Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation (2016)

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.

10 DOTs in the Information Age: Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks Information Is a Strategic Asset DOT executives are accountable for delivering safe, efficient, integrated, and sustainable transpor- tation services that enhance the economic and social well-being of citizens. To carry out this mission, DOTs need to maximize use of all available assets, including infrastructure, funding, people, and information. Most DOTs have well-established strategies and programs for managing infrastruc- ture, funding, and people. As the amount of information needed to satisfy business demands and rising expectations has increased exponentially, some DOTs have begun to view information as a strategic asset. This guide offers a strategic information management framework that DOT senior manage- ment can use to leverage the power of information for better agency results and to ensure that each dollar invested in information is well spent. Agencies that manage information as a strategic asset understand that good information and good decision-making go hand in hand. These agencies • Recognize the importance of information to the agency’s mission, • Invest in agency-wide information improvements based on their expected payoff, and • Ensure that the agency’s information is effectively managed and delivers value as expected. In contrast, agencies that do not manage information as a strategic asset may find themselves in the following situation: • There are a lot of data but limited ability to derive actionable information—a “data-rich, information-poor” state of affairs. C H A P T E R 2 Data and Information In this report, the term “data” is generally used to refer to raw observations (e.g., traffic counts, bridge condition ratings, and photographs) whereas the term “infor- mation” is used to refer to data that have been packaged to facilitate interpreta- tion or understanding (e.g., a planning study). “Information management” is used as a general term that encompasses collection and processing of raw data, translation of data into information, and distribution of information so that it can be used. Information management encompasses manage- ment of tabular data as well as other types of content—documents, maps, charts, emails, etc. See the glossary at the end of this report for more definitions.

DOTs in the Information Age: Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks 11 • Decisions about collecting data or improving information access are often made within individ- ual divisions, offices, and bureaus rather than being based on a coordinated agency-wide strategy. • Functions related to information management are dispersed throughout the agency and not coordinated, including records management, engineering document management, data man- agement, library management, intranet and public-facing website(s) management. • There is a seemingly endless list of requests for new data gathering and information technol- ogy investments with the promise of improving information for decision-making; however, many past information technology projects have not delivered on expectations, and prioritiz- ing the many competing needs is challenging. Information Helps DOTs Achieve Better Results Several studies have documented the value of information and how effective use of information for decision-making impacts the bottom line within large organizations. For example, research- ers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Digital Business analyzed the financial performance of 179 large publicly traded firms. The researchers found that those “firms that adopt data-driven decision-making have output and productivity that is 5–6% higher than what would be expected given their other investments and information technology usage” (Brynjolfsson, 2011). While public-sector agencies don’t generally track their output and productivity in terms of dollars, it is likely that public-sector agencies would benefit significantly and in ways similar to the ways that the businesses tracked in the MIT study benefitted. DOTs are entrusted with responsibility for making best use of sizable pools of funds for transportation improvements. Information can be used to guide a wide range of strategic and operational decisions. Without good information, agencies are “flying blind” in many respects. A 2006 study of transportation information assets and impacts (Schofer, 2006) summarized the main categories of information that can add value. This summary includes • Information that describes the nature and extent of problems that warrant action, such as current and projected future condition or performance; • Information about alternative courses of action and their consequences; and • Information about available resources and restrictions on their use. Using Information for Better Agency Results • Performance Management—using leading and lagging indicators to track agency and system performance and guide course corrections. • Incident and Emergency Response—deploying the right resources armed with situational awareness. • System Operations—making full use of available capacity. • Safety—reducing fatalities and injuries through effective targeting of available funds. • Asset Management—making the right investments that preserve asset value and manage risks. • Customer Service—understanding and responding to key customer concerns, pro- viding customers with the information they need to make good travel choices. • Agency Efficiency—identifying areas for streamlining and cost reduction. • Construction—speeding up project delivery, reducing costs, and ensuring quality.

