Technologies for Improving Safety Data (2007)

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.

53 To assist states in using the information contained in this syn- thesis, a data requirements and technology matrix was devel- oped. Building on the table of data requirements presented in Appendix A, each required data element was assessed to determine if any technologies exist to enhance the efficiency of data collection or processing of the data. Although the data requirements listed in this report are specific to IHSDM and SafetyAnalyst, the matrix could be adopted for other safety analysis tools—assuming that the data elements are similar to those in IHSDM and SafetyAnalyst. A copy of the data and technology matrix can be found in Appendix F. Table 10 shows a brief excerpt of the matrix for roadside data elements. Within the matrix, data elements are identified as required by either IHSDM or SafetyAnalyst. For Safety- Analyst, the items are also denoted as required (x) or optional (o). The right-hand portion of the matrix contains a number of potential technologies that can be used to assist in data collection and the processing of specific data elements including highway measurement vehicles, video-logging, electronic crash reporting, GPS, barcode/magnetic strip reader, plan sheet/crash report document scanning, event data recorder, ITS data archives, nonintrusive traffic coun- ters, and satellite imagery. Some data elements can be col- lected using multiple technologies. The higher the level of automation in the process, the more likely it will produce efficient and accurate data sources. Manual collection meth- ods, such as collecting crash locations using a handheld GPS receiver, provide efficiencies in processing location data, but may not make crash reporting in the field more efficient. Also, manual collection of GPS coordinates is subject to human error, both in initial recording and in the data entry function at the central location. Although the cost of fully integrated GPS receivers with electronic crash reporting in the field is much higher, it should provide for better efficien- cies across the data collection, processing, and analysis sys- tem. Although the matrix presents information regarding potential technologies, many decisions must still be made by the agency or agencies depending on the magnitude of data collection efforts and the existing system components. Several steps are proposed to determine which technolo- gies would best serve the state: 1. Establish a safety data task force with multiple levels of representation from data collectors, to users, and management. 2. Determine which safety analysis tools will be used: a. IHSDM b. SafetyAnalyst c. Highway Safety Manual d. Other. 3. Obtain specific data requirements for the tools. 4. Develop listing of all data elements and data collec- tion methods used to obtain safety data within the state agencies. 5. Identify data element matches between existing and required data elements. 6. Determine whether data elements have similar cod- ing structures as those used by IHSDM and Safety- Analyst (use websites provided earlier for detailed data descriptions). 7. Identify gaps in data sources: a. Which required data elements are not collected? b. Which data elements do not match in structure and content? 8. Assess quality and cost of existing data and data col- lection methods: a. Which data are collected with minimal confidence? b. Which data collection methods require expensive manual labor? c. Which data elements are maintained in redundant locations owing to a lack of ability to share data effectively? 9. Highlight data elements within the data and tech- nologies matrix if data needs were discovered in steps 6–8. 10. Rank order of data needs. 11. Determine which potential technologies exist for each rank ordered data element. (To do this, scan across the matrix to see which technologies are marked for the data elements in question. Most of the data elements have been mapped to one or more technologies.) 12. Assess which technologies will provide the most needed and the largest quantity of data. 13. Identify the hierarchy of automation if more than one technology applies. With potential technologies identified, the hard part of the process begins: • If multiple technologies exist, which specific technol- ogy should be chosen? • Which vendor? CHAPTER FIVE DATA AND TECHNOLOGY MATRIX

TABLE 10 EXCERPT FROM DATA AND TECHNOLOGY MATRIX Conformity IHSDM Safety- Analyst MMUCC Highway Measurement Vehicle Video- Logging Electronic Crash Report GPS Barcode/ Magnetic Strip Reader Plan Sheet/Crash Report Document Scanning Bike facilities present x x x Driveway density x o x Slope x x Width x x Slope x x Width x x Bottom Shape x x Width x x Offset x x Presence x x Side x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Roadside hazard rating x x Notes: x = required; o = optional. Roadside Foreslope Backslope Ditch Obstruction Sub- Element Data Requirements Potential Data Collection Technologies Road Inventory Data Category/Type Data Element Event Data Recorder ITS Data Archives Non- Intrusive Traffic Counters Satellite Imagery x x

