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.

35 Equipping the Organization Step 4. Establish Leadership and Governance Structures Information governance is the mechanism by which an agency is able to improve information integration, quality, and usability, and adapt to new requirements in a coordinated and efficient manner. It is the opposite of a decentralized, “laissez-faire” approach in which individual busi- ness units create their own methods for information collection and management, and nobody is specifically held accountable for how the agency manages its information. This decentralized approach is sub-optimal from many perspectives. The following results are all too familiar to many organizations: • Uneven information support for different business needs across the agency; • Disk space on shared drives clogged with growing collections of old, inactive content; • Data and content that are undocumented and of undetermined quality; • Data sets in a variety of formats that overlap and can’t be integrated; • Lack of ability to find or access information produced within the agency; • Many potential sources of risk that are difficult to identify, let alone manage; and • Difficulty mounting coordinated responses to new information needs. On the other hand, a highly structured approach to information governance—with multiple levels of approvals and complex decision-making criteria—can pose barriers to progress and consume valuable senior staff time. Standardizing how information is managed requires changes in well-established behaviors, which are always difficult to achieve. Therefore, to be effective, agencies need a balanced approach of “just enough” governance to achieve economies of scale C H A P T E R 5

36 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation for information investments, integrated data of acceptable quality, and organizational capability for change to meet new demands and a tolerable level of risk. Identifying roles and responsibilities for individuals and groups within the agency with respect to information governance establishes the accountability that is needed to ensure progress. With- out this accountability, it is unlikely that agency information governance and management will change from the status quo. Designating a group responsible for developing and ensuring imple- mentation of agency information management policies is one way to provide this accountability. This group could identify how the agency will make decisions about what information to collect and how to manage it across its life cycle for maximum value. Identifying roles and responsi- bilities also provides two additional benefits: it can increase organizational ability to coordinate across silos and adapt to new requirements, and it can identify willing champions with time and resources to follow through on the leadership and governance direction. The following process (Steps 4.1 through 4.3) can be used to establish information governance and management roles and responsibilities. Establish Execuve Accountability for Informaon Management Designate Informaon Governance Leadership Team Define Informaon Management Roles and Responsibilies Step 4.1 Step 4.2 Step 4.3 Step 4.1: Establish Executive Accountability for Information Management The first step is to identify a member of the agency leadership team who will be accountable for improving information management at the agency. Executives must understand the value of infor- mation management in order to provide the desired resources to support it. Without executive sup- port, information management might take a low priority compared to other issues and projects, and lack the interest or resources within the agency required for successful implementation. While some agencies may have a chief information officer or a chief technology officer, these roles are often primarily focused on information technology. An executive responsible for infor- mation management would work in partnership with the agency’s technology lead to implement a business-driven approach to organizing, analyzing, delivering, and sharing information. As a National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) issue brief discussed, execu- tive roles in implementing information governance and management can include sponsorship, strategic direction, funding, advocacy, and oversight. (NASCIO, 2008) One approach being taken by both private- and public-sector organizations (including U.S. DOT) is to designate a chief data officer (CDO). A CDO role can be defined to include not only structured data (big or traditional) but also unstructured data such as documents, engineering plans, and multimedia files. This individual can be located within the information technology group or work directly for the agency’s chief executive. A 2014 MIT study on the role of chief data officers provides a useful summary of the need that a CDO fills (Lee, Madnick, Wang, Wang, & Zhang, 2014): Some might argue that traditional data-related managers and data governance mechanisms can deliver the same results as a CDO. However, there are critical differences between the efforts of low-level data managers and those of executive-rank CDOs. The key contrast lies in organizationally sanctioned leader- ship and accountability appropriated to the executive level CDOs . . . unlike data managers, the CDO can

