  Short, easily recognizable and distinctive, so it is memorable. It also needs to be relatable to each of its audiences, so they can connect with the name and associate it with the resource.  Within the marketing arena, names that cannot be shortened to an acronym are preferred. THE PURPOSE OF THE TAG LINE IS TO  Sum up what the user can expect from the brand. It is the positioning statement. The tag line tells the user what TCAPP promises to do for them. THE BRAND UTILITY IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER  Keep in mind users will be interacting with this resource differently, so it’s important to try to not land on a name that promises to be all things to all users, within one name. Otherwise, the name becomes too lengthy and the name loses a great deal of impact and recall. * * * * *

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 15 3.0 BRAND DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Initial Name Concepts The research team evaluated more than two dozen potential names, based on the brand criteria, and discussed the options with TRB, AASHTO, and the FHWA representatives. As a result of this review, the following four names and tag lines were initially presented by the research team. Each includes an explanation of why the concept was suggested. Option 1 Go Plan It! The project planning accelerator Score 8/9 (see Table 3.1 on page 17) Based on the outcomes of the external research on the current “TCAPP” product and the criteria for selecting a brand going forward, “Go Plan It! The project planning accelerator” was the research team’s top rated brand identity and tag line initially. The team observed that “Go Plan It!” delivers on the research, is everything this product should embody, and nothing it shouldn’t. It is inspiring, active, and memorable. It is enthusiastic without being overbearing. “Go Plan It!” is successful in three different ways: • Implied empowerment: With this product you have the tools you need for your project; now, go plan it. • Implied movement/momentum: This is the transportation planning product, the Go Plan it. • Implied breadth: A comprehensive resource in the world of transportation planning—The Go “Planit” The tag line “The project planning accelerator” was designed to complement the name. It continues the theme of movement/momentum for the brand by using the word “accelerator,” and it focuses the audience on the task at hand: planning. Finally, the name and tag line are approachable, memorable, and easy to articulate. This brand holds up even in colloquial conversation where other brands may be nicknamed or given acronyms for ease of use. “Go Plan It!” met 8 out of 9 branding criteria (“visual” identity had not yet been created) as shown in Table 3.1 on page 17. However, this name and tag was ultimately eliminated because it was deemed to Throughout the creative process, the consultant team conducted a preliminary fatal-flaw analysis for trademark conflicts on each of the potential names. They weighed conflicts based on the level of similarity and whether other trademarked products were in similar industries. It’s worth noting that almost any name is likely to have trademark conflicts at some level. For example, TCAPP is currently in use by a nonprofit organization, and TCAP is the public school assessment test in Colorado.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 16 have fatal flaws due to trademark conflicts, and the name would be confused with something sounding like “Go Planet”. Option 2 PlanWorks: The project planning accelerator Score 8/9 (see Table 3.1 on page 17) After factoring in all of the evaluation criteria and external research, the brand identity “PlanWorks” provides an approachable, relatable name that is easy to understand. This brand also works on more than one level for the audience: • Implied effectiveness: This plan works. It is proven to work. • Implied action: This tool works for you. • Implied service: This is a planning tool for public works. The tag line “The project planning accelerator” is paired with this brand identity for similar reasons to the “Go Plan It!” brand. It underscores the action and momentum implied in the brand. Option 3 Plan Advisor: Your total planning resource Score 6/9 (see Table 3.1 on page 17) The brand identity “Plan Advisor” provides a concise, straightforward, and simple understanding of the product. While it may not be an inspiring brand name, it is designed to be clear and understandable. This name addresses the feedback received from some focus group and assessment workshop participants. One concern and a word of caution with a brand so straightforward: it may be so pedestrian that it lacks energy and may not attract interest or enthusiasm, which is a hallmark of a successful brand identity. The tag line “Your total planning resource” is intended to give the brand a more approachable feel by implying ownership among the audience. It is also reassuring the audience that this product is a comprehensive tool for the planning process. Option 4 TCAPP: Better planning—better delivery Score 1/9 (see Table 3.1 on page 17) For those familiar with the product, TCAPP has become an acronym unto itself—not unlike the way the restaurant chain formerly known as Kentucky Fried Chicken is now simply KFC. Both examples have an