55 • What are the costs—including capital, operating, and maintenance? • What are the system benefits and how can they be measured? • How do you ensure complete system integration? Unfortunately there are no routine answers to these ques- tions. The answers are dependent on the status of existing data collection efforts in the state. Most of the technologies provide scalable options. For example, the highway mea- surement vehicles provide a number of data elements by combining a number of component technologies into one integrated data collection vehicle. The FHWA Digital High- way Measurement Vehicle collects cross slope with an undervehicle-mounted laser and video-log with roof- mounted cameras. If cross slope is important, and video-log is already obtained in conjunction with an existing pavement profiling vehicle, the agency may wish not to include the video components in a new implementation. By far the most efficient solution is to include the maximum number of com- ponents into one vehicle. Therefore, the redundant collection of road network data is minimized. Some companies that develop or build the measurement vehicles offer lease ser- vices or full-service data collection services. Depending on how much data the state must collect and maintain, one of the latter options may be quite attractive. Overall, a few items must be considered in the decision to implement new technologies: • Availability of current and future resources to sustain technology (operations, maintenance, and future up- grades). • Requirements for initial and ongoing training to support technologies. • Ability to integrate with existing and planned systems (operating systems, linkages, database connections, etc.). • Capacity to maintain existing legacy system until full implementation and validation of new technologies have been completed. Numerous assessments of innovation in government have been conducted over the years providing insights into new program implementations. In 2001, Sanford Borins (76) wrote a management series piece for PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ Endowment for The Business of Government entitled, “The Challenge of Innovating in Government.” The information used to develop the document came from three award programs for public management innovation. The award pro- grams included the United States (Ford–KSG awards), Canada (Institute of Public Administration of Canada, or IPAC, awards), and the countries of the Commonwealth (Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management, or CAPAM, awards). The public management innovation awards are judged based on novelty, impact, and repeatability. Quantitative analysis of these award-winning innovations revealed five building blocks of innovation, proven tools for change: • The use of a systems approach, appearing in approxi- mately 70% of the samples in advanced and 60% of the samples in developing countries. • The use of new technology, usually new information technology, appearing in between 29% and 57% of the samples. • Process improvement, appearing in between 35% and 66% of the samples. • The involvement of organizations or individuals out- side the public sector to achieve public purposes, appearing in approximately 30% of the samples. • The empowerment of communities, citizens, or staff, appearing in between 14% and 30% of the samples. Included in the Commonwealth survey was a final ques- tion asking innovators the most important lessons learned and seeking their advice for would-be innovators. Table 11 shows the results of this question in terms of the number of times a certain piece of advice was cited. “The advice dealing with planning an innovation emphasizes the importance of learning and incorporates the tension between having a clear vision and improvisation. The advice regard- ing implementation reflects the tension between being deci- sive and moving quickly on the one hand, and recognizing the need to build wide support on the other. The advice about process also reflects the importance of staff level innovation, TABLE 11 LESSONS LEARNED FROM INNOVATION IN GOVERNMENT Lesson Learned Times Cited Make the project exciting for staff 22 Promote program, ensure positive media coverage 21 Make sure program objectives reflect organization’s objectives 17 Project manager should be task-orientated 12 Involve the stakeholders 11 Keep regular, ongoing communication 11 Get support from senior management 10 Have a clear idea of the end product 9 Allow staff freedom to innovate 9 Keep implementation team small, with decision- making power 9 Think strategically, consider wider implications 7 Have a champion, take ownership 7 Be dedicated and/or persistent 7 Documentation is tedious but essential 7 Develop adequate control mechanisms, support governance structure with agreements 6 Solicit regular feedback as a motivator, demonstrate early ongoing success 5 Implement quickly to avoid losing focus 5 Learn from your mistakes, don’t be afraid to change plans based on information gathered or in response to a changing environment 5 Learn from other innovators 4 Ensure that you have the necessary resources 3

56 persistence, morale, and upper-level support. The advice includes references to the constraints of operating within the public sector. Given the frequency that resource constraints arise, it is somewhat surprising to see that the least-cited piece of advice was ‘ensure that you have the necessary resources.’” Finally, a well-planned technology implementation strat- egy is required to achieve program goals. A number of well- known concepts have been used with success including (77): • Encourage management visitations to successful imple- mentation sites, • Educate leadership and task force members with success stories, • Pilot technology implementation in controlled setting, • Develop a phased implementation plan, • Encourage opt-in of affected agencies through devel- opment of a cooperative environment, • Define measurable goals, • Set short-term and long-term goals, • Demonstrate early and ongoing successes, • Institute policies or develop standards that require technology implementation, • Reward early adoption of technology, • Provide ample resources for implementation, and • Demonstrate continued success through periodic evaluation.