Equipping the Organization 37 lead the effort to build an organizational capability that can energize and sustain the entire organization and extended enterprise. . . .the CDO can be held accountable for a failure of leadership in resolving data problems. This study goes on to define the different types of roles that a CDO can play, classified based on three dimensions: (1) data space (big data versus traditional data), (2) collaboration direction (inward versus outward), and (3) value impact (strategy versus service). Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes these roles and can provide a useful reference for DOTs considering establishing a CDO position (or other positions with similar functions). Step 4.2: Designate Information Governance Leadership Team Below the executive level, an information governance leadership team can serve as an oversight body responsible for developing and ensuring implementation of agency information manage- ment policies. This is not the same as an information technology governance body, though there could be some areas of overlap to be coordinated. There is no single recommended approach to setting up an information governance structure in a DOT. (See text box titled “Washington State DOT—Enterprise Information Governance Group [EIGG]” for one example). Some agencies may have existing groups that can take on U.S. DOT, CDO The U.S. DOT added a CDO posi- tion in 2014, to report to the chief technical officer (who reports to the chief information officer). The U.S. DOT CDO role includes the following responsibilities: • Envisioning DOT data and data man- agement (e.g., interviewing stake- holders to inform data needs) • Building department data policies • Improving data quality • Increasing data sharing—including data awareness, use, and collaboration—for DOT employees and for the public • Developing new data products and data analysis tools • Tracking agency-wide data collection and data linkages Sources: (Moore, 2015; U.S. Department of Transportation—Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Job Listing for Chief Data Officer: IT Specialist, Job Announcement Number OST.CIO-2014-0011, 2014) Financial Services Company, CDO The CDO of a major financial services company oversaw a “Data Transforma- tion Program” in which the objectives included the following: • Formalizing data governance, includ- ing not only the process, but also the roles for employees involved in data governance, such as business data owners and business data stewards • Measuring and improving data management maturity • Enabling business initiatives by coor- dinating with key programs and bet- ter leveraging the data for projects • Optimizing the data infrastructure through consolidation, integration, modernization, and automation The intent was to increase business value by enhancing business strategy, analysis, and decision-making, and to increase infrastructure and operations value through more modern, consoli- dated systems. Source: (Gerber, n.d.)

38 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation information governance functions. To be effective, the governance group should include repre- sentation from • Core central office business units (planning and programming, design, project delivery, main- tenance, and operations); • Field offices; • Information technology, data management, and applications development; and • Information management units including records management, web content management, engineering document management, and library management. A core function of a governance group is to establish policy and guidance. A second impor- tant related function is to provide an escalation path for issues or problems related to infor- mation management. These issues or problems might include an inability to get agreement on standards or priorities across business units, a lack of resources or priorities for improving data quality, an inability to get staff to store their files in designated locations, or a resistance to data sharing across business units or with the public. Table B-2 in Appendix B presents sample information governance group objectives and functions. Although information gov- ernance objectives and functions are likely to change based on an agency’s focus and the existing state of information management, these sample objectives and functions can provide a starting point. In order to facilitate the work of the governance team, it is important to designate a lead manager (who may be the chair of the team) who has the time to understand issues, lead development of recommendations, and spend time working across agency silos to negotiate strategies. This lead can serve as an evangelist for an agency-wide information management Washington State DOT—Enterprise Information Governance Group (EIGG) Washington State DOT’s EIGG includes director-level representation from each major division of the department. The EIGG has been designated as the policy- setting body for all Washington State DOT data- and information-management- related issues. The EIGG has the following responsibilities: • Review existing agency policies and executive orders related to data and infor- mation management and periodically prepare a report that summarizes the effectiveness of current practices; develop and implement a work plan to remedy policy gaps, inconsistencies, and any conflicting or unclear direction within existing policies related to the assignment of roles and responsibilities including policy enforcement, accountability, and authority. • Develop policies that are directed toward efficient and strategic use of resources associated with data and information assets including the collection, storage, management, findability, and access to data and information. • Identify roles and responsibilities related to enforcement, accountability, and authority in an effort to allow conformation to the data and information principles. • Provide to executives by the end of each fiscal year a summary of all policies established by the EIGG, improvements resulting from the policy change, and policy issues under consideration. Source: (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2015)