12 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation This study identified several compelling examples of how transportation decision-makers were able to leverage available information for improved decisions and outcomes: • In Massachusetts, current and projected bridge condition data were successfully used to make the case to the state legislature for additional funding for bridges and to develop a program that balanced the replacement or rehabilitation of existing structurally deficient bridges with other preservation projects aimed at preventing additional bridges from deteriorating to a deficient condition. • In Oklahoma, following a bridge collapse on I-40 resulting from a barge hit, commodity flow data were used to develop a plan to divert trucks to alternate corridors while the bridge was being rebuilt in order to minimize disruption of freight movement and associated economic impacts. • In Kentucky, roadway adequacy ratings (based on safety, mobility, design, condition, and other data) were used to identify and prioritize unscheduled projects for a 6-year program. • In Illinois, an inventory of highway-rail crossings was used to allocate resources for investment based on crash reduction potential and other factors. Today, several DOTs use information on infrastructure condition, crash rates, and congestion patterns to allocate limited dollars to the most pressing problems and thereby demonstrate good stewardship of public funds. Some DOTs have created dashboards (see Figure 2 for an example) that provide a bird’s eye view of agency effectiveness and serve as powerful tools for tracking performance and driving improvements. Source: (District Department of Transportation, 2016. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 US.) Figure 2. District Department of Transportation dashboard.

DOTs in the Information Age: Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks 13 Need for Improved Information Management It is a fallacy to think that once data and content are acquired, the work of producing action- able information is accomplished. In fact, when a need for information arises, many agencies have difficulty responding in an efficient manner due to a lack of proactive information man- agement practices. Agencies may face a host of issues related to information storage, retrieval, documentation, version control, integration, and quality. These issues can severely limit the pace of progress and make efforts to produce good information cost more than anticipated. Managers requesting information may not be fully aware of these information management issues; all they know is that it takes much more effort than expected to get answers to seemingly straightforward questions. Focused initiatives to respond to FOIA requests, produce dashboards, or develop management reports can be undertaken to work through specific issues. However, it is important to recognize that such tactical efforts won’t solve the fundamental cause of infor- mation headaches: lack of a strategic, agency-wide approach to information management. For example, without an agency-wide perspective, collections of isolated information systems are created that can’t talk to each other. This hampers the ability of staff to use data from business units other than their own to create innovative solutions for themselves or the agency. Challenges to Providing Easy Access to Actionable Information • Absence of a clear strategy, priority, and focus for improvement • Lack of devoted staff resources supporting information management with appropriate skill sets • Lack of information governance to ensure consistent practices • Ad-hoc document naming conventions and storage practices • Ad-hoc or non-existent information classification systems • Inconsistent data structures across business applications • Ambiguous data definitions • Uneven data quality assurance practices • Incomplete or absent metadata • Varying spatial referencing, limiting map views of information • Lack of enterprise systems for information storage and management The Information Game Is Changing As DOTs work to improve their information systems to meet a backlog of needs, dramatic changes are occurring in the DOT information landscape: increasing diversification of digi- tal content types, availability of hosted and cloud information storage options, new “big” data sources, new data collection and analysis technologies, and changing expectations about sharing and using information. While there is no crystal ball available, it is clear that the information game is changing, and DOTs need to adapt. Increasingly, DOTs are facing expectations that their data and information be available to everyone, anytime, from anywhere. These expectations come from internal agency staff and the traveling public, elected officials, and other stakeholder groups. Rapid adoption of social media, mobile communications, and cloud computing technologies have fueled and enabled these expectations. DOTs may not be organized or staffed to keep up with the increasing number and complexity of external information requests and constantly evolving expectations.