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 17 original name that is now less desirable. For TCAPP, the original name (Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships) is lengthy and difficult to articulate. The consulting team included TCAPP as an option for consideration because it is the current brand and a known quantity among some of the audiences. Its name recognition has value that should not be overlooked, but recent research shows that many users providing feedback have a negative association with the name. This brand identity fails several of the brand criteria, and the market research indicates that the TCAPP name is confusing. As the planning product itself is revised to better serve the target audience, there is also an opportunity to rebrand with a name that is more effective and welcoming. The tag line “Better Planning—Better Delivery” is designed to deliver a simple, clear “improved planning” message to the audience. TCAPP meets 1 out of 9 branding criteria. It is short and simple, but not understandable, relatable, inspiring, memorable, cohesive, beneficial, or welcoming. See Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Initial Proposed Names Compared to Evaluation Criteria U nd er st an da bl e Re la ta bl e In sp iri ng Vi su al M em or ab le Co he si ve Be ne fic ia l Sh or t a nd S im pl e W el co m in g Branding Criteria Go Plan It!    N/A      The project planning accelerator PlanWorks    N/A      The project planning accelerator Plan Advisor   N/A     Your total planning resource TCAPP N/A  Better planning – better delivery

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 18 3.2 Refining Name and Tag Lines Concepts TRB, AASHTO, and FHWA core team members provided feedback on names provided in Table 3.2. Team members requested a few options that included project in the name. Team members also expressed a desire for names that cannot easily be turned into acronyms. In response to that feedback, the consultant team developed the revised names and assessment presented below. Table 3.2. Revised Proposed Names Compared to Evaluation Criteria U nd er st an da bl e Re la ta bl e In sp iri ng Vi su al M em or ab le Co he si ve Be ne fic ia l Sh or t a nd S im pl e W el co m in g Branding Criteria Compass    N/A      Planning better projects ProjectPlanner       Better decisions— better delivery Project Navigator   N/A     Better decisions— better delivery Project Planning Advisor   N/A   Better decisions— better delivery PlanWorks    N/A      Better decisions— better projects Plan Advisor   N/A     Planning better projects TCAPP N/A  Better decisions— better delivery On July 30, 2013, the refined name and tag line options were presented via conference call to the SHRP 2 C37 Technical Expert Task Group (TETG) panel members for reaction. Those participating in the call or providing comments after the call included: Matt Shands, Minnesota DOT; Deb Nelson, New York DOT; Mike Horton, Fish and Wildlife Service; Barry Seymour, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; and Jacky Grimshaw, Center for Neighborhood Technology. Their comments are summarized as follows:

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 19 Table 3.3. TETG Project Name Feedback COMPASS: PLANNING BETTER PROJECTS  Can be constructed to mean lots of other things  Like but recognize the difficulty with Internet searches  Like the tag line and that it meets all the branding criteria  Like simplicity of Compass  Implies straight line from A to B  Several states use Compass in long-range plans (examples: North Carolina and California) PROJECT NAVIGATOR: BETTER DECISIONS—BETTER DELIVERY  Preference for this name—like the implication that it helps people navigate the process  Too project-focused, suggest remove “project” and just use “Navigator”  Like Navigator—like simplicity  Implies more of a partnership  Implies there are bends in the road that you might have to navigate—good  Like that this implies “we will figure it out as we go” PROJECT PLANNING ADVISOR: BETTER DECISION—BETTER DELIVERY  Not memorable PLANWORKS: BETTER DECISIONS—BETTER PROJECTS  Suggestion to change it to Planning Works  Doesn’t resonate  Doesn’t have oomph  Not memorable TCAPP: BETTER DECISIONS—BETTER DELIVERY  Even though we love the tool, it needs to be rebranded  Don’t even know what it stands for sometimes  No one indicated preference for keeping TCAPP  Want something “sexier”