Equipping the Organization 39 approach and advocate for improvements leading to more consistent and coordinated prac- tices. Additional staff support is also helpful for activities including meeting logistics, back- ground research, benchmarking with other agencies, technical review, and agency outreach/ communications. Many agencies have existing business leadership and information technology governance teams. The information governance group’s function should be clearly delineated to distinguish it from the roles of these other teams. As part of this process, formal reporting relationships and points of coordination can be defined as appropriate. Step 4.3: Define Information Management Roles and Responsibilities In order for the information governance team to implement effective policies and manage- ment techniques, other individuals within the agency will need to assume various information management roles and responsibilities. This will typically involve identifying business owners for different types of data (points of accountability) and additional responsibilities (e.g., for quality assurance, documentation, and change management). It may also involve establishing metrics to track progress and regular monitoring. Table B-3 in Appendix B provides a sample list of information governance roles to consider. Key Points Step 4 of the strategic information management process establishes ongoing decision-making authorities and processes and clarifies roles and responsibilities for information management. This is a key element of “equipping the organization”; it is difficult to make substantive progress without it. Each agency will need to determine the information governance approach that fits best with its culture, leadership structure, and decision-making processes. DOTs can look to other agencies for models and lessons learned. Step 5. Establish Information Management Policies The information governance group will set information management policies in order to achieve the objectives outlined in Step 4. Information management policies can define agency expectations for how employees will manage and use information. Policies can cover a range of topics about information, including categorization, storage, life cycle management, standardiza- tion, and integration. Each of these topics is discussed further below. Creating policies and expectations serves an important function of governance groups; how- ever, the groups must ensure that the agency is ready to implement and enforce the policies that they create. This can include a number of factors, such as the following: • Defining roles for individuals upon policy implementation, • Affirming executive support of major policies, • Communicating new policies to the affected employees, • Ensuring that necessary resources are available to enact the policies, and • Determining how the policies will be monitored and how results will be measured.

40 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation If the agency is not prepared to implement and enforce the policies and expectations that are created, then setting the policies and expectations can lead to negative consequences, such as the following: • Reducing agency performance in other areas by requiring the transfer of limited resources (e.g., employee time and financial resources) toward implementing the new policies and/or meeting new expectations. • Decreasing agency interest in implementing and enforcing the policies and expectations at a later date when the agency would be prepared to do so, as the initial failure could lead to the policies and expectations going stale. • Weakening the information governance group’s credibility going forward, both with the executive leadership empowering the group and with the employees adhering to the group’s policies and expectations. An incremental approach can be taken by developing and rolling out guidance and training on recommended practices prior to establishing formal policies. This gives the agency a chance to test different approaches and adjust them as needed. The following process (Steps 5.1 through 5.4) can be used to establish information management guidance and policies. Define Informaon Categories Establish Informaon Storage Policies Establish Life Cycle Management Acvies Establish Standardizaon and Integraon Policies Step 5.1 Step 5.2 Step 5.3 Step 5.4 Step 5.1: Define Information Categories Defining consistent ways of categorizing information is a fundamental activity that provides the building blocks for other information management activities. Defining information catego- ries agency-wide allows for consistent handling of different information types (data sets, web content, and policy documents) and lays the foundation for searching across different reposi- tories. Several different types of classifications are useful: scope or agency value (agency-wide, department-wide, work unit, personal); subject (environmental, construction, financial, etc.); and degree of sensitivity. Each of these methods is discussed briefly below. Classification by Scope or Agency Value Information classification based on scope or value to the agency is a logical first step for an infor- mation governance program because it allows the agency to decide what information requires dif- ferent levels of governance. For example, as illustrated in Figure 7, at the Michigan DOT, 3% to 5% Source: (Michigan Department of Transportation, n.d.) Master Data 3% to 5% Shared Data 15% to 25% Everything Else Department specific/Operations/Little or no impact on enterprise information management vision Figure 7. Michigan DOT agency-department data categorization.