14 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation DOTs are also experiencing an explosion in digital data. Cameras, global positioning system (GPS) receivers, and other sensing devices on infrastructure, on vehicles, and in cell phones can provide real-time data on conditions and activities. DOTs are obtaining large amounts of operational data from private providers on weather conditions, traffic activities, and incidents. Care must be taken to ensure that externally provided data can be integrated with other DOT data and that the quality of the data is understood. Within agencies, modernization of information systems and increased automation of pre- viously paper-based transactions are creating new levels of visibility into agency operations and opportunities to analyze patterns and trends. Mainframe systems are being retired and replaced with newer database systems that make financial and other types of transactional data more easily accessible. Several state DOTs (including Missouri, Utah, Connecticut, and Oregon) are using 3D design models, creating opportunities for more dynamic and flexible management of project and infrastructure information across a project’s life cycle (from design to construction to maintenance and operations). Spatial data standards and tools are being adopted that enable integration and visualization of a wide variety of agency and external data. Data warehouses and other data integration solutions are being implemented for improved agency-wide access Changing Information Expectations • Open Government/Open Data— providing open access to govern- ment content; responding to public information requests of increasing frequency and scope. • Real-Time Information—using real- time operational data for active traffic management; using real-time equipment location and work zone information for maintenance management. • Performance Management and Accountability—tracking delivery of projects and services, improvements in system performance, resource uti- lization, and efficiency; pinpointing areas for improvement. • Federal Reporting—contributing to a consistent national picture of trans- portation needs and performance. • Business Operations—providing vis- ibility into current status and past history of budgets and individual transactions. • Institutional Memory—accessing information on prior agency activi- ties and lessons learned as career employees retire. Changing Sources • Commercial Traffic Data—real-time and archived data on travel time and speed derived from a combination of aggregated mobile phone GPS data and other sources. • Sensor Data—remote sensing data from unmanned aerial vehicles, increased use of mobile and aerial LiDAR technology, 3D laser scanning, fatigue sensors on structures, and new image-processing algorithms that automate data extraction. • Crowdsourcing—reported mainte- nance issues or asset conditions from mobile applications. • Connected Vehicle Data—new data streams from connected vehicles; applications for DOTs are still emerging, but projections indicate that there may be as many as 250 million connected vehicles (globally) by 2020. • Text Mining—improving ability to derive information from a variety of content types, e.g., feeds from popular social media platforms can be mined to provide awareness of incidents and traveler perceptions.

DOTs in the Information Age: Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks 15 to information produced by individual business units. DOTs are also implementing electronic collaboration tools and content management systems to manage and share their growing collec- tions of digital documents and rich media files. While not yet in common use at DOTs, advanced technologies for storing and analyzing “big data” streams have emerged that build on methods developed by Google, Yahoo, and other companies for managing information at massive scales. This combination of changing expectations and the changing scale and diversity of avail- able information means that a “business as usual” strategy for information management will no longer work. A reactive approach to meeting new expectations could backfire by taxing agency resources without producing an integrated solution. A more strategic approach to assessing new opportunities for building and leveraging information resources would allow DOTs to focus on high-priority areas and ensure that the right combination of skills, technologies, and business processes are in place to yield success. Challenges for Improving Information Management DOTs seeking to put their information to better use and adapt to a changing information landscape will face a number of technical and organizational challenges. These challenges are not insurmountable, but need to be recognized and addressed directly as part of developing an information management strategy. They include the following: • Information silos, • Fragmented information management responsibilities, • Information findability, • DOT organizational culture, • DOT workforce challenges, • Information security and privacy, and • State information technology challenges. Information Silos Information silos naturally occur when decisions about data collection and application deployment are made in isolation by individual organizational units to meet specific business needs. Managers of individual business units legitimately think that they are in the best position to understand their unit’s information needs and make decisions about technology investments that are most appropriate to meet these needs. In some cases, restrictions on how funds available for information investments can be used necessitate a silo-based approach. However, silo-based decision-making about data and associated applications can limit the value of information to the agency as a whole and impede staff from gaining a multi-disciplinary perspective on issues and solutions. Potentially negative impacts of information silos include the following: • Information may not be properly protected. Valuable data may be corrupted or lost without reliable backups and access controls. • Information may not be findable. One organizational unit may need information that another unit maintains but isn’t aware that the information exists. • Information may be duplicated. Two units may collect or acquire the same data for slightly different purposes using different methods. Duplication of data is a waste of limited resources, but beyond that, having multiple versions of the same data means that no one knows which version is the official, authoritative source. At best, data users may need to expend valuable time tracking down the official data source. An issue of greater concern is that a user could unwittingly use the “wrong” version of the data and make a bad decision based on “bad” data. • Information may not be documented. An understanding of how data were collected, the meaning of particular elements, and how to produce meaningful queries or reports may exist