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 20 In the calls following the TETG panel discussion, the core group of TRB, AASHTO and FHWA representatives concluded that the name “Compass” had a fatal flaw because it is so frequently used that its “searchability” is diminished and, in fact, it is frequently used within FHWA. The name “Project Planner” was eventually dismissed because team members thought that name implies a tool that offers scheduling and cost-estimating functions and was too narrowly focused. “Plan Advisor” was eliminated because it was too similar to “Project Planning Advisor.” 3.3 Applying Graphic Treatment Additionally, during this time, graphic treatments were applied to these concepts, as explained on the following page.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 21 Table 3.4. Original Graphic Treatments Names This name was eventually eliminated for a potentially fatal flaw described above. A stylized and abstracted design of a compass dial was created. The circular elements represent speed and ease of movement. The four pillars of the compass can represent the four partners described on the current TCAPP site (FWHA, MPOs, Resource Agencies, DOTs). Later feedback removed “Project” from the name and changed the tag to “Planning Better Projects.” This is perceived differently by different audiences. One person may see a flower blooming as a visual idea of a project coming to life. The abstract and geometric design takes on the characteristics of a compass dial. The opacity and overlapping colors represent the different entities working together, and some see “pages” of a project plan. Using the abstracted flower shape. The petals also represent the steps/milestones involved in a project. The movement of the “petals” upward represents progress. The dots and arrow are meant to visually represent a dynamic flowchart and the way that TCAPP provides direction and momentum to a project.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 22 3.4 Applying Color Palettes Once final designs, names, and tag lines were vetted with the core group of TRB, AASHTO, and FHWA representatives, four-color palettes were applied to each concept. A magenta palette was eliminated through feedback from TRB, AASHTO, and FHWA team members. The remaining three palettes follow: Figure 3.1. Applications of color palettes. 3.5 Final Brand Element Options Through input from TRB, AASHTO, and FHWA team members, five final draft concepts have been produced by the research team. They are as follows: Figure 3.2. Final draft concepts of brand elements.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 23 The consulting team evaluated the final draft concepts using the branding criteria and results are provided below: Table 3.5. Final Draft Concepts Compared to Evaluation Criteria U nd er st an da bl e Re la ta bl e In sp iri ng Vi su al M em or ab le Co he si ve Be ne fic ia l Sh or t a nd S im pl e W el co m in g Branding Criteria TCAPP   Planning better projects Navigator         Planning better projects Project Planning Advisor      Better decisions— better delivery PlanWorks          Partnership for better projects PlanWorks         Better planning, better projects

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 24 Below is each concept with the final three-color palettes applied. Figure 3.3. Final draft concepts * * * * *

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 25 4.0 FEEDBACK ON DRAFT FINAL BRAND ELEMENTS 4.1 Survey Overview The consultant team developed an electronic survey to gather feedback on the logos, tag lines, and color palette options. This survey was distributed via e-mail and recipients were allowed a week to complete it. Response rate for the electronic surveys was high, at over 50%. The survey is presented in Appendix C. The survey was e-mailed out to the following groups: • AASHTO TCAPP Assessment Workshop Participants • SHRP 2 Capacity Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) • C37 TETG In addition, a presentation on branding was made at the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning Summer Meeting to the SHRP 2 Capacity Projects Strategic Planning Workshop. Attendees provided their responses on the same survey in paper form, and consultant team members manually entered the data. The distribution of survey participants is identified in the pie chart below. Figure 4.1. Who Participated in Survey The survey respondents were asked to self-select their primary job function from the following list: • Planning 67 6 11 27 9 Who Participated in Survey AASHTO TCAPP Assessment Workshop TETG member Technical Coordinating Committee AASHTO SCOP SHRP2 Workshop Other

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 26 • Senior Leadership • Project Management/Project Development • Engineering Individuals could choose more than one job function. This distribution of survey respondents based on job functions is presented in the pie chart below. Figure 4.2. Primary Job Function Survey participants were asked to rate their impressions of the five logos and tag lines on a scale of 1– 10. A rating of 1 represented the most negative impression and a rating of 10 represented the most positive impression. Respondents were then asked to look at each of the three color palettes (Energy & Efficiency; Simplicity & Sophistication; Bold Action) paired with each logo and tag line and rate their impressions on the same 1–10 scale. The consultant team reviewed both the mean score as well as the percent of people who thought the logo/tag line was negative (1–4 ranking), neutral (5 ranking), or positive (6–10 ranking). 4.2 Overall Survey Results Overall survey results are provided on the following page. 66 13 30 31 Primary Job Function Planning Senior Leadership Project Management/Project Development Engineering