Equipping the Organization 41 of data are master data for the agency, 15% to 25% are shared, and the remainder (at least 70%) of the data are department specific, operational, or with limited impact on the enterprise infor- mation management vision. Michigan focused on structured data, but this type of classification method is applicable to documents and other types of content. Through this classification, information that is of agency-wide significance can be classified and managed as a corporate asset. This is different from information that is only of interest within individual business units and specific project teams or for particular individuals. Governance teams are responsible for understanding and communicating this difference to individuals in the agency. For example, an agency may choose to share information that could be used across mul- tiple business areas by multiple individuals, but does not need to share each individual’s version of that data. The governance team can develop classifications that request sharing the former but not the latter and implement policies for individuals and groups to adhere to those classifications. Classification by Subject Area Information can be categorized by high-level subjects (e.g., spatial data and infrastructure data). These subject categories can then drive the structure of information repositories. They can also help organize subject area stewardship, assigning individual data stewards to account for data within each subject area. The high-level subjects can link to core business categories of the agency. Figure 8 shows a taxonomy structure developed by a state DOT librarian, intended to be applicable to any type of business, nonprofit, or government agency. Each triangle represents a high-level facet that could be used to classify different types of information. For example, the compliance facet would be used for documents and data related to compliance with internal or external policies, rules, standards, laws, regulations, specifications, or other governance or Source: (Smith, 2016) PRODUCTS/SERVICES (What is delivered to the customer) PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING (What do we want to do and how will we do it?) REGULATION, COMPLIANCE AND STANDARDS (What is required – internal and externally imposed mandates) MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS FOCUS (Past performance, present productivity and future strategy) INFORMATION – “INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL” (Information, data and content resources created, owned or used) PHYSICAL ASSETS (Property, equipment, supplies, materials) VIRTUAL ASSETS (Technology resources, systems, software, etc.) MONEY – “FINANCIAL CAPITAL” (Funds, cash assets, receipts) PEOPLE – “HUMAN CAPITAL” (Employees, contractors, business partners) Delivery Planning Expertise Infrastructure Resources Figure 8. Sample information taxonomy.

42 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation mandates. The money and funding facet would be used for content related to management of financial resources and transactions, including funding and programming. The Minnesota DOT defined nine different subject area domains as part of its data business planning efforts (see text box titled “Minnesota DOT: Data Domain Classification by Subject Area”). These domains provide the structure for Minnesota DOT’s data governance activities. A domain steward is assigned to each area to serve as the point person for data related to that subject. A third example of a high-level subject classification method is illustrated in the text box titled “Hawley Committee Information Categories.” This method was developed from research con- ducted in the United Kingdom in the mid-1990s that looked at 40 different private companies. The example in the text box shows the generic categories from the Hawley Committee along with DOT-specific applications to illustrate how these categories might be applied within a DOT setting. Classification by Sensitivity At state DOTs, it is common for some information to be highly sensitive and therefore necessary to protect at a higher level than other information. For example, a state DOT may have personally identifying information that is highly sensitive and culvert location information that is not highly Minnesota DOT: Data Domain Classification by Subject Area The Minnesota DOT has created a set of nine data domains (see table) reflect- ing high-level subject areas in the DOT. Each data domain has a steward, an individual assuming responsibility for the data and serving as a point of contact. The list of domains, the types of data contained in the domain, and the domain steward are available to ease data sharing and improve cross-subject data avail- ability across the agency. An agency list is published and updated, providing data users with a clear point of contact for questions about specific data types or data within a specific domain. Domain Example Data Types Human Resources Employee data; Training and certification data; Applicant data Financial Procurement data; Budget data; Grant data; Transaction data Planning, Programing, and Projects Project scheduling data; Environmental process data Infrastructure Bridge data; Airport data; Rail crossing data; Safety feature data Spatial Boundary data; Coordinate-based data; Linear referencing data Regulatory Internal audit data; Prevailing wage data; Enforcement data Recorded Events Crash and accident data; Maintenance activity data Supporting Assets Equipment data; Fuel data; Building and facility data; Tower data Business Stakeholder/ Customer Customer market research data; City and county partner data Source: (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2014)