16 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation only within an individual employee’s brain. With employee turnover, there is a high risk that this knowledge will be lost. • Information may be difficult to integrate. Opportunities for integrating data across different systems may be missed, e.g., the ability to compile a history of projects and asset inspections for a given location. Agency-wide efforts to integrate data become more complex and involve many moving parts, from both technology and business process perspectives. Changes to any individual source system may not be coordinated and may cause reports that use information from these systems to break. In order to avoid these negative impacts, agencies can create oversight processes for data and information technology investments that are backed up by a commitment from senior managers to make sure that the processes are followed. Also, standards can be established to ensure consistency across the agency. It is important to strike the right balance and avoid creating roadblocks to prog- ress; these can backfire and result in “rogue” efforts that circumvent the centralized process. Fragmented Information Management Responsibilities In addition to the information silos covered above, DOTs typically have fragmented organiza- tional responsibilities for information management, which may make it difficult to take a coordi- nated, agency-wide approach. Information management silos may include library management, web content management (which may be also be split into groups with responsibility for the internal versus external web sites), records management, and data management. Data manage- ment responsibilities may also be split across different groups within information technology and business units; for example, there may be a geographic information system (GIS) group, an enterprise data warehouse team, a group that maintains databases for enterprise applications, and various groups with responsibilities for specific systems that store data or content (e.g., engineering drawings, contract documents, right-of-way plans, and crash records). Each of these units may build and maintain its own repository and employ varying approaches to information organization, formats, classification, and indexing. These variations can make it difficult for the average employee or customer to understand what information exists and how to access it. Varia- tions in information management practices within the agency can also make it difficult to search across repositories for information relevant to a given topic area or project. External expectations for DOTs to make their information available to the public are increasing, creating a new set of demands that require coordination across different units with information management responsibilities. DOTs are still working out standard policies and practices for deter- mining what information can be openly shared, what type of review process is required before it is shared, what metadata and disclaimers to include, and what technical mechanisms to use for information sharing. These standards are important to ensuring the release of accurate and consistent information and minimizing potential misinterpretation or misuse of information. One specific area where a fragmented approach to information management is creating prob- lems for DOTs is responding to FOIA requests. The number of FOIA requests to DOTs is increas- ing, and fulfilling these requests can be extremely resource intensive. Locating and compiling the requested information can take weeks of staff time. Lack of strong information governance and standardized information organization practices and lack of cross-repository search tools make it difficult to efficiently respond to FOIA requests. Fragmented information management prac- tices can also increase liability for a DOT when they contribute to an inability to locate relevant information in response to construction claims or tort claims. With the shift from paper to digital content, the role and value of DOT libraries is being chal- lenged. In some agencies, budgetary pressures have resulted in elimination or scaling back of library staff. However, the importance of preserving and facilitating access to agency publications has not declined just because these publications are now in digital form. Training in library and