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 27 Table 4.1. Stakeholder Survey Results on Proposed TCAPP Concepts Observations: • PlanWorks: Better planning. Better projects received the highest mean score (5.89). • Project Planning Advisor: Better decisions. Better delivery had the highest positive impression percentage (59.05%). • In both the mean score and positive impression results, PlanWorks: Better planning. Better projects and Project Planning Advisor: Better decisions. Better delivery were closely rated. • In both the mean score and positive impression results, TCAPP: Planning better projects was the least popular. • As for the most “polarizing” logo and tag line, Navigator: Planning better projects had both a high positive impression percentage ranking (53.33%) and a high negative impression percentage (34.28%). We define “polarizing” as causing two contrasting positions. 23% 26% 24% 4.5 5.4 5.9 5.8 5.8 49% 34% 22% 12% 21% 23% 17% 30% 53% 56% 51% 59% Negative Mean Neutral Positive

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 28 4.3 Results Sorted by Job Function Table 4.2. Survey Results Based on Survey Respondents’ Job Functions 4.4 Color Palettes Survey respondents replied to a series of questions looking at the color palette choices. The findings are below. Table 4.3. Stakeholder Survey Results on TCAPP-Proposed Color Palettes 3 Planners (66) Overall Engineering (13) Project Mgmt. (30) Sr. Leadership (31) 0 4 5 6 7 10 4.5 4.6 5.2 4.5 3.8 5.4 5.5 6.6 5.8 5.2 5.4 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.6 6.2 5.9 5.8 6.1 5.8 40% 5.3 4.3 5.0 35% 52% 18% 20% 18% 48% 28% 42% Negative Mean Neutral Positive Energy & Efficiency Simplicity & Sophistication Bold Action

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 29 Observations: • Energy & Efficiency received the highest mean score as well as highest positive impression percentage. • Simplicity & Sophistication received the lowest mean score as well as the highest negative impression percentage. * * * * * It is important to note that these survey results are not intended to be statistically valid. Specific groups of people were selected to receive a survey based on their experiences or familiarity with TCAPP. So, while the response rate is high for the selected groups, it is not possible to assume that the groups themselves are representative of the larger transportation community. Full survey results are in Appendix D, and narrative comments are provided in Appendix E. Guidance on suggested style is in Appendix F, and Appendix G is a list of relevant abbreviations and what they stand for.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 30 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Multiple names, tag lines, logos, and color palette combinations were developed as part of the C37 rebranding effort for TCAPP. These brand elements were evaluated using a three-pronged approach, including: (1) comparison of elements against specific branding criteria; (2) feedback from a broad range of stakeholders; and (3) consultant team review for future marketing potential. This report offers the following conclusions: • The TCAPP name is not well supported using the branding criteria, stakeholder feedback, or consultant review. • While the name Navigator is well supported using the branding criteria, it is not as well supported based on stakeholder feedback and consultant review, given the relatively larger negative reaction to the name. • The name Project Planning Advisor doesn’t fare as well using the branding criteria but is well supported by the stakeholder feedback. The consultant review is not as positive because the name is likely to be converted to an acronym and describes the function of the tool rather than being a stand-alone name. However, this is a solid option. • PlanWorks is well supported using the criteria and based on stakeholder feedback and consultant review. Two tag line options were evaluated, and the consultants believe “Better Planning. Better Projects.” is simpler, more memorable, and has better cadence than “Partnership for Better Projects.” The consultants also see strong marketing potential in this name. • While the “energy and efficiency” color palette is most strongly supported, the consultant team concludes that both the “energy and efficiency” and “bold action” color palettes provide strong visual interest. However, the team also recognizes the value of the “simplicity and sophistication” palette in coordinating well with other FHWA communication tools.

C-37: Rebranding TCAPP to PlanWorks P a g e | 31 These conclusions are also summarized in Table 5.1. Table 5.1. Concept Conclusions Evaluation Criteria Survey Feedback Overall (mean score) Consultant Team Observations Low 4.46 • Not well supported High 5.41 • Negative percentages are concerning High 5.89 • Well supported • Not likely to become an acronym • Team sees strong marketing potential in this name High 5.75 • Not as well supported as other PlanWorks tag line Medium 5.8 • Strong, well- supported option • More likely to have an acronym (PPA)