Equipping the Organization 43 sensitive. Information management can differ based on information sensitivity, and this is impor- tant to consider when creating policies and expectations and communicating those policies and expectations to employees. Figure 9 provides an example of information classification categories from Oregon. Step 5.2: Establish Information Storage Policies Step 5.2 is to define information storage policies. Information storage policies define where to store different kinds of information and how long different types of information should be kept. Policies for Where Information Should Be Stored The text boxes that follow provide two examples of information storage policies. The text box titled “Kraft Foods Information Storage Guidebook” lists the different storage options that are Hawley Committee Information Categories The Hawley Committee was set up in the United Kingdom and consisted of 15 business executives from private- and public-sector organizations. Their charge was to develop a model for encouraging boards of directors to recognize and treat information as an asset. The Committee researched information assets and associ- ated risks and opportunities at 40 organizations. The Committee recommended that all significant information assets in an organization be identified and that the board of directors for an organization should provide direction to management on actions to be taken with respect to the assets. The research identified eight types of information; these types can provide a starting point for identification of strategic information assets in any organization. The eight types of information are listed in the table, along with examples of the NCHRP Project 20-96 research team’s interpre- tation of how DOT information types that would fit within each category. Hawley Committee Information Category Example DOT Application Market and Customer Freight and passenger demand, system utilization, demographics Product Capacity, travel time, transit routes, construction project scope Specialist Knowledge Pavement design, maintenance practices, traffic engineering Business Process Standard operating procedures, business process maps, manuals Management Performance measures and trends, funding/expenditure trends Human Resources Employee skills and certifications, years of service and experience Supplier Vendor and contractor information (offerings, prices, etc.) Accountable (Legal/Regulatory) Federal financial reporting, MAP-21 performance reports Source: (Oppenheim, Stenson, & Wilson, 2001)

44 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation •Low Risk—not protected from disclosure, made available to the public 1-Published •Sensitive—may be protected from public disclosure; may jeopardize the privacy or security of agency employees, clients, or partners (e.g., published internal audit reports) 2-Limited •High Risk—may be exempt from public disclosure, internal use requires authorization, external access requires confidentiality agreement (e.g., personally identifying information) 3-Restricted •Extreme Risk—disclosure may cause major harm to the agency (e.g., protected information under HIPAA or IRS regulation) 4-Critical Source: Based on Information Asset Classification (State of Oregon Department of Administrative Services, 2015) Figure 9. Risk-based information asset classification. Kraft Foods Information Storage Guidebook Kraft Foods developed a guidebook documenting where to store various classes of information. The guidebook included a description of each of the storage locations, a list of the types of content to store at each location, a simple rule describing when to store information at each location, and more detailed descriptions of when to save or not save content at each location. Source: (Arora and Associates, P.C., 2014)

Equipping the Organization 45 available and describes the intended uses for each one. The text box titled “Virginia DOT Gov- ernance of Corporate Documents in Transition to SharePoint 2010” illustrates how information classification (in Step 5.1) can provide the basis for an information storage (and governance) policy within an agency’s intranet site. Policies for How Long Information Should Be Kept Records management functions at statewide and agency levels will typically define different classes of public records and specify how long each type is to be retained and those types that are to be archived permanently. However, these records management functions may not apply to all types of DOT information and may not necessarily be reviewed to ensure that they match with business needs. One of the challenges for DOTs (and other organizations) is alignment Virginia DOT Governance of Corporate Documents in Transition to SharePoint 2010 The Virginia DOT created a stakeholder survey in 2010 to analyze its usage of internal information-sharing systems. The results of the survey reported that the sharing systems were minimally used, lacked compliant metadata that would enable wider searchability and accessibility, contained duplicate information, and contained a number of unused or obsolete team sites. To address these issues, the Virginia DOT recognized that it needed to focus its governance efforts on a smaller portion of information. The Virginia DOT cre- ated a governance structure that acknowledged that different levels of gov- ernance are required for different agency classifications; for example, data in the central portal would be highly governed and widely applicable across the agency, while team and personal information would have more limited structure and lower levels of governance. In particular, the Virginia DOT has prioritized the centralization and storage of about 1,400 corporate documents, documents essential to the Virginia DOT’s functions. These documents have the highest level of governance and are classified into highly structured areas. The Virginia DOT Knowledge Management Office is in the process of completing metadata for all corporate documents and is also working to improve the searchability of the documents. Source: (Hammer, 2010)