DOTs in the Information Age: Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks 17 information science is invaluable for designing and implementing effective digital information management and retrieval methods. The challenge is to leverage and integrate these skills for a broader agency-wide information management function. Information Findability The ability to find relevant information and understand its derivation and accuracy is an impor- tant challenge for most large organizations, DOTs included. Historically, agency print publications, records, and library management functions provided an established, orderly way to maintain cen- tralized access to valued information assets. These types of functions have not been fully adapted to the digital age, in which policy or standards clarifications are distributed via email and individual employees collect and maintain their own collections of data and documents on shared drives. There is a need to reinvent old practices for identifying information that needs to be shared and make sure that it is stored and documented in a way that allows people to find and use it. DOT information assets include a variety of data sets—transportation asset inventories, traffic counts, project budget and status, fund obligation and expenditure tables, and so forth. Under- standing where and how to access these data sets is one aspect of information findability that can be addressed through data integration, GIS, and reporting initiatives. However, structured or tabular data represent just the tip of the information iceberg. In a typical DOT, there is a large and growing volume of digital content, e.g., emails, forms, memos, inspection reports, invoices, web pages, photos, videos, design drawings, and so forth. This content is used together with structured data and is often critical for documenting and diagnosing problems and making appropriate decisions. Some content may be stored within document or content management systems, but typically a great deal of it is unmanaged and stored on shared agency drives or local hard drives. Content that is unmanaged is the digital equivalent of a messy desk piled with unorganized material built up over several years. This presents a problem for employees trying to find infor- mation such as the most recent set of policies and standards, background on a project they just inherited, or handouts from a meeting they missed. Poor findability of information can substantially impact employee productivity and effectiveness. It also impacts an agency’s ability to respond to FOIA requests and construction claims in a timely and efficient manner. Many agencies are facing increasing numbers of public information requests, and poor information findability makes responding to these requests very labor intensive and costly. Improving findability requires a multi-faceted approach that includes having the technol- ogy to store and manage content, implementing policies about where different types of content should be stored, instituting processes to classify and document content with metadata, and establishing governance to ensure that policies are followed in a timely manner. DOT Organizational Culture DOTs are typically hierarchical and somewhat bureaucratic organizations. Detailed regula- tions, policies, and procedures govern how work is to be accomplished and how performance is to be evaluated. Management typically follows a “command and control” structure, with clearly established rules for decision-making and approvals. Employee responsibilities are delineated within detailed position descriptions. This type of culture provides stability and repeatability, but does not necessarily support flexibility, agility, or adaptability. This means that DOTs can be slow to respond to new expectations or opportunities. For example, increased public expecta- tions for open data require DOTs to put in place new practices for information sharing. Many DOTs still find themselves ill-equipped to implement and support these new practices. The degree of collaboration between DOT business units and units with responsibility for information management and technology is another cultural issue that is important to examine.

18 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation When business units independently develop concepts for new information initiatives without consulting with information specialists, this can result in sub-optimal solutions that don’t con- sider agency-wide needs or opportunities. Separate budget development processes within dif- ferent units with information management responsibilities (e.g., library management, web site management, records management, etc.) also contributes to the lack of an agency-wide approach. Changes to processes, roles, and personnel are not easy to make. It will take special effort to recon- figure employees’ responsibilities to include information management or to encourage their engage- ment in data-sharing efforts across business units. Such effort may include making formal changes to job descriptions and considering information management practices in performance reviews. In addition, strong leadership is essential for responding to resistance to change positively and effectively. DOT Workforce Challenges Many DOTs have undergone downsizing due to budget cuts and shrinking revenue sources. Trends in full-time-equivalents (FTEs) for one DOT are shown in Figure 3. In addition, DOTs are facing a loss of experienced staff due to retirements and increased turnover due in part to a more mobile workforce and in part to competition from the private sector for certain skill sets that are in demand. From an information management perspective, the implications are the following: • Competencies and in-house training resources in information management are thin in many agencies. Individuals trained as engineers may be asked to take on data and information man- Figure 3. Workforce trends at Michigan DOT 1990–2013.

