Research focus areas include current standards research and emerging technology management tools, task forces, and regulations. To successfully complete this research, the following key tasks will need to be completed:
• Conduct a national scan of state TSMO plans
• Review best practices for how TSMO plans can integrate emerging transportation technologies
• Look at existing case studies of how states use their TSMO plans to test or deploy emerging transportation technologies
• Synthesize and merge research around performance metrics and management for emerging transportation technologies
• Identify applicable research conducted by USDOT and AASHTO/TRB committees
• Develop 5-6 case studies showcasing the relationship between TSMO plans and existing research

The desired outcome and expected final product of the research is to develop a technical memorandum that summarizes findings from the scan, maps the relationships and interdependence among the organizations developing and leading use of performance measures related to technology, synthesizes and recommends performance measures that align with integration of emerging transportation technologies, and identifies and recommends future research focused on use of performance measures to support continued integration of emerging technologies.

In February 2024, TAM Webinar 67 presented the findings from a research effort to understand "How Pavement and Bridge Conditions Affect Transportation System Performance." (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop22077/fhwahop22077.pdf) Among the paper's findings were that (1) "A TAMP program manager is likely to focus on IRI values, rutting, cracking, and faulting because those relate to the measures and targets the TAMP must address. However, research indicates that in many cases, it is friction and not those metrics that drive pavement-related crash reduction," and (2) "[D]ata from Continuous Pavement Friction Measurement (CPFM), combined with crash data and road characteristics, provide significant insight regarding whether friction improvements may reduce crashes." The authors call on stakeholders to use "today's unparalleled access to data" to deliver a risk-based TAMP development process that can optimize and "simultaneously enhance asset conditions and system performance." CPFM is still an emerging method of measuring and monitoring pavement friction within the United States despite being the dominant method of managing pavements for safety outside of the United States. Accordingly, there are benefits to providing the US TAMP community with guidance, tools, and best practices on how to effectively link pavement management and safety using CPFM. Specifically, TAMP staff considering whether to pursue the findings highlighted TAM Webinar 67 may benefit from strategies to set pavement friction measurement targets and determine appropriate pavement friction performance measures, guidance on various treatments’ dual impacts on pavement condition and safety, as well as tools and strategies to coordinate effective pavement friction management implementation in partnership with an agency’s safety and pavement management programs.

I think we should look again at how DOTs support and coordinate with local agencies in developing asset management capabilities. For example, MI has their AM Council, and in Iowa the state provides pavement data for ALL paved roads to local agencies to support pavement management. Would like to learn what other states/locals are doing and how we can encourage broader TAM efforts.

In contrast to business providing shareholder value through a monetary exchange of products and services to individual clients or customers for their individual consumption, the public sector operates from a monetary public entrustment to provide goods and services for collective consumption.  This public investment obligates the public sector to understand the values and aspirations of the served community and be efficient and effective in managing their resources and create public value.

In 1995, Mark Moore developed a public value strategic triangle[1]:

• Legitimacy and Support (e.g., law, regulation, policy, resource allocation, community attitude)
• Operational Capacity (e.g., legal authority, people, funding, knowledge/skills, culture, partnership)
• Public Value (e.g., trust, legitimacy, service quality, equity, accessibility).

The term “public value” describes the value of contribution to served communities and broader society.  In other words, transportation services provide benefit to the direct recipients (i.e., users of the system) and adds value to the public sphere.  It represents agency-public consensus of principles and benefits and pertains to both the content of service and how it is delivered.  When instituted as an organizing principle, public value creation guides administrative policy and management decisions with an aim to increase the value of societal and community benefit.  Transportation administration and managers define and solve problems from a value perspective when deploying public assets.  Evaluating management decisions through a public value lens promotes a deeper understanding and action to achieve traditional outcomes and value-based performance expectations. 

A 2023 World Road Association (PIARC) technical reported titled Measuring Customer Experience and Public Value Creation for Transport Administrators is an important work focused on understanding how transportation administrations are measuring efficiency and effectiveness of customer experience and public valuation creation with greater emphasis on the customer experience component.   There remains an essential need to further develop a framework for the creation and measurement of the public value that considers and emphasizes societal contribution in decision-making.    The PIARC research was constrained to the evaluation of existing work by transport administrations and agencies.  There are non-transportation public sectors with mature frameworks for creating and measuring public value for which transportation administrations can learn from, adapt and adopt as best practice.

[1] Moore, Michael. Creating Public Value, Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press, 1995.

To further understand, create and measure the public value of transportation services and contributions to community and societal goals, there are two proposed objectives for this research project.

1. Identify non-transportation public agencies that have demonstrated proficiency in capturing and measuring public value data and are using it for policy decision-making.
2. Using both transportation agencies identified in previous research (reference Sections 4 and 5) as well as non-transportation public agencies identified in Objective 1, review, synthesize, and document public value creation programs, frameworks and noteworthy practices in the following areas that are scalable and can be applied at transportation public agencies. The areas represent the dimensions of public value as describe in Faulkner’s and Kaufman’s research on Avoiding Theoretical Stagnation: A Systematic Review and Framework for Measuring Public Value.[1]

• • Outcome achievement--The extent to which the public body is improving publicly valued outcomes across a wide variety of areas. This can include social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes.
  • Trust and legitimacy--The extent to which the organization and its activities are trusted and perceived to be legitimate by the public and key stakeholders.
  • Service delivery quality--The extent to which services are delivered in a high‐quality manner that is considerate of users’ needs. These will be maximized when service users are satisfied, and when they perceive the services to be accessible, convenient and responsive to their needs.
  • Efficiency--The extent to which the organization is achieving maximal public value benefit with minimal resources. (It is expected to be high when the benefits provided by an organization are perceived to outweigh the costs, when unnecessary bureaucracy is avoided, and when an organization is perceived to offer value for money.)

[1] Nicholas Faulkner and Stefan Kaufman. Avoiding Theoretical Stagnation: A System Review and Framework for Measuring Public Value, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2017.

Nathaniel Vogt – Ohio DOT: we are working on Carbon Reduction Strategy and Resiliency Improvement Plan. We’ve had a few questions come up about how to measure performance and goals on resiliency and reducing emissions from the transportation system.

The perennial question remains: what is an effective performance measure for transportation resilience in a community, state, or other jurisdiction? Progress toward good answers has been underway for several years, though desultory and usually off-target. The need for this research was further reinforced during the December 2022 AASHTO conference in Providence and the January 2023 TRB annual meeting, which included a handful of workshops and sessions that broached this subject. From the perspective of high-quality performance management practice, effective measures of resilience have been elusive. Our colleagues are very good at measuring resilience for specific infrastructure, an organization, or a supply chain, but not for community mobility. This research will tease out how best to really measure it, from a state-of-the-art performance management perspective, not just the easy but low-value event or activity tallies. Consider an agency or community investing in preparedness work, infrastructure hardening, or implementing a policy shift – what is the most effective, objective, outcome-based evidence for whether the jurisdiction is now more resilient than it was a year ago? There are some seeds of ideas, but the same questions are shared by multiple agencies, PIARC, AASHTO committees, TRB committees, and surely others.

This research seeks to disentangle attempts to date and clarify what it means to have an effective, outcome-based, high-level performance management approach to resilience. Toward this end there are three essential parts:
1. Confirming definitions. For example, is resilience an inverse of vulnerability? Or an inverse of just sensitivity and adaptive capacity (e.g., per the Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool [VAST])? If resilience is infinite, is exposure irrelevant? Consistent with the VAAF, is there consensus on the definitions for risk, criticality, consequence, and other essential terms?
2. Community mobility, or mobility and destination access across a jurisdiction of any size, for all users and modes. This is distinct from infrastructure-focused resilience for a specific asset, e.g., a bridge. For a community subject to natural or human-caused disasters, how can they know whether they are more or less resilient? Is there a role for the broader 4R concept of Robustness – Redundancy – Resourcefulness – Rapidity?
3. Effective performance measures. Pin down for the resilience community what that means. Agency leaders need the most relevant, feasible, and quantifiable evidence of improved resilience that is outcome-based and trackable over time. These are not the abundance of output or activity metrics already in play, nor project-specific evaluations.
In addition to developed guidance, this project will pilot the implementation of a high-quality resilience performance measure into existing performance management frameworks for up to five agencies. Not only states, but MPOs, e.g. Los Angeles and San Diego have promising initiatives already developed.

State DOTs have access to a growing number of tools that may allow them to evaluate GHG emissions impacts. However, research is needed to understand how such tools can best be incorporated into transportation decision making processes and what additional tools may be necessary.

Existing tools for transportation GHG strategy analysis have not been developed with transportation programming and project prioritization in mind. The available tools are either designed for strategic level evaluation of policies (e.g., EERPAT, VisionEval) or project-level evaluation using data more detailed than is typically available during planning and programming (e.g., FHWA CMAQ Emissions Calculator Toolkit, California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model or Cal-B/C). Other common tools for transportation evaluation, including statewide and regional travel demand models and emission factor models such as MOVES, are limited in their ability to evaluate GHG reduction strategies and typically require substantial modification and/or combination with other tools and methods.

The objective of this research is to advance the practice of incorporating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions evaluation into transportation decision making and performance management. In particular, this will be accomplished by identifying and building upon the state of the practice for state departments of transportation (DOTs) with regard to accounting for transportation related GHG emissions during planning, project prioritization, and performance management. State DOTs have access to certain tools that allow for estimation and evaluation of transportation emissions, but additional tools and methods are needed to inform decision making and align with state and federal GHG emission-reduction goals.