46 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation between records management functions that are compliance-oriented and other functions that emphasize information delivery. The easiest course of action from the perspective of an individual information user is to keep everything indefinitely “just in case.” However, retaining all information results in higher storage fees and can increase agency risk exposure. In addition, keeping redundant and outdated content together with current content makes it more difficult for people to find what they are looking for. One increasingly common technical approach to information storage is to use cloud comput- ing or hosted storage. Cloud storage can be a relatively inexpensive approach to information storage while providing opportunities for easy scalability. In July 2014, for example, California and IBM announced the creation of CalCloud, which government agencies and municipalities could subscribe to, with the intention of allowing for improved cross-agency and cross- municipality coordination (Business Cloud News, 2014). One study found that cloud services may provide additional functionality, but are unlikely to result in significant cost savings (Miller, 2015). Transportation agencies using the cloud for geo- spatial uses have found that the cloud can increase usage and impact, increase collaboration, and improve public interaction; however, the cloud also raises security concerns and has unfamiliar cost structures (Federal Highway Administration—Office of Planning, 2013). Specific issues to think about when considering a shift to cloud usage include cost, vendor, procurement, and security. Security is of particular concern to an agency, but could be addressed through a private cloud solution, such as that used by the Michigan DOT (Overman & Louch, 2013). Step 5.3: Establish Information Life Cycle Management Activities Agencies may wish to define policies that encourage a life cycle view of information manage- ment. These policies reinforce the idea that information is an asset that needs to be managed from creation to long-term preservation or deletion. These policies also recognize that informa- tion may be used by a variety of people for different purposes. Establishing agency-wide poli- cies for life cycle information management can create a greater level of consistency in practice, reduce the risk of information loss, and ensure that information will be maintained and shared to address the multiple users and uses that exist. A standard information life cycle is illustrated in Figure 10. While this model will not work for all classes of information, it can provide a foundation to help build tailored life cycles. • Plan. This phase includes activities to prepare for the collection of new data or the initiation of a new project or process that will generate new content. Preparatory activities may include establishing a business case, assigning an owner, determining applicable policies for stor- age and retention, determining applicable standards to ensure that new information can be integrated with existing agency information and properly classified and documented, and defining milestones or events that will trigger information storage or transfer. • Collect/capture/prepare. This phase calls for determining the method for information collec- tion or capture and preparing the information for use. Once the information is acquired in the Plan Phase, it should be processed and stored in preparation for use. This could include clean- ing and standardizing the information, documenting the information (e.g., recording metadata where appropriate), and loading the information into the proper storage repository. In the case of structured data, there may be additional transformation and integration processes and creation of additional information products including standard reports and GIS data layers. • Manage. After information has been collected and stored, it is managed to ensure appropriate controls and auditing of access and updates. Metadata quality assurance checks are performed. Backups are made and tested.

Equipping the Organization 47 • Share/find/use. Information is shared, published, or disseminated via appropriate channels. It is discovered by users, who may use available tools for review and analysis. • Preserve/transfer/destroy. Retention policies are applied and appropriate actions are taken to review, delete, or transfer information for long-term preservation or archiving. A sample checklist is included in Table A-6 in Appendix A to provide a structure for follow- ing the information life cycle. This checklist could be adapted to address specific focus areas or could be used as is. The checklist includes several fundamental components of the information life cycle in order to address different aspects of each life cycle phase. An agency could use this life cycle checklist for both tabular data and content. Different classes of information call for different approaches to the standard life cycle. For example, the information life cycle for engineering design plans might differ significantly from the life cycle for human resources information. In mapping out the information life cycle, it is impor- tant to consider all potential users and uses of the information, not just the users and uses associ- ated with the business unit taking the lead. This broad consideration of data users and uses will impact the development of requirements, documentation, and provisions for information access. Information life cycle development should ideally be coordinated with business process plan- ning and mapping activities for a holistic approach that looks across different repositories and information management functions. For example, at each stage of a construction project devel- opment cycle, information of various types (design plans, photographs, calculation spreadsheets, standard forms, contract documents, etc.) is produced and stored in various agency reposito- ries (databases, content management systems, internal and external web pages, library shelves, library digital repositories, and shared drives). Email files may also include important project records. An information life cycle plan can be developed to align with the project life cycle. This would involve defining standard practices for what types of project information should be stored in each repository and how the information should be packaged, annotated, transferred, updated, preserved, archived, or deleted at each stage of the project (e.g., design initiation, adver- tisement, notice to proceed, work completion, and project close-out). The information life cycle plan would be informed by a variety of perspectives: library collection policies, records retention schedules, public information officers and project staff with experience responding to public Plan Collect/Capture/ Prepare Manage Share/Find/Use Preserve/Transfer/ Destroy Figure 10. Standard information life cycle.