DOTs in the Information Age: Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks 19 agement responsibilities without requisite knowledge or training in information architecture, library science, or data science. This situation directly impacts the ability of both information professionals and users of information resources to adopt new, improved information man- agement practices and adjust to a rapidly changing environment. • Because DOT salaries are generally not competitive with those of private firms, and pension ben- efits are being reduced, it is difficult for DOTs to retain staff once they gain valuable information management skills and experience through DOT investments in training and mentoring. • DOTs are increasingly dependent on outsourcing for a range of services, including those related to data collection, processing, and reporting. This dependence means that DOTs will need to improve how they structure and manage outsourcing arrangements to clearly define deliverables, while providing needed flexibility to adapt and ensure strong coordination. • DOTs are under pressure to increase efficiencies and are looking to reduce labor-intensive processes for field data collection, information summarization, and reporting. • DOTs are at high risk of losing staff with a unique understanding of data sets—how the data were collected, what the limitations of the data are, and how the data should be interpreted. Capturing and documenting this knowledge is increasingly important. Another dimension of workforce transition is that newer employees bring a greater comfort level with information systems and high expectations for convenient information access. This presents both opportunities and challenges for DOTs. These employees may be more accepting of automa- tion initiatives and may require a lower level of training to ease the transition to new systems than veteran employees who are less comfortable with technology. On the other hand, increased capa- bilities for individuals to develop, manage, and publish content on their own can introduce risks to the organization and can work against a coordinated approach to information management. Information Security and Privacy Public agencies, including DOTs, are facing major challenges related to protecting sensitive information and preventing cyber-attacks on computer systems and traffic sensing and control systems. Increased system connectivity; the evolution of the “Internet of things”; and the use of technologies such as social media, mobile devices, and cloud computing are increasing the complexity of the task of maintaining information security and protecting sensitive data. DOTs must be increasingly vigilant with respect to protecting their information technology devices by following standard security protocols. DOTs that include motor vehicle registration and licens- ing functions including large stores of personally identifiable information are particularly vul- nerable to data breaches. DOTs must balance information security concerns with the increasing demand for transparency, open data, and productive collaboration with a variety of partners. They must also navigate information security complexities in the context of public/private data- sharing arrangements. DOT staff responsible for implementing data-sharing arrangements must draw upon available cyber security expertise and build in necessary safeguards. State Information Technology Challenges Legacy Systems Information technology investments to improve information management capabilities can be challenging when older, legacy systems are involved. While these systems may still adequately serve their intended purpose—such as financial management, capital program management, traffic monitoring, or highway inventory management—they may require replacement because • They are difficult to modify to meet changing needs; • They do not support efficient or “user friendly” methods for data updates; • They cannot be integrated with the newer generation of agency software; • They are no longer supported by the vendor; • They are based on mainframe hardware that is being phased out; • They are based on operating system versions that are being phased out;

20 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation • They have serious data integrity issues due to a lack of edit and audit capabilities; • Technical staff members who were responsible for system updates and maintenance have retired or moved on, and newer technical staff members are not trained to work with older technologies. The bottom line is that legacy systems are more difficult to maintain and less flexible than their modern counterparts. The obvious solution is to replace legacy systems with more modern tech- nology. The use of modern cloud application solutions, communication and mobile technolo- gies, social media, and virtualization infrastructure offer quicker and more flexible solutions. However, some older systems are so large and so critical to multiple agency business processes that it can be extremely costly and risky to transition them to more modern technology. Any upgrade will require a hardware/software expense for the new technology. In addition, data must be transitioned to newer technology without loss of data integrity. Often, data transition requires a major technology project and investment, requiring careful analysis and planning to ensure that adequate resources are made available and that there is an orderly transition. Specialized expertise for legacy modernization efforts can be tapped in order to maximize success and minimize risks. It is important to recognize that data transition or data cleanup can cost as much and take as long to complete as building a new system. Therefore, an effort to address data migration is best addressed at the beginning of any new modernization effort. The beginning of the effort is the time to eliminate data that are no longer used or needed, identify modifications that would add value, and create opportunities for reduction of ongoing maintenance and improved data integration. Statewide Centralization of Information Technology Services A second issue that can constrain or influence selection and prioritization of information tech- nology investments for information management is information technology centralization. For several states—including Michigan, Virginia, Texas, and Minnesota—information technology services have been consolidated statewide. Information technology centralization is intended to reduce total costs and improve service to citizens through elimination of redundant functions and provision of shared services such as information technology project management. Informa- tion technology centralization can achieve economies of scale for purchase of hardware, software licensing, and communications and network technologies. Additionally, state information technol- ogy centralization can provide critical interoperability between agencies for effective emergency response, promoting economic development, or completing environmental impact assessments. Because DOTs are typically one of the largest consumers of information technology ser- vices within state government and have specialized data and information technology needs to meet external reporting requirements and internal business needs, the transition to informa- tion technology centralization can be challenging for DOTs that are working to improve use of information for decision-making. A DOT operating in a centralized information technology environment may have less flexibility to modify systems and services in response to changing business needs and new external reporting requirements. Key Points Overcoming information challenges takes advanced planning and judi- cious investments in data and information systems. It also takes a well- conceived organizational strategy for how information and associated technology investment and resource allocation decisions will be made and how information will be managed. Developing a successful information management strategy involves looking ahead and anticipating changes that will impact needs, constrain future action, or present new opportunities.