The following research tasks will support the main objective:
Task 1: Review literature and conduct targeted outreach to state DOTs to identify existing methods and tools used to evaluate potential GHG outcomes during transportation decision making processes. For each specific policy making process, describe how available tools, data and information support decision making within that context.
Task 2: Analyze the results of the review/survey to identify gaps where existing tools are not adequate to inform transportation decision making.
Task 3: Develop an analytical basis to fill identified gaps and propose specific additional tools, analytical methods and other information that would be needed to meet the needs of state DOT more fully, aiming to account for the GHG performance of transportation projects during planning, project prioritization and performance management activities

10. PROBLEM STATEMENT AUTHOR(s): For each author, provide their name, affiliation, email address and phone.
James Bradbury, Georgetown Climate Center, [email protected], (202) 557-6267
Ryan Levandowski, Georgetown Climate Center, [email protected], (802) 558-3566
Kelly Travelbee, Michigan DOT, [email protected], (517) 898-4875
Deanna Belden, Minnesota DOT, [email protected], (651) 366-3734

Brief Description
Maybe an implementation project for Report 985 (Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices)
Champion
Chris Whipple (UDOT)
Team
Spencer Wagner (DCDOT)

One of the key inputs to transportation asset management systems is the unit cost of each treatment. Costs associated with improving an asset consist of three components:
• Direct treatment costs: Cost of the treatment itself. This component includes just the pay items required to complete the treatment, such as the hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in a HMA overlay, or the concrete and reinforcement needed to construct a replacement concrete pavement.
• Direct project costs: Costs incurred as part of the construction project. These costs include traffic control, mobilization, ancillary features such as traffic signals and guardrail, etc.
• Indirect costs: Costs in advance of the project. This component includes Phase I studies, Phase II plan development, as well as any environmental investigations that may be needed. Also included in this component are utility relocations and land acquisition, and possibly costs associated with railroads.
The accuracy of the unit cost data is imperative to accurately managing a transportation system. If the costs are underestimated, the agency will program more work than can be accomplished. Anticipated conditions over time will be overstated as a result. This synthesis seeks to determine how transportation agencies are quantifying the direct and indirect treatment costs associated with improving assets, and the corresponding impact on their capital program as a whole.

The objective of this research is to determine how transportation agencies are quantifying the direct and indirect treatment costs associated with improving assets as an input to their asset management systems, and the corresponding impact on their capital program as a whole.

Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to):
• The components of an asset improvement project included in the budgets used in the asset management system, such as the construction project itself, preliminary engineering, land acquisition, etc.
• The source of treatment cost data, such as contract lettings, final design estimates, programming estimates, etc.
• The frequency of updating the treatment costs in the asset management system.

Proposed Research Activities: Information will be collected through a review of the 52 state agencies’ 2022/2023 Transportation Asset Management Plans, a survey of DOTs and other transportation agencies, and follow-up interviews with selected agencies for more detailed information. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.
Susan Lime

KEYWORDS/TERMS – treatment unit costs, asset management systems, direct costs, indirect costs, program costs

Brief Description
As we have more new techniques for managing assets using trenchless technology, do we know the expected life and subsequent treatments for these assets.
Champion
Susan Lime, NM DOT
Team
Baris Salman
Stephanie Dock

Brief Description
TBD
Champion
Aimee Flannary
Team
TBD

- Looking at current practice and examples from states like NM. Utah looking beyond engineering disciplines. Multidisciplinary teams. What do agencies need from TAM professionals? Competencies for asset management. Mapping needs (TAM Guide may have needs) to core skills.
- (Not sure if we limit to just Univ - we talked about other options)

Champion
Shannon McGrath
Team
Susan Lime (Culvery Asset Management Program - CAMP), NM DOT
Chris Whipple, UDOT
Baris Salman
Alma Mujanovic
Basak Bektas

As the United States moves toward a fleet comprised of more EV and hybrid vehicles, important questions impacting the design and management of critical assets must be considered in future practice and policy making. For instance:

• Are heavier EV’s and hybrid vehicles deteriorating our bridges, pavements, and other assets before the end of their design/service lives due to their heavy loads?
• Will the live load increases to bridges and axle weight distribution from heavier EVs and hybrids impact asset lifecycle needs and level of service performance?
• Are new design standards needed for the engineering design of transit and freight roadways and bridges to reflect the increased live load changes?
• How is the accelerated rate of deterioration impacting asset lifecycle needs?

Answering these questions is critical as the types of vehicles using state and local transportation facilities transition to the next generation of vehicles.

Since asset management (AM) is a business process and decision-making framework using economic and engineering modeling over an extended time horizon, it can help inform many aspects of designing and planning for and implementing the expected service levels of roadways and structures to support adoption of next-generation vehicles. Developing guidance that reflects changes associated with EV and hybrid vehicles will lead to updated design models, more reflective deterioration rates, and improved planning for the preservation, improvement, and operation of road and bridge assets while protecting them from shorter lifecycles.

Single occupancy vehicles, while a major cause for congestion, do not appear to provide measurable impacts to load weighting. Therefore, the next-generation vehicles considered under this study will include a comprehensive mix, including transit, garbage trucks, and freight. For bridge analysis, this research would evaluate existing data and account for the battery weight to develop a design load model for gross vehicle weight. Pavement analysis utilizes equivalent single axle load (ESAL) ratings.

The figure linked below, provided by the City of Seattle, illustrates the tremendous load impacts that buses and trucks have on pavements and bridges:

https://www.tam-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2023/10/Picture1.jpg

The City estimated that it would take about:

• 1,500 cars to equal the damage of the typical 18-wheeler on a Washington State Highway
• 2,500 cars to equal the damage of the average empty bus
• 5,000 cars to equal the damage of the average full bus
• 8,000 cars to equal the damage of an average full 60’ Articulated Hybrid

WSDOT, in its pavement design guide, advises that the average 18-wheel, double unit truck on a state highway has a total ESAL factor of 1.00 to 1.35 on average, a figure reached through their different studies of truck weights (at weigh stations, etc.). As the picture shows, the design loading is significantly lower than those being applied by buses, especially those with heavy batteries.

Transit buses have a federal exemption from axle weight limits that dates to the ISTEA transportation legislation in the early 1990s. Buses have gotten increasingly heavy over the last two decades with new equipment like hybrid powertrains, yet the number of axles remains the same because of the exemption. Furthermore, transit agencies are often not the owners of the roadways and bridges so they may not consider infrastructure conditions and design into their decision making.

The average bus empty is more damaging than the typical truck on a state highway. Add passengers, the exponential relationship between axle weight and fatigue, and the damage factor per bus increases to almost six times for the heavy articulated hybrids.

The figure hints at why agencies are struggling to maintain roads and bridges. As the transportation system is expected to carry heavier vehicles than they were designed for, it is critical to update design models and develop new deterioration factors to be used in asset lifecycle planning.

In addition to design and maintenance issues, the study will also consider environmental and social impacts and potential risks associated with next-generation vehicles. The inclusion of these factors enables asset management cross-asset trade-offs to be evaluated in terms of both positive and negative impacts. A comprehensive, triple bottom line study will pull from existing sustainability and economic lifecycle cost analyses on EVs and infrastructure construction along with societal factors such as increases in travel time from driving on deteriorated infrastructure assets.

The objective of this study is to develop a guidebook with suggestions for updating asset management models used in pavement and bridge design and preservation. The guide will be developed from research to determine:

• The impacts of EVs and hybrid vehicles on typical pavement and bridge (component and element) deterioration rates and their potential impact on lifecycle planning strategies.
• Environmental and societal impacts associated with the use of EVs and hybrid vehicles to support a triple-bottom line analysis and cross-asset tradeoff assessments.
• Suggested modifications to pavement and bridge load models used in design activities.
• The feasibility of establishing battery weight limits, increased road user fees, or other strategies for addressing asset management impacts.

The guidebook will be supported by case studies from a variety of agencies (state and local, urban, and rural) illustrating the potential impact the resulting deterioration rates would have on pavement and bridge designs, maintenance strategies, and lifecycle costs.

- Organizational strategies for improvement
- Innovation challenges
- Thinking outside the LSS, Lean methodologies
- Office of competition at the federal level - mechanism exists at the - - - federal level
- Crowdsourcing improvement efforts

Potential benefit if you can align political and departmental alignment
Always need to balance top-down and bottom-up, operationalization of it
**Involvement of those doing the work is critical to long-term success - what are the contributing factors to make large-scale efforts successful?
https://sites.google.com/state.co.us/process-improvement/tools-resources/cascades-how-to-create-a-movement-that-drives-transformational-change
How do you build a movement in transportation
Customer-, Environment- centric momentum for organizational change - What are the key components needed to make process?
Related organizational changes needed to make it happen?
Dave - Brene Brown - “Clarity is Kindness” in all that we do, find tools that help break down barriers.
Ties in with KM, OM, Risk, etc.

(Of the ones recommended, Gary and Gehan support this one the most)

Infrastructure
Changing over the fleet

Incorporating uncertainty into forecasting, target-setting, and monitoring - low /high matrix - inflation, funding,
performance, modeling uncertainty envelope (synthesis/peer exchange in lieu of research project?) (Risk as a
band of uncertainty v. a number) - Charles Pilson
There was a recent research idea on how to visualize/communicate uncertainty. Maybe a TAM conference
idea?

The RMS also has "ERM - Improving Risk Visualization and Communication Internally and Externally"
in the candidate pool. Not sure if that's related to the idea of communicating uncertainty? - Matt Haubrich

(please add clarifying details and topic title suggestions)
Many states and local jurisdictions have deployed some level of automated technologies , such as low speed shuttles, and or have partnered with private agencies or research institutions to do so
Little performance or other information is available in a consolidated and organized fashion about the results of these pilots, test cases and or deployments
Policy makers have become guarded about investing in pilots and similar deployments, especially given the recent disillusionment with technology potentials such as AVs, CVs and CAVs and want to understand what benefits and results have been achieved.
Challenges may include the availability of data, data agreements (which often preclude external data sharing) and or lack of sufficient data in cases of short term pilots.
What kind of data is available, can be analyzed and summarized into a consolidated report to understand 1. what pilot shave been conducted (over past x/3 years? ) and 2. What is the performance of these pilots and or deployments in terms of safety and system efficiency and operation? (Similar interest exists in understanding equity impacts but those would be even harder to quantify and are not included , unless data is available).
Potential partnership with Eastern Corridor Coalition

please add clarifying details and topic title suggestions)
More cross-modal (other than vehicle) data; specifically: pedestrian, bicycle and certain transit data is needed for various applications and needs including Complete Streets, We need more and better quality, verified data for transit, bikes, peds, and non-car users.
Includes examining options for data availability, quality, validity, analytics.
Stephanie Dock, Daniel Hulker, and Daniela Bremmer were interested in further defining/developing this research concept and invited other CPBM and subcommittee members to join.
Potential partnership with Eastern Corridor Coalition's-data group (working on methodologies for assessing and standardizing cross-modal non-vehicular data)?

Jun Liu of U of Alabama suggested this at the first COPlanning Research Symposium, but it has SMET implications. (I,e EV fires , other )
Should SMET be lead? Partnering with COP, CTSO, others? Options? (Should we pursue this? Reach out to Planning? Add more context description?)

Focus on critical transportation planning issues and better addressing resilience, access, environmental protection, and financial limitations.

Focus on new infrastructure needs, air quality, and transportation revenue

To be able to adjust for demographic changes, transformational technologies, and other uncertainties.

Consider an implementation project for NCHRP Research Report 980 Attracting, Retaining, and Developing the Transportation Workforce: Transportation Planners published in 2021

What is it, is there a common definition, why is it important, is it different from various stakeholder perspectives, and how to achieve it through DOT infrastructure and program investments

Research to improve DOTs capability and capacity for data-driven decision making.

Research to advance the discipline of data-driven decision making within State DOTs

This research would produce an updated guidebook of current and emerging performance
measures used and for use by State DOTs.
NCHRP 20-24(37)G – Technical Guidance for
Deploying National Level Performance Measurements was completed in 2011. This project
would update this valuable guidance.

Update products of NCHRP 20-24(37)G – Technical Guidance for
Deploying National Level Performance Measurements.

• Seek better data from the private sector and third parties, and fuse this data with DOT data to generate new comparisons and insights.
• Collect and develop datasets for mobility and traffic.
• Explore the availability of new datasets and identify ways to use datasets with DOT data for calibration of QA/QC.
• Compare the scope, availability, reliability, and accuracy of privately available transportation mobility and traffic datasets sold by companies such as INRIX, Teralytics, Streetlight, etc.
• Update and improve data definitions, especially for traffic. (State DOTs often measure traffic in discrete measures like AADT, but people are increasingly using a blend of modes to move from origin to destination, and traffic data should reflect that.)

• Understand state DOTs' rules governing their data sharing agreements and intellectual property
• Explore agency methods and examples for monetizing data
• Identify what IP exists for sharing and selling data
• Find and highlight best-practices in multi-state data agreements
• Understand what agencies and organizations are doing to support their data sharing agreements
• Recognize what data should be collected, sought, and shared

• Identify the best locations for AV deployment which would deliver equity for all communities
• Understand the elements of equity surrounding AV and shared mobility deployment

Risk communication is the act of sharing information about potential threats to people and infrastructure with the objective of saving life and property. This covers a wide range of information, including asset condition, mobility, safety, economic impacts, environmental impacts, and others. Effective verbal, visual, and written communication promotes the recovery of disrupted systems while maintaining public confidence in these systems. This requires that all communication tracks be congruent and effective.
Barriers to effective risk communication exist, both internally and externally. One major barrier to internal communication is organizational “siloing”. Staff working within different functional areas (such as safety, operations, and emergency management) may feel little incentive to collaborate if they believe their missions are independent of other departments. Organizational silos result in duplication of effort and inefficiency, and lack of various perspectives in approaching problems.
Another major obstacle is delivering the appropriate message at the right time with clear language that speaks to all audiences. If not properly delivered, communication may inadvertently create hysteria, unease, and confusion. Barriers to external communications with outside agencies stem from a lack of established two-way communications channels, dissimilar language, and varying definitions of risk. Communications with the public and others need to eliminate rumors, lack of expert consensus, over-hyped reporting, failure to understand of ethnic differences, and so on. Ultimately, overcoming these obstacles requires:
• Leadership direction including a reality-based vision, the "path forward", and incentives to interact
• Organizational support from multiple groups
• Clear definition of both Inter- and intra-agencies including:
- What collaboration may look like
- The reason and importance of the collaboration
- How and when collaboration takes place
• Partnerships with community organizations
• Defined and appropriate language for messaging that effectively outlines the hazards, severity, location, affected population, and uncertainty of risk
• Alignment of verbal, visual, and written communications to relay complementary messages.
• Selection of appropriate messaging vehicles (email, variable message sign, web site, etc.)
These efforts require research to identify the best methods and current examples of how to implement such communication at a DOT. As many options exist for internal and external risk communication, and various agencies and organizations have their own communication requirements, effective research will provide a path forward to establishing effective risk visualization and communication at a DOT.

The objectives of this research are to develop guidance in the following initiatives which can be used to develop effective risk visualization communication within DOT’s, with external agencies, and the public in the by performing study into the following initiatives:
1. Establishing intra-agency communication.
2. Establishing external partnerships and two-way communications channels with community organizations.
3. Crafting an effective visual, verbal, and written communication strategy with materials (ie., metrics, dashboards, regular reports) with a clear explanation of uncertainty.
4. Determining the appropriate message vehicle.
This research will examine current strategies and methods of risk visualization communication at various DOT’s. Internal communication, two-way communication channels with external organizations, associated strategies, and other aspects of communication in relation to risk visualization will be extensively explored.

LINK TO 2021-2026 AASHTO STRATEGIC PLAN: This project aligns to the AASHTO Strategic Plan by providing information that will help DOTs develop further organizational excellence and effective services in knowing how to create the best risk communication strategies that will share risk information both internally and with external agencies and the public at large. Knowledge of risks will lead to better transportation products and services by helping to identify what aspects of transportation require improvement and safety enhancement. This will also lead to further examination of current and emerging trends present in transportation policies and practices, while promoting a range of new policy options that can be implemented. This project will align with AASHTO’s plan to provide safety, mobility, and access for everyone by providing blueprints for effective communication with external agencies and the public. By making the public aware of potential risks, and pursuing solutions to these risks, DOTs will be able ensure that social equity within the public sphere is preserved while transportation systems are made safer. Effective communication with community organizations, especially, will forge strong connections between transportation agencies with public interest.

The ability to effectively communicate risks both within an agency and externally to key stakeholders is important in decision-making and assuring effective mitigation strategies are assigned and appropriate resources are dedicated. Risk management is an effective tool for decision-making but communicating risks, potential impacts and likelihood of occurrence as well as appropriate mitigation is often not well understood.

This proposal builds off of a similar RPS developed as part of NCHRP 20-123(04) but adds in and emphasizes the element of visualization to improve communication. It also emphasizes the concept of risk tolerance.  

Emphasis on developing tools and methodologies to document risk tolerance and acceptance parameters associated with taking risks. 

State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies are working to deliver greater resiliency in their transportation systems. Agencies are changing established business processes, technical methodologies, tools, and systems to build resiliency. In order to achieve sustainable change and have lasting improvements in resiliency, agencies need to also address organizational culture in order to bring about greater enthusiasm and focus on resiliency building.

Organizational culture is defined as the underlying beliefs, assumptions, values and ways of interacting that contribute to the unique social and psychological environment of an organization. It focuses on building shared values to achieve the organization's goals and objectives. When transportation agencies have good organizational culture, employees know how agency executives want them to respond to any situation, employees believe that the expected response is the proper one, and employees know that they will be rewarded for demonstrating the organization's values.

Greater understanding of the elements of good organizational culture and how it can be applied to transportation agencies to achieve greater resiliency is needed. This research project would include identification of agencies that have had success in building resiliency and examine what elements of organizational change supported the successful resilience building. Research on sectors outside of transportation where resilience is important would be conducted to understand the organizational culture elements. The ingredients for building organizational culture to achieve greater focus on building resilience will be created for transportation agencies.

The proposed research be composed of the following components:
• Conduct a literature/practice review of the relevant information
• Identify organizational practices and determine how they can be generalized to support guidance
• Develop guidance for agencies
• Demonstrate/evaluate guidance through at least one case study
• Produce a final report including an executive summary

Both federal and recipient agencies have the goal of maximizing the public benefits from investment of the limited transportation funding. Additionally, there is a cost and/or risk to every activity or inaction related to program delivery. Whenever an available dollar is moved from physical or operational improvements on the system to program administration, the public loses the benefit of that dollar. Similarly, every dollar that is lost from the system because of fraud or diverted away from the program goals due to whatever form of mismanagement, the public loses the intended benefit of that dollar. Therefore, the goal of all agencies should be to minimize the negative risks and costs associated with administering the funding programs, even if that means the occasional dollar is lost to fraud or mismanagement when the cost to prevent that loss is greater than the cost of the loss itself. It seems especially important to avoid duplicative administrative costs generated from the various governmental levels. The essential issue is determining the end-user public return on investment (ROI) from adding program requirements for both the federal agency and the recipient agency.

Develop a means of determining the balance between program requirements that minimize the risks of fraud and/or of not meeting program goals with maximizing the benefits to the end users (i.e., the public).

In many cases, states and other local government agencies have performance measures developed through the extensive public outreach in the various federally and internally required strategic planning efforts. Not surprisingly, these “local” performance measures are often related to but different from the federally mandated performance measures.

For example, freight mobility in an urban area often means travel time (i.e., traditional congestion), similar to the federal system performance measures (PM3); however, in a rural area, it means the system’s ability to carry the desired loads (i.e., height, width, and load restrictions not meeting expectations causing loads to be rerouted over longer distances). In either case, the results are wasted time, money, and fuel, and more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Reducing this waste is really the goal of the federal measures above. Therefore, the same goal is being monitored, whether using the federal measures or the state and local (hereinafter, local) performance measures. This is just one example of many similarly developed local performance measures related to a national goal area but with different metrics and definitions than the national measures.

By definition, the local measures are important to the end users of the transportation system by virtue of being developed through public input. Therefore, local policymakers often want or require these measures to be used in the decision processes and to tell the local story of transportation performance, safety, condition, etc. (hereinafter, performance). It would reduce waste and improve public transparency if these local measures could also be used to tell the national system performance story. This would avoid potentially conflicting messages from local and national sources and avoid the duplicate work of collecting, monitoring, and analyzing similar measures related to the same basic goal. Additionally, the collective of local measures could be used to tell a more comprehensive and complete story of the nation’s overall movement toward its shared transportation goals through a “drill down” approach of providing greater and greater detail from the national level through the regional, state, and local community levels.

Develop a means of consolidating the many related local measures into a set of national measures that describes and monitors how well the national transportation system is meeting (or not meeting) the traveling public’s needs as related to Congress’ strategic goals for the nation’s transportation system.

As funding for resource allocation increase and decrease each year it is critical for agencies to ensure that they are spending the resources the best they can and meeting as many needs as possible. The challenge of meeting condition needs vs operational needs vs quality of life is increasing each year for agencies. Thus, as agencies work each year to make resource allocation decisions for multiple service areas, and analysis the impacts of these decisions are often difficult to captured with performance measures. For example, condition measures for physical asset classes (pavements, bridges, etc.); performance measures for system operations (snow and ice control, traffic operations, emergency response) and quality of life measures (safety, accessibility, equity) are used by agencies to evaluate these resource allocations. State agencies generally have flexibility to adjust the level of investment of these categories, yet evaluation of the tradeoffs or optimization of these decisions are often limited to similar measures (bridge condition vs pavement condition). Is there potential benefit in expanding the scope of these analyses to include performance measures and investment classes of less similar nature. What tools do agencies use for this cross-asset allocation; How are the tools used for asset resource allocations to include services and quality of life investments?

Investigate, compile, and categorize examples of organizations’ efforts of using performance measures and data supported tools for cross resource allocation and goal-oriented decisions.

Transportation agencies traditionally had a very steady workforce. The combination of changes in young people’s work patterns and the economic changes that drive workforce availability requires that agencies need to act more proactively on how to deliver transportation programs. Research is needed to understand the behavioral patterns and mechanisms to both mitigate variability in workforce availability and what can be done proactively to benefit the agency.

With the increased funding states are receiving based on the IIJA and BFP. NMDOT has identified the fact that we may run into contractor availability to meet the needs of the upcoming projects.

• Understand changes in transportation workforce behavior
• Understand the economic forces that change transportation workforce behavior
• Determine ways that transportation agencies can better manage with these forces
• Recommend steps that agencies can take to work within these forces

Several states have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. Over 30 of these offices participate in the Transportation Lean Forum (TLF), an informal group that operates in association with the AASHTO Subcommittee on Organization Management. In addition to formal offices, some states make less formal “grass roots” efforts to improve their processes. A synthesis would conduct a side-by-side study of the states’ efforts, including efforts in states that are not participating in the TLF, find what is working and what is not, assist states to identify improvements that they might implement, and set a baseline of the current “state of the art” that could inform future research on the outcomes of these efforts.

Lean Improvement research questions:

1. Are there other states and countries with Lean Improvement or similar offices?
2. In what types of work are they achieving success?
3. Are there difference in focus between the DOTs?
4. Are there lessons to be learned by DOTs about how they might best improve their improvement efforts? (e.g., the Lean effort in England focuses mainly on the application of Lean principles in construction, but US States have not yet adopted Lean Construction to any great extent.)

Efficiency research questions:

1. Are there other states and countries with efficiency reporting requirements?
2. How do the reported efficiencies compare?
3. Are there types of efficiency that are reported in some states but not others?
4. Are there lessons to be learned by DOTs about how they might best improve their efficiency?

Lean Improvement: Several DOTs have established offices to implement continuous improvement processes such as Lean, Design Thinking, or Change Management. These include a t least thirty US States, five Canadian Provinces, England, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Efficiencies: Several state DOTs (e.g., CA, MN, OH) and England are required to submit annual efficiency reports.

(30 states + other agencies have initiatives). What can be learned from these efforts? For instance, in England, the focus is on construction-only. (Nigel) 

Performance measurement and performance-based management have a long history in state DOTs as a discipline to track progress toward goals and optimize resource decisions. However, transportation agency goals are evolving from a pure operational focus to a focus on broad societal goals and creating value for the public. The value created by transportation investments spans not only transportation but also education, human services, land use, environment, and economy. A broader view of value and methods are needed to account for not only quantifiable value but also qualitative value. Another challenge is time horizons - how to value and manage investments today to deliver benefits in the much longer term. This research would develop and test measures of wider societal benefits deriving from the delivery of transportation investments.

Transportation agencies are required to use asset management systems, including pavement and bridge asset management systems, to comply with Federal requirements for developing asset management plans. These systems are valuable for supporting a number of business functions, including: analyzing the existing asset inventory and its condition; developing effective asset lifecycle strategies; determining resources required to maintain assets in good repair; and recommending priorities for asset treatments. However, a major challenge transportation agencies face is in using their asset management systems is in trying to develop realistic projects that utilize management system recommendations. The systems generally recommend specific treatments, but do not scope realistic projects. Thus, significant manual effort is required to review management system treatment recommendations, often from multiple systems, and combine these into candidate projects. Research is needed to determine how to extent existing asset management systems to better develop projects from the treatment recommendations these systems generate. Such research will help agencies better comply with Federal requirements, save staff time, and result in development of projects that best support agency asset lifecycle strategies and best practices.

Research is needed to determine how to extent existing asset management systems to better develop projects from the treatment recommendations these systems generate.

The proposed research would include the following tasks, at a minimum:
• Review of existing transportation asset management systems and the approaches agencies use for developing projects from management system treatment recommendations.
• Development of a framework for transportation asset project development. The framework should incorporate: asset lifecycle strategies, other investment objectives that may lie outside of existing asset management systems, such as improve equity, accessibility and mobility; major constraints and parameters related to development of projects; and other factors.
• Gap assessment to identify issues in current practice and opportunities for improvement.
• Development of prototype tools that supplement existing management system treatment recommendation to better support project development.
• Piloting the framework and tools with one or more transportation agencies.
• Development of a research report documenting the results of the research effort.

All states are taking on resiliency in their asset management plans this year, and there are additional resilience-focused programs available from FHWA.

• Explore current state of practice to establish a baseline.

Information To Be Gathered: To further the implementation of asset management beyond pavements and bridges, there is a desire to understand how different agencies are approaching the management of these assets.
• What data is being collected?
• What techniques are being used to collect the data?
• How is the data stored and managed?
• What programming decisions are being made with the data and who in the agency is making those decisions.
• How are these efforts tied to broader asset management, maintenance management, and capital programming within the agency?

How the Information Will Be Gathered: Information will be gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected DOTs for the development of case examples. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.

Recent research has documented approaches to performing this work and several states have developed programs of differing levels of maturity. A Synthesis project at this time will enable agencies to understand the current state of the practice and identify leading practices that can be adopted to advance their own programs.

The purpose of this study is to research best practices and case studies of Transporta-tion Agency Organizational and Decision-Making Structure to shift from processes driven by planning, design, and construction to organizational structures driven by the need to maintain and operate an established, integrated system based on principles of asset management and transportation system operations.

To rethink how a transportation agency should be organized to maintain and operate an existing system in real time. That includes a focus on preservation and maintenance of existing assets, responding quickly and effectively to incidents and emergencies, and operating the system at an optimized level of service given funding constraints. The research will consider what systems and processes need to be in place to monitor conditions and operations, the role of maintenance and asset management in programming and project development, effective use of agency forces, budgeting for maintenance and replacement over the lifecycle, and how to manage risk as a compliment to resource constrained asset management strategies. The research will look at various public and private sector models that look at organizational structure, element driven contracting, funding allocation models, and the role of in house vs contract resources to maximize the cost effectiveness of resource investments.
Project objectives envision developing a synthesis using the following guidance:
1. Identify organizational practices that integrate maintenance and operational needs into capital planning processes.
2. Perform a domestic and international scan of how and what transportation agencies do organizationally to implement effective Asset Management and TSMO practices for holistic decision-making throughout the asset lifecycle.
3. Identify decision-making, communication, and organizational practices to in-clude all stakeholders in the lifecycle of the assets.
4. Identify project criteria and business practices that can be used for realizing improved transportation system performance over time. This includes how or-ganizations take into account maintainability, sustainability, resiliency and functional performance in the development, design and construction of pro-jects.
5. Develop case studies on how capital transportation projects are delivered and the problems that occur across functional areas. Agencies will be interviewed to determine root cause analysis of projects to evaluate both successes and problems with the long term lifecycle management of assets arising from poli-cies, organizational practices, and knowledge transfer and how that impacts an agency’s ability to maintain a state of good repair for new and existing assets.
6. Evaluate how federal funding mechanisms could be employed to fund mainte-nance needs of new and existing asset types arising out of capital project prior-itization.
7. Evaluate how agencies integrate performance targets and measures into their maintenance, operations, program management and asset management pro-cesses to drive decision making.

Financial risks can threaten the strategic objectives of transportation agencies - e.g., the safe and reliable and efficient movement of people and goods. For example, the Highway Trust Fund is tied to taxes on gas and diesel. However, the recent COVID-19 pandemic greatly reduced American consumption, thus dramatically reducing revenues. State DOTs have seen their budgets slashed by 30% or more, forcing delays in some projects. Furthermore, external mandates can impose both risks and opportunites. A well-funded mandate could mean state DOTs have additional funding for enhancing resilience, while an unfunded mandate could force a DOT to choose between maintenance and projects. The objective of this project is to help transportation leaders with decision-making tools for allocating limited resources when subjected to unpredicatable financial conditions.

The purpose of the proposed research project is to provide state DOTs with the necessary tools to assess and manage financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.

The specific research tasks to accomplish the main objective include:

• Task 1 – Conduct an in-depth literature review of all studies related to assessment and management of financial risks in transportation agencies, especially at the enterprise and program levels, including national and international examples as available.
• Task 2 – Conduct a gap assessment of the state of practice to determine what is still needed to incorporate financial risk at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 3 – Develop a methodology for identifying and quantifying financial risks at the enterprise and program levels.
• Task 4 – Develop metrics and performance indicators for evaluating effectiveness of financial risk countermeasures.
• Task 5 – Develop decision-making tools for resource allocation under conditions of financial uncertainty.
• Task 6 – Develop methodology and guidance on consideration of program and potentially project-level financial risk within the enterprise.
• Task 7 – Pilot test the developed processes with multiple state DOTs and revised methodology as needed.
• Task 8 – Develop an implementation guide to help state DOTs to incorporate these processes into existing agency programs and projects.

Rank 5 in 2021

Started from War Games topics, planning to submit to the Domestic Scan Program
• Focused on how do we integrate accepted best practice learnings and revisit our organizational mission across sectors to create a more safe, equitable society?
• Currently researching organizational missions, emerging performance areas, and equity plans within organizations before next meeting

Areas we may want to include:
- Organizational components that have been successful (for example)
- Organizational factors
- Risk management approaches
- Innovative strategies
- Stakeholder partnership (more than engagement)
- Successful support systems
- Strategic frameworks - organizational missions
- Performance management systems
- Equity plans, etc.
- Types of leadership exhibited in high-performing agencies

Also consider barriers to addressing societal needs, how leading agencies have overcome these challenges (for example):
- Rapid pace of change
- Complex, sometimes conflicting social pressures
- Funding
- Politics
- Other?

Process
- I.D. promising practices
- Assess likelihood of reproducing these results
- Investigate issues, assess tech transfer opportunities and methods
- Document results

 Emerging technologies, such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, and continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data (among others), hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management. As this technology has been evolving and improving, federal regulation, specifically, MAP-21 and the FAST Act, has pushed many agencies to collect and utilize a detailed inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. With the collection of high-volume asset inventory and condition data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, the accessibility and affordability of data collection has become a clear issue for agencies, particularly as they aim to manage and visualize collected data for both strategic and operational transportation asset management planning purposes. Therefore, research and guidance on the benefits and applications of these emerging technologies as well as how frequently that inventory and condition data need to be collected or assessed is necessary.
The focus of this research would be on the following:
• Address the adoption and practical application of these emerging collection technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
• Provide guidance on the level of detail and frequency interval necessary for data collection to support TAM at both the state and local levels.
• Determine how condition assessment can be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets.
• Further investigate and recommend tools capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting data to stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.
• The research should consider any refinements that would need to occur in network level asset management data collection to make the data useful for compliance (i.e. ADA), safety (i.e. bridge clearances) or engineering (design or construction) purposes.

Working backward from the key decisions that need to be made across stakeholder groups over an asset’s lifecycle, this project seeks to identify current practices and recommend ongoing improvements in relation to collecting, storing, sharing, and maintaining asset inventory and condition data (“data management”). With a focus on implementation, the project will build on existing research by identifying the pros and cons of different data management methods and technologies, so that decision makers across departments can collaborate more effectively when planning and investing in data management approaches. The practice of data management is evolving at a rapid pace, given the proliferation of new technologies that are being used increasingly alongside traditional approaches. In parallel, agencies are recognizing the multi-stakeholder nature of asset management, as departments such as compliance, safety, engineering, operations and environmental begin to see the benefits of access to reliable, accurate asset information. This project will answer key data management questions such as: What data should be collected to address all stakeholder needs? How, when, and how often? Using which technologies and platforms? At what cost? And why?
It will also provide guidance to agencies on the most appropriate approaches to collecting, storing, sharing and maintaining asset data, based on the needs of the various stakeholders involved in data-based decision-making.

Emerging technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. While the technology has been transforming, MAP-21 and the Fast Act jump started at many agencies in attaining an inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. At the same time, accessibility and affordability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, present the problem of how agencies can visualize and manage such large amounts of data and integrate the many layers for each transportation asset management plan. Now that the need for such data is federally recognized, further research is needed to understand what the latest technologies for asset analysis can offer an agency as well as how frequently that information needs generated.

Research is needed in the following areas:
• Address the adoption and practical application of these technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
• What level of extraction detail and frequency interval is needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets?
• Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting such data to all stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.

This is a typical function of an AMS, in which different asset classes, such as different types of roads (interstate, state, local, or possibly differentiated by traffic volumes), bridges, etc are allocated different treatments and possibly different budgets per asset class. This synthesis could be both a panel study (cross-section of states) and a time series study (how the policies developed over time), and could also involve systems which use life cycle costing and those which do not.

Among the many difficulties raised by COVID-19, the pandemic does have the potential of affecting asset management practices in diverse ways. On the one hand, reduced traffic might reduce road maintenance costs; on the other hand, ordering more goods might increase truck traffic and thus increase deterioration. Even if deterioration were the same, the road agency would always have the option of utilizing a less expensive treatment alternative and thus reduce the capital needs and maintenance budget.

● Survey and interview State DOTs and others as to their practices during COVID. For example: observe their budget outlays, activities performed and data collection.
● Focus on uncertainty in general - such as funding uncertainty; the results could be utilized for good practices not just in times of widespread disease, but also for times of economic austerity such as a recession. Note: The visualization committee (AED80) has been kicking around a research idea related to how to VISUALIZE uncertainty. Could be a good opportunity to collaborate with that TRB committee. Anne-Marie McDonell and Matt Haubrich are both on AED80 so feel free to reach out.
● Potential to focus on risk management with respect to federal TPM target-setting (rather than risk management with respect to funding uncertainty).

Several economic optimization methods are linked with TAM project selections. One of the economic indicators in measuring them is the ROI (which can be defined in various ways), but there are others such as NPV, IBC, FYRR and more. This research needs statement refers to the need of connecting prioritization / different approaches to asset management (such as optimization) and TAM project selections and economic indicators.

There are several known methods of estimating the maintenance backlog – via budget (raising the network to a given level within a given number of years), length or percentage of the network under a given maintenance standard (such as PCI, PSI, IRI or other indicator),

This question is usually dealt with in road assets but can be expanded to bridges and other assets as well. It is part of a life cycle cost analysis when the evaluation is performed on different treatments which are differentiated by their frequency (usually every X years) and thus influencing their cost. Many Asset Management Systems incorporate this kind of analysis.

A State DOT Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) documents the investment strategies and expected outcomes from various asset classes, starting with the bridges and pavement of the National Highway System. The State DOT TAMP does not replace any existing state transportation plan (e.g., LRTP, freight plan, operations plan, etc.) but does provide critical inputs to existing plans, linking capital and maintenance expenditures related to asset preservation.
At the same time that state DOTs were developing their TAMPs, states also implemented a performance-based planning and programming approach, which applies performance management principles to transportation system policy and investment decisions. Performance-based long range transportation plans, statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs), metropolitan planning organization (MPO) TIPs, and other performance-based plans like state freight plans must define key goals and objectives and establish measures to analyze short-, medium, and long-term implementation progress.
This Synthesis should review the advancement of State DOTs and MPOs to implement performance-based planning and programming with the help of implementation plans like the TAMP and documented processes for planning, investing, and evaluating performance outcomes.

The objective of this synthesis is to identify best practices from State DOTs of how to improve processes through required performance-based planning and programming document development and implementation through exploring:
• How State DOTs and MPOs are linking and including asset management decisions in their traditional planning processes;
• How agency’s integrate asset management project identification and prioritization into required planning processes;
• Gap analyses of where State DOTs and MPOs identify a need for more guidance on how to connect required performance-based documents to programming decisions;
• What management systems are in use to help agencies implement risk-based asset management with performance objectives and targets.
• Examples of where MPOs work in partnership with State DOTs to mobilize National Highway System partner owners (local agencies) to plan/program to performance targets.

Question whether this topic should wait until the results of NCHRP Project 08-113 Integrating Effective Transportation Performance, Risk, and Asset Management Practices are released. They are covering similar topics, though the current research statement seems to be more focused on the federal TAMP/ TPM while 08-113 is about AM/ Perf Mgmt more generally

Research is needed on the importance of data governance from the conception of a project’s data dictionary, through the inventory and condition assessment and continuing with the data management and integration into transportation asset management systems. A question worth pursuing is whether all aspects of language, wording, numbering, and measurement units should be standardized or if template guides could be developed for each agency to standardize their unique asset type requirements, but in a nationally recognized format for easy translation.

After establishing governance routines for asset data collection and management, the next phase of research would involve the security aspects of an agency’s data as well as the quality assurance measures applicable to grow confidence in the data’s quality. A full review of best practices for data security procedures could break the barrier of IT to asset manager. Additionally, once definitions and governance procedures are established, the quality assurance process becomes more stream-lined and gives better confidence to the decision makers.

● Guidance on establishing BIM data governance and quality standards to support asset management.
● Recommend standards for data transfer between data collection and asset management systems.
● Develop maturity scales for BIM implementation and establish appropriate maturity level for integration of TAM
● Research on BIM applications to support DOTs' data governance specific to the collection of data by one part of the agency can be used directly by other parts of the agency
● Evaluate cost effectiveness of collecting and managing data through BIM at a sufficient level of quality.
● Aligning the focused but detailed project-level data with network-wide but less detailed TAM data.

TRB Research Ideas – Data Quality/Standardization
• Data quality and confidence
• standardize terminology between different systems so singles source can inform GIS/500 reports/DELPHI/FMIS etc. so reports all use the same words or numbers the same way
• Updated asset type definitions and extraction methodologies.
• Performance Metrics for Assets other than pavement and bridge, i.e.. signals, signs, barriers, culverts
• Asset ratings biases, potential to rate lower to obtain funding

TRB Research Ideas – Data Governance
• Our largest challenge is data governance, feature collection and maintaining asset/inventory data
• Data governance is still looming large from an implementation perspective
• Data history, implementation and its security (both cyber and other forms of security)

Due to external stakeholder requirements and expectations (e.g., MAP 21 and FAST Acts) as well as internal DOT uses, DOTs typically collect pavement condition data (i.e., roughness, cracking and rutting or faulting depending on the pavement surfaces) on an annual cycle. However, disruptions of typical agency activities related to COVID-19 have resulted in data collection challenges, focusing attention on potential impacts of missing a data collection cycle. DOT may also face unforeseen workforce, contracting, data collection or processing challenges or other issues which could result in missed pavement data collection. In these cases, DOTs would benefit from understanding the range of potential impacts as well as potential mitigation strategies available to address these issues. Furthermore, in times of reduced budget, DOTs may desire to reduce the frequency of data collection, however they should be informed of the potential impacts of that decision.

1. Evaluate the impacts of incomplete/missing annual pavement data collection to various aspects of agency asset and performance management, including technical considerations, such as network-level condition summary and performance forecast, maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction decision-making, and condition deterioration and treatment improvement modeling.
2. Consider the effect of incomplete/missing data on the organization and processes, such as federal performance reporting and transportation asset management planning requirements, as well as impacts to other internal and external stakeholders and decision-making processes.
3. Analyze and derive recommendations on mitigation strategies that DOT could implement to minimize the impact of incomplete condition data.

Proposed research activities include:
1. Conduct a literature review to document:
○ DOT motivations and/or requirements for annual data collection.
○ Potential technical and organizational impacts or issues associated with missing an annual data collection.
○ Techniques available to mitigate the impacts of missing the collection.
○ DOTs known to currently (or in the recent past) complete pavement data collection on a 2 or more year data collection cycle.
2. Building from the literature review, survey State DOTs to capture:
○ DOT motivations and/or requirements for annual data collection
○ Potential technical and organizational impacts or issues associated with missing an annual data collection
○ Techniques available to mitigate the impacts of missing the collection.
○ DOTs that currently (or recently) collected pavement data on a 2 or more year data collection cycle
○ DOTs which have previously missed their established collection cycle
3. Conduct follow up interviews/surveys with DOTs that have longer collection cycles or which had previously missed an annual pavement data collection to understand perceived vs. actual impacts (both technical and organizational) and any mitigation strategies they employ.
4. Summarize literature review, survey results and follow up interviews to guide ongoing research activities
5. From a representative set of DOTs, collect available pavement condition and work history data, pavement deterioration and improvement benefit models
6. Utilize collected data to complete a statistical evaluation of the impact missing a year of data collection with respect to forecasted vs. actual performance results, and ability to identify priority investment areas based on previous year’s data collection, as well as other issues identified through the survey
7. Identify potential strategies to mitigate the impacts of incomplete condition data
8. Document survey results and evaluation outcomes
9. Produce a technical report summarizing impacts of, and potential mitigations for, missing an annual pavement collection cycle
Desired products include:
● Detailed listing of current requirements and/or motivations for annual pavement data collection
● Summary of perceived and actual impacts of missing an annual data collection against the listed motivations, supported with a statistical evaluation of actual DOT datasets where applicable
● A summary of potential mitigation strategies that can be employed to reduce the identified impacts

Recommended funding of $250,000 includes $225,000 for a half-time investigator for 18 months.

TAM and TPM provide the foundation for performance-based investment decisions in transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Despite the fact that many transportation agencies have embraced the implementation of robust TAM and TPM programs to support their stewardship responsibilities, these topics are not typically incorporated into traditional education programs. In many cases, practitioners working in these areas acquire the skills needed while working on the job or take advantage of training materials available through various sources with limited support. Challenges with attaining skills, building competencies in an organization are compounded by knowledge succession needs with an aging workforce, tighter budgets, and uncertain in-person opportunities during an on-going pandemic, as well as evolving career expectations from skilled candidates in a globally competitive digital economy. A more accessible, efficient and attractive landscape of offerings, programs and career paths are needed to tackle the spectrum of training needs and challenges for effective TAM and TPM.
This study will explore cross-functional, multidisciplinary competencies, training needs in the TAM and TPM areas so that funding can be sought to streamline usage of existing opportunities, better integrate TAM and TPM principles within available programs, identify new skills needs driven by emerging risks or advancing technology, develop new training programs and partnerships needed. This also includes gaining an understanding of flexible, inclusive career paths to support innovation and productivity while improving return on training investment in a time of economic recovery. The study will inform AASHTO and TRB committees of existing gaps in training and recommend a strategy for addressing the gaps through a separate research study.
It is anticipated that this scoping study would be part of a three-phase research project:
• Phase I: Scoping Study for Developing an Education, Training and Workforce Development Program for TPM and TAM (this project)
• Phase II: Prototype and Testing of TPM/TAM Education, Training and Workforce Tools and Resources
• Phase III: Formal Development and Ongoing Support of TPM/TAM Education, Training and Workforce Tools and Resources

Task Description

Task 1: Define TPM and TAM Training and Education Needs
• Conduct a contextual and comprehensive analysis of the training needs for practitioners in TPM and TAM.
• Assess the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed by practitioners to perform their jobs well.
• Consider delivery methods in addressing needs.

Task 2: Conduct a Gap Analysis
• Summarize available training programs/materials in the US and abroad (notably Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand) and through other resources.
• Identify gaps between desired outcomes and current outcomes from available training and education.

Task 3: Develop Recommendations
• Summarize the findings from task 1 and 2.
• Recommend strategies for addressing the gaps.
• Present findings and recommendation in a final report.
• Prepare a Research Problem Statement(s) to develop the recommendations.
• Meet with the project panel to discuss recommendations.
• Incorporate changes into a final version of the report.

Better define the needs for education, training and workforce development related to transportation asset management and transportation performance management. Develop resources as needed for the following sub-areas:
Education—Writing curriculum for undergraduate and graduate courses
Training—For DOT and MPO staff in-depth career training, NHI, etc.
Workforce Development—e.g., TC3

No more than 15 months to complete the scoping study.
Additional time needed to establish the project with NCHRP.

Implementation of NCHRP 08-118: Risk Assessment Techniques for Transportation Asset Management

Implementation of NCHRP 08-129: Incorporating Resilience Concepts and Strategies in Transportation Planning

Determining the value of a transportation organization’s physical assets is important for both financial reporting and transportation asset management (TAM). In financial reporting, determining asset value is a fundamental step in preparing a balance sheet for financial statements to inform regulators and investors. For TAM, presenting data on the value of physical assets, such as pavement, bridges, and facilities, communicates what an organization owns and what it must maintain. Furthermore, information about asset value and how it is changing can help establish how the organization is maintaining its asset inventory and helps support investment decisions.

Calculating asset value for TAM is not simply good practice; it is also required of state Departments of Transportation (DOT) by Federal regulations. Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 515 details requirements for State DOTs to develop a risk-based Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). The TAMP must include a calculation of the value of National Highway System (NHS) pavement and bridges, as well as the cost to maintain asset value.

Recently NCHRP Project 23-06 was performed to develop guidance for calculating asset value to support TAM applications. This research resulted in the development of the Asset Valuation Guide. This document is intended as a companion publication to the Transportation Asset Management Guide published by AASHTO. The Guide is accompanied by a web tool with an online version of the guidance. The guidance was developed to provide immediate support to highway and transit agencies developing their 2022 TAMPs, and to provide continuing support for other TAM-related applications.

The objective of this implementation project support further testing and use of Asset Valuation Guide developed through NCHRP Project 23-06. This project will aid a set of transportation agencies in implementing the asset valuation guidance. A set of case studies will be developed based on the agency implementation efforts. Details on the case studies will be added to the web-based version of the asset valuation guidance and subsequent versions of the Asset Valuation Guide. Further, the web and printed versions of the Guide will be revised to reflect the additional experience gained from the case studies.

To support accomplishing the research objectives the effort will incorporate the following activities at a minimum:
• Delivery of a set of workshops to review and summarize the Asset Valuation Guide.
• Identification of a set of six transportation agencies to participate in implementation of the asset valuation guidance.
• Application of the asset valuation guidance for the selected set of agencies, resulting in calculation of asset value by asset class, the cost to maintain asset value and related measures such as the Asset Consumption Ratio, Asset Sustainability Ratio and Asset Funding Ratio.
• Illustration of how information on asset value can support improved TAM decisions.
• Refinement of the Asset Valuation Guide (printed and web versions) based on the results of the case studies.
• Development of supplemental tools and worksheets to assist in calculating asset value to support TAM utilize the Asset Valuation Guide.

This program will establish a series of individual research projects born out of NCHRP 23-09, Scoping Study to Develop the Basis for a Highway Standard to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis. Similar to other NCHRP research programs such as NCHRP 20-102, Impacts of Connected Vehicles and Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation Agencies, this is a long-term research program that will result in an industry standard for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis for use in decision-making. The product of this research program will be a collection of tools and techniques that transportation agencies can for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis similar to what has been produced for the Highway Capacity Manual and the Highway Safety Manual.

Integrating Risk and Resilience into the Performance Management Decision-Making Process

Evaluate and assess the existing national-level performance measure requirements for asset management at the state level to determine applicability and usability of PM measures in asset management decision making. As appropriate, provide recommendations and refinement of the performance measures for better use an application.

1. Evaluate current federal PM2 measures, both pavement condition measures and bridge measures, for performance thresholds, and overall performance measure with respect to: Consistency, Usefulness, and Alignment.

2. Identify and address in detail specific challenges for each condition measure for consistency, including thresholds. For example, determine if wheel path cracking considerations could be revised to provide more consistent results across pavement types (e.g. composite, concrete) and pavement widths (e.g. <12 ft.) 3. Provide recommendations to improve existing measures and/or identify metrics that better reflect conditions enhance decision-making taking into account not only the assessment of current and future condition but also their implications in economic analyses of long-term maintenance and rehabilitation.

NCHRP 20-24(20), 20-24 (97), 20-24 (127)
NCHRP 20-24(37): This project, Measuring Performance among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices, put in place a foundation on which the first set of national performance measures were created. A similar program needs to established on which to further develop relevant national-level performance measures.

The goal of this research is two-fold: to provide guidance on how transportation agencies can best use existing management systems and tools to integrate network and project-level analysis and provide a framework for an improve asset modeling approach that better integrates the project and network levels incorporating multiple asset types and consideration of multiple objectives. The research is intended to be of immediate value in helping transportation agencies better comply with Federal requirements to set performance targets and develop asset management plans. Also, it will help agencies to extend asset management approaches to additional systems and assets, besides the NHS pavement and bridge assets addressed through the Federal regulations. In addition, the research will help define improved approaches for asset management models for public agencies, researchers and system developers to use in developing the next generation of asset management systems.

Accomplishing these objectives will require:

• Conducting a literature review of existing asset modeling approaches implemented for use in transportation agencies, including network and project-level approaches.
• Performing a targeted set of interviews of selected transportation agencies to supplement the literature review.
• Establishing the current state of the practice in TAM, particularly with respect to how network and project-level analyses are integrated, how results for different asset classes are combined, and how consideration of multiple objectives is incorporated.
• Assessing the gaps in existing TAM modeling approaches and how they are implemented by state DOTs and other transportation agencies.
• Developing guidance for performing network and project-level asset investment analyses. The guidance should detail recommended approaches for addressing the gaps identified in the gap analysis, and should help agencies better meet Federal requirements.
• Recommending a framework for the next generation of asset management investment models that better integrates project and network-level analyses, integrates multiple asset classes, and includes consideration of multiple objectives.
• Preparing a case study illustrating application of the framework using actual data from a participating agency to the extent feasible.
• Organizing and facilitating a one-day workshop to review the initial products of the research and incorporate perspectives of the broader transportation community in the research.
• Writing a research report documenting the guidance, framework, and other products of the research.

Urgency and Potential Benefits

The proposed research will help transportation agencies better respond to recently-adopted Federal requirements related to asset management. Over time the research will help transportation agencies develop more accurate performance targets and TAM plans, as well as help agencies better incorporate best practices in TAM in their business processes. Also, the research will help define transportation agency’s needs for improved future asset management systems and models, lowering the cost and shortening the development time required for the industry to develop the next generation of asset management systems.

Implementation Planning

The target audience for the research findings and products of this work will be State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and other transportation agencies, as well as researchers and engineering staff involved in transportation. The key decision-makers who can approve, influence, or champion implementation of these research products are the senior staff and CEOs of the transportation agencies. The AASHTO committees that will be involved in the adoption and implementation of the results will be the AASHTO Committee on Planning and its subcommittees on Asset Management.

Literature Search Summary

The proposed research is intended to build upon previous research related to developing asset management analytical approaches, including:

• NCHRP Report 545, Analytical Tools for Asset Management;
• NCHRP Report 590, Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems;
• NCHRP Report 666, Target Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies;
• NCHRP Report 806, Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance;
• NCHRP Synthesis 494, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Management of Highway Assets; and
• NCHRP Project 08-103 to update and extend the cross-asset resource allocation guidance detailed in NCHRP Report 806.

This research should:
• Identify pertinent data sources, data types, as well as relevant collection and analysis methods employed by transit agencies.
• Provide a synthesis of examples or State of the Practice applications for MPOs/DOTs.
• Outline communication strategies to the relevant decision-makers.

The proposed research must consist of:
• An extensive literature search or survey of the current body of work.
• A survey of agencies’ practices and the cultural effects of those practices on both agency members and the general public.
• A series of webinars and/or workshops aimed at facilitating increasing knowledge regarding risk analysis practices in transportation
• A final report as well as an executive summary summarizing the findings of the various practices at different agencies, as well as the content of the webinars and/or workshops.

The objectives of this research are to examine methods for evaluation of system assets. Thorough research should:
• Identify international practices and determine how they can be applied in the US
• Better marry engineering and accounting in financial planning
• Demonstrate benefits through a case study (may be fictional)

The proposed research will have the following deliverables:
• A literature review, and well as a review of current practices.
• A tool to assess the functionality of the current practices of American agencies, as well as compare those practices to their overseas counterparts.

The focus of this research is to support a scan tour or peer exchange addressing organizational alignment for TAM. This falls into three distinct but equally necessary categories: a review of previous knowledge, a inter-agency gathering to assess differing organizational models and policies to TAM, and finally a report or summary of the findings.

As outlined above, the first component of the research is a literature and practice review, which should include:
• A Catalogue of Candidate Practices
• Template Organizational Charts that support comparison of alternative models

The inter-agency scan workshop must focus on bringing together agencies that can speak to distinct organizational models. The first step is to identify candidate agencies to participate in scan. Next, draft amplifying questions to guide discussion toward identification of what led to successful practices. Finally,
conduct the workshop and document results

The final summary report must document the findings of the workshop, such as successful practices in aligning organizations to support transportation asset management and linking operational activities to organizational structures.

Research is needed addressing the question: “What are the organizational/cultural factors that were in place before and/or during implementation that created a successful TAM program?” Develop a guidebook to convey lessons learned. Key point: must use an organizational development or similar consulting firm. Not the usual suspects!

The proposed research be composed of the following components:
• Conduct a literature/practice review of the relevant information
• Identify organizational practices and determine how they can be generalized to support guidance
• Develop guidance for agencies
• Demonstrate/evaluate guidance through at least one case study
• Produce a final report including an accessible executive summary

This research will focus on understanding TAM’s relationship to other transportation goals such as economic development, safety, environmental sustainability, mobility, and livability. Two products are sought through this research: 1) Framework for understanding the relationships between TAM and broad transportation goals. 2) Guidance on how to ensure TAM connectivity to broad transportation goals throughout the transportation decision-making cycle.

As part of this research, the contractor will research domestic and international frameworks for TAM’s relationships with broad transportation goals. These frameworks should be described in sufficient detail with visuals aids to communicate these relationships. The contractor will work in cooperation with the project panel in identifying the best framework for communicating the relationship between TAM and broad transportation goals. Based on this interaction with and feedback from the panel, the contractor will then develop guidance on how these relationships can more explicitly be used during the planning, programming, project delivery, and maintenance/operations process to maximize TAM benefits. Other issues that should be considered include the following: (1) What are the performance measures for understanding the relationships; and (2) are there quantitative ways to demonstrate how these relationships can be influenced?

This research will focus on understanding successful organizational models for TAM program so that guidance can be provided on how to improve organizational capacities. Two products are sought through this research: 1) Understanding of current organizational models for TAM programs 2) Catalog of possible organizational models for TAM programs that transportation agencies could consider for improving TAM capabilities.

As part of this research, the contractor will research domestic and international models for TAM program organizations and develop a set of models that represent the various approaches. These models should be described in sufficient detail with diagrams for DOTs to use to improve TAM program organizations. The contractor will work in cooperation with the project panel in identifying the best organizational models for TAM programs that an agency should consider when seeking improvements for their TAM programs. Based on this interaction with and feedback from the panel, the contractor will define at a minimum four distinct organizational models for TAM programs. These models need to be described in sufficient detail with diagrams and key role descriptions. Other issues that should be considered include the following: (1) How to balance accountability versus collaboration; and (2) how would you measure the effectiveness of one model versus another?

The objective for this research is to examine the costs and value associated with maintaining assets, and then to develop a usable model for forecasting the cost and value. Such a model must include, but not be limited to:
• A framework for quantitatively assessing the value of an asset that has been properly maintained.
• A tool for calculating the long-term costs of maintaining an asset, in line with industry standards for safety and reliability.
In addition to developing the model, the research should also establish guidance targeted at helping practitioners conduct forecasting analyses and communicate the results.

The proposed research will:
• Conduct a literature review, and well as a review of current practices.
• Develop a forecasting model for the costs and value of maintaining assets, as described in the objectives.
• Perform a series of pilots illustrating the effectiveness and usefulness of the model.
• Prepare a final report incorporating the guidance document and detailing the research performed as part of the project

The proposed research will:
• Evaluate various technologies for tagging and tracking assets and capturing asset history. Each proposed tracking technology should be evaluated for various factors, such as cost, ease of use, efficacy, and time required to implement.
• Create a standard for transportation asset tagging and tracking that can be used intermodally and across agencies.
• Develop a business case to demonstrate the lifecycle savings that can be achieved by transportation entities. This case study may be fictional if a suitable real-world example cannot be identified due to the new nature of the technologies.

The research plan should:
• Evaluate current technologies for the various criteria that denote a usable solution for assent inventory and tracking
• Propose fit-for-use of technology type by asset class. A single technology may not be suitable for all classes of assets, so categorizing
• Establish policies and protocols for capturing asset data
• Develop lifecycle costing models for use of asset tracking/ tagging technologies

The proposed research will:

• Identify and classify data items required to inform the maintenance and rehabilitation of different asset types.
• Determine the degree of relevance/criticality of select data items towards treatment decisions.
• Identify the level of detail required for asset management decisions at both the project and network level.
• Construct sensitivity analyses between data elements and infrastructure performance to explore the relationships that exist between them. This would also justify which data items are worth investing more resources into in order to mitigate uncertainties in developing long-term infrastructure preservation plans.

The research plan should:

1. Conduct a literature review of relevant studies and practice within the scope of the research problem.
2. Conduct a survey of current practices by planning agencies and state departments of transportation (DOTs) on current data availabilities and their use for decision-making
3. Perform an in-depth case studies involving the management and application of critical data items to support infrastructure management decisions, particularly around key assets such as pavements.
4. Develop a consolidated list of data elements and the level of detail required to support treatment decisions.
5. Propose a method to identify the data that are critical to predict the infrastructure performance. The method should include but not limited to the plan of data collection, data mining, data analysis, model development and validation process.
   

   References:

   • Flintsch, G. W., & Bryant, J. W. (2006). Asset management data collection for supporting decision processes. US Department of Transport, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

The proposed research will first develop a methodology that will allow dynamic changes to treatment plans. Then, the research must test the methodology, as well as identify and quantify cost savings benefits of using the methodology or tool.

The research plan should:
• Contain a literature review- focused on treatment timing, methodology, and successful dynamic processes
• Select the promising methods to test using the proposed methodology
• Quantify benefits and cost benefits of the different methods

Identify linkage between ISO standards and MAP-21 TAMP requirements. Identify gaps or inconsistencies and propose solutions. The proposed solutions may include guidelines for agencies, research needs, modification to the standards, or agency specific standards that address agency specific needs.

The project will include at least the following tasks:
• Literature search of directly relevant standards
• Identification of gaps and issues between ISO standards and MAP-21 requirements
• Propose solutions, develop guidance, recommend modifications to standards
• Identify and report on several case studies

The focus of this research can be divided into three main categories. Firstly, prior information must be collected and organized. This is accomplished through:
• Case studies and examples of best practice
• Creating a synthesis of state’s best practices
The next step is to build tools that allow for better asset management marketing, such as:
• Communication, sales, and/or a media science application to help craft a way to tell the story
• Creating a marketing plan that can be used to educate and train
• Training to Speak a language that all can understand
• Communicating the secondary benefits of TAM
Finally, follow-ups of the methods must be conducted to measure efficacy. This could include examining:
• How effective are the marketing and communication? Is the message being received?
• How has public perception changed?

A developed and complete research plan must focus on the three main categories of research. There must be a review of international and domestic best practice. This should include relevant existing guides and past work, such as NCHRP 742: Communicating the Value of Preservation. Focus groups and piloting of stakeholders should be formed to do media/communicate/develop sales techniques to frame topics to best to change minds
After these focus groups, a tool kit should be developed that addresses a multi-level audience. Finally, follow-ups should assess the effectiveness of the marketing plans or communication skills, and monitor techniques for continuous improvement.

The objectives of this research are to quantify the expected abilities of autonomous vehicles, to establish an expected timeline of integration within the greater transportation networks, and to examine what infrastructure changes are most beneficial for autonomous vehicles.
The capacities of autonomous vehicles are not yet quantified. The research should:
• Determine what types of roads are suitable for such vehicles.
• Examine safety for both drivers/passengers, and other users of the roadways, such as pedestrians and cyclists.
• Explore limitations, such as fog or extreme conditions.
• Establish a timeline for adoption. Since the technology is expected to change rapidly, current capabilities will change.
The infrastructure requirements for autonomous vehicles are greatly dependent on the capabilities of the vehicles. Nevertheless, certain changes can be expected to improve the safety and usefulness of the vehicles, such as:
• Repainting roadways to help the vehicles operate.
• Installing RFID that could communicate with the vehicles directly.
• Determining what challenges would face a mixed-stream road of autonomous vehicles and vehicles under driver operation.

Research into this area requires surveying all the major players involved in the development and implementation of autonomous vehicles.
• Survey of industry on current and future plans and timeline to implementation, as well as quantifying the current and future capacities of their vehicles.
• Survey DOTs to determine capabilities and gaps in the existing infrastructure.
• Survey of industry on what changes to the road networks would have the greatest impact of ease of implementation and safety of autonomous vehicles.
After the surveys are completed, a conference with the players would validate the findings of the surveys, and generate a report as well as an executive summary.

The primary focus of this research is, at a most basic level, to help agencies strengthen their work force. This should be accomplished by researching areas where:
• Agencies lack a comprehensive list of necessary skills for a given position
• Agencies lack a comprehensive list of which positions are most critical to keep fully staffed. In an era of shrinking budgets, effectively prioritizing hiring decisions is crucial.
• There is a gap in knowledge regarding existing certifications.

The research plan for this project must include, but need not be limited to:
• A complete review of existing certifications.
• Completing competencies
• Developing position descriptions for use when advertising vacant positions
All of this data should be compiled in a detailed report, as well as a succinct executive summary that is accessible to all decision-makers.

The research should focus of two primary areas of focus. The researchers must develop a guidebook for data integration across jurisdictional lines, as well as review the existing standards for civil data. This could include projects such as Civil Integrated Management (CIM) and the researchers must document the positive and negative ramifications of the various standards.

The research plan must consist of:
• A thorough and comprehensive review of existing standards. Due to the nature of integrating data across various platforms, all the types of data management must be well accounted for to ensure proper integration.
• Developing a guidebook. This should be the primary tool that an end user would utilize to determine how to best integrate their data across jurisdictions.
• Planning a pilot program. Ideally, a pilot program would be implemented and then analyzed for success, but at a minimum, a comprehensive plan for an initial test of the data integration framework must be completed.

Emerging technologies hold the promise of transforming asset data collection for transportation asset management such as the use of drones for inspections, LiDAR field data collection, continuous monitoring of real-time sensor data, and more. While the technology has been transforming, MAP-21 and the Fast Act jump started at many agencies in attaining an inventory of infrastructure assets and transportation data. At the same time, accessibility and affordability to collect high volumes of asset inventory data, such as LiDAR point cloud data, present the problem of how agencies can visualize and manage such large amounts of data and integrate the many layers for each transportation asset management plan. Now that the need for such data is federally recognized, further research is needed to understand what the latest technologies for asset analysis can offer an agency as well as how frequently that information needs generated.

Research is needed in the following areas:
● Address the adoption and practical application of these technologies and the rapid pace of technological advancement.
● What level of extraction detail and frequency interval is needed to support TAM at both the state and local levels and how can the condition assessment be applied to the performance measures of both pavement and non-pavement assets?
● Further investigate what tools are capable of visualizing asset extraction layers, as well as presenting such data to all stakeholders in powerful GIS formats with standardized TAM graphics for universal interpretation.

• Identify tools (online forum, listserve, or others) to facilitate the community of practice.
• Create practitioner consortium database
• Webinars to build awareness
• Facilitation/moderation to foster the community of practice
• Report on lessons learned and successful practices identified through the community of practice
• Examine the consistency of the underlying data that goes into bridge/pavement data collection

This project proposes the establishment of a community of practice for asset management data collection rather than the creation of a traditional research report.
• The mission of the community of practice will be to articulate strategic, operational and tactical business needs relevant to emerging technologies for asset data collection and to recommend improvements to business processes, data, and information systems to meet the highest priority needs.
• The community of practice will seek to connect the experts and build the network to move the state of practice forward more effectively and efficiently
• The project will seek to foster the community of practice so that it is sustainable beyond the conclusion of this research

This research project would aim to develop a Primer or Guidance document to help agencies tasked with managing infrastructure (including pavement and bridges) to assess their current data, data collection processes, and data needs to best position them to be able to take advantage of burgeoning artificial intelligence techniques to develop increasingly accurate predictive models regarding their infrastructure.

The quality of data is extremely important – “garbage in, garbage out” - and quality of data in terms of accuracy and precision is already getting much needed attention. However, while many agencies are actively improving collection of accurate and more data, collection the right quality data for accurate and precise prediction requires an additional level of scrutiny.

Collection of more accurate and precise data will undoubtably increase the accuracy of predictions, accurate predictive modeling also relies on understanding the underlying variables that affect the predictions. For example, variables that might affect the structural deterioration (for instance in the next time period) of an infrastructure element such as a pavement management section, might include:
- Structure information such as layer thicknesses and materials
- Environmental conditions such as temperature means and variation, rainfall etc.
- Load information such as traffic and truck traffic
- Current condition such as current cracking, rutting and roughness information
- Current condition such as layer properties and structural strength
- Information on previous maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction actions

Similar attributes would be considered significant variables for deterioration prediction in bridges, and this would also apply to many other non-bridge, non-pavement types of infrastructure assets.

Statistical analysis of this type of data for predictive analysis purposes is not new and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) techniques have been used in this area for decades. However, with the advent of automated data collection techniques and with the quantity of available data growing at a considerable rate (so called ‘Big Data’), various types of AI such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and deep learning techniques, are beginning to supersede some of these traditional statistical techniques. The ‘training’ portions of these techniques will require accurate and repeatable data as well as information on significant variables.

In addition, one the most valuable aspects of AI is the ability these types of techniques to continuously learn and improve. In this respect, it is again very important for agencies to understand how this learning could be accomplished, not just initially but continuously over time, using processes that involve continuous updates (e.g. through crowd sourcing). Agencies would therefore benefit considerably by having guidance available to help them set up their data capture and governance techniques to best benefit from AI modeling, training and continuous learning in the future.

Ideally, an agency would collect data that has the necessary attributes to facilitate an AI analysis and have processes in place that would allow continuous learning such that predictive modeling for the agency would continue to be trained and improved as the AI continued to learn. The current reality is such that condition data that is being collected may not be easily utilized in an AI analysis. The consequence is that the complicated decision-making process that highway agency executives depend upon may not be producing the level of accuracy in condition and funding projections that is required to make funding decisions in their investment strategies.

The Real Option method allows infrastructure owners to evaluate the advantage of options that an infrastructure manager has over time. As time passes, a manager will have the ability to intervene as as an object may deteriorate at a faster rate than expected. Likewise, a manager may postpone a planned intervention if the condition is better than expected. In addition to the option to defer, a manager may have the option to expand or contract the infrastructure or the infrastructure network, as well as to shut it down temporarily, abandon it, grow it or switch it (de Neufville and Scholtes, 2011).

The options provide an owner with the flexibility adapting the infrastructure to uncertain future needs. Owners, thus, neither under-, nor overinvest and consequently minimize the risks of their decisions. The external factors affecting risk include weather events, condition development, system demands, funding and other critical variables. The methodology proposes a way to systematically analyse and define these uncertainties and make predictions taking the defined uncertainty