48 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation records requests, legal staff who handle project-related litigation, as well as field and central office staff who need to retrieve project-related information in different forms for different purposes. Step 5.4: Establish Information Standardization and Integration Policies Step 5.4 establishes policy concerning standardization and integration. This kind of policy includes • Identifying authoritative source systems for different types of data and content. • Standardizing and controlling updates to “master data,” which in a DOT includes identifica- tion, naming, and classification of core entities like routes, bridges, projects, funding sources, work categories, financial accounts, organizational units, employees, and vendors. • Standardizing spatial and temporal referencing so that different data sets and content types can be integrated based on location and time frame. • Standardizing metadata elements across different information repositories, some of which may use authoritative sources of master data (e.g., so that any document or data record about a construction project would be tagged with a common project identifier) as well as spatial and temporal referencing. Standard Metadata Elements A recent project for Washington State DOT was undertaken to “identify the com- ponents of an enterprise information taxonomy that could enhance the Washing- ton State Department of Transportation Public Disclosure Request (PDR) team’s ability to find materials which are eligible for disposition/destruction.” The project identified a standard set of metadata elements to be used to tag various types of information that might be included in a PDR. The picture below shows a design of an enterprise search screen that would leverage the standard metadata elements. Organizational unit and region/division are examples of metadata elements with controlled lists of values that would be centrally managed as master agency data. Source: (Lee, 2014). Image courtesy of Washington State Department of Transportation. Used with permission.

Equipping the Organization 49 Geospatial Data Management Policies Multiple state DOTs have enacted policies specific to geospatial data manage- ment. Two examples are provided below. North Carolina DOT developed guidelines intended to maximize the value of spatial data through standardization and data sharing. These guidelines outline roles, data validation and correction processes, data storage require- ments, spatial data access philosophies, and documentation. North Carolina DOT also outlines geospatial data and metadata standards that are consistent with other state geospatial standards (allowing for easier multi-agency coordination). Other topics (such as publication standards) are covered in additional documents. Examples of North Carolina DOT geospatial standards include the following: • Standard spatial reference (North American Datum of 1983). • Standard measurement units (United States Survey Foot). • Linear reference standard (referenced to road network). • Standard methods for referencing characteristics along the road network (route milepost, intersection offset, percent along a road segment, distance along a road segment, and coordinate). • Data quality descriptions (e.g., positional accuracy). Oregon DOT created standards to allow transportation data applications to acquire, use, and display geospatial data from a variety of sources. One exam- ple, the Oregon Road Centerline Data Standard, defined standards for items such as • Reference systems (Oregon Lambert Conformal Conic Projection and North American Datum of 1983 Data). • GPS (road centerline data collection standards for tools and data collectors). • Accuracy (minimum accuracy within 40 feet for 95% of well-known features). • Specific attributes (a data dictionary is included that provides detailed infor- mation on attributes, e.g., “UNIQUE-ID” corresponds to a segment identifier and is a concatenation of the agency identifier, line identifier, and road ID number). Sources: (North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2012; Oregon Department of Transportation, 2014) Several DOTs have developed geospatial data management policies to address geospatial stan- dardization. Given the importance and value of integrating DOT information spatially, this is a logical starting point for standardization efforts. Many DOTs have also used data warehouse and agency-wide performance reporting initiatives as an opportunity to improve standardization and implement master data management practices. To be effective, standardization policies should be based on an understanding of the current state of information in the agency and the reasons why standardization has not yet occurred. Typically, there are historical as well as technical reasons that need to be addressed as part of policy implementation. Once desired standards are identified, it may take time to change both information systems and business practices to conform to the new standard.

50 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation Step 6. Establish a Process for Evaluating and Prioritizing New Information Initiatives Step 3 discussed developing a coordinated agency plan for information management, which includes identifying and prioritizing initiatives to move the agency toward its vision. Once the roadmap has been completed, it will be necessary to put an ongoing evaluation and prioritiza- tion process in place to update the roadmap and allocate resources for its initiatives via the agency’s budgeting process. The first question to be considered is which types of “information initiatives” should go through an agency-wide prioritization and budgeting process and which should be selected and funded at the discretion of individual business units. A variety of candidate projects or efforts—such as those regarding new data or content collection, information integration, information system acquisition or upgrade, workflow automation, and so on—may be initiated from different business units in the agency to meet emerging needs and improve efficiencies. Agencies need to strike a balance between an overly centralized approach that can impede the agility of business units and an overly decentral- ized approach that makes it more difficult to move toward established agency goals for informa- tion management. Prioritizing information management projects with agency-wide impacts in the context of agency strategic objectives can yield better business outcomes for the agency as a whole. One approach is to establish clear criteria for which types of efforts need to go through an agency-wide evaluation process. Criteria may be based on size, scope of use/impact within the agency, or use of information technology resources. Many agencies already have an established information technology project prioritization process which could be adapted to include addi- tional types of initiatives (such as new data collection or metadata and taxonomy improvement projects). Another approach is to establish an annual agency-wide budget for different categories of information management improvements and accept project nominations from different parts of the agency that are selected on a competitive basis. Information management projects can be evaluated and prioritized using a process that is analogous to how agency capital improvements are prioritized. Information management proj- ect prioritization would involve identifying how each project within each department is aligned with the goals, objectives, and strategies identified as part of the information management plan developed in Step 3. A sample information management project prioritization approach is presented in Figure 11. The evaluation and prioritization process can include qualitative and quantitative compo- nents and should address a variety of topics. A sample form with criteria to include in an evalu- ation is presented in Table A-7 in Appendix A. This form could be used as part of the sample approach shown in Figure 11, as a way to establish criteria for determining project impact. Key Points Most DOTs have policies and procedures that establish common practices and ensure consistency. Step 5 outlines a range of policies that can be put in place to ensure consistency and coordination across different informa- tion management functions in the agency. These policies cover classification of information based on scope of use and sensitivity, practices for managing infor- mation across its life cycle, and standardizing data and metadata to facilitate integration and discovery across the agency.

Equipping the Organization 51 Meet to establish priorities Review and discuss each project. Determine priorities using the scores and comments as guidance. Calculate overall project scores Supplement overall scores with comments that highlight qualitative factors. Evaluate each project Rate each project based on the established criteria. Involve multiple perspectives to provide balance. Describe the scope of each project Make sure that each project is described in a standard fashion, with enough information for evaluation and comparison. Establish an information management project pool Identify candidate initiatives to achieve desired objectives. Define evaluation criteria Identify criteria that reflect established objectives. Figure 11. Sample project prioritization approach.

52 Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation Utah DOT Information Technology Project Evaluation and Prioritization Utah DOT piloted an information technology project prioritization framework modeled after the approach the agency uses to prioritize capital transportation projects. While the agency is continuing to refine this framework, it provides a useful example of how to structure an approach for prioritizing investments to improve information management and access. This structured approach demonstrates one example methodology for evaluating and prioritizing information management projects. In the process, projects are nominated and rated based on several factors including • Organizational impacts (e.g., preserve infrastructure, optimize mobility, number of users). • System condition (e.g., meets current business requirements, meets security requirements). • Project value and funding source. • Project risks (e.g., level of impact on business processes, anticipated user/ customer acceptance). • Non-tangible benefits (e.g., improve data input/quality, improve state/federal compliance). • Benefit ratio (estimated tangible savings and cost avoidance/total estimated project costs). A prioritization committee uses ratings in each category to determine an overall project score. The committee then ranks the projects based on this overall score. The prioritization committee then uses these rankings to make a recommendation to the Portfolio Management Team, which is chaired by the Utah DOT Deputy Director and includes Utah DOT executive staff. The Portfolio Management Team then pro- vides a final list to the Director, who has veto power on the projects. Key Points An agency-wide process for evaluating and prioritizing potential initia- tives for improving information management can be implemented to ensure that scarce agency resources (staff time as well as available funds for consultants and new technology) are used wisely. This process can build on existing agency capital project or information technology project selection pro- cesses. The focus should be on projects of agency-wide significance that will require significant investments, rather than on creation of a process that intro- duces unnecessary bottlenecks for division or department-level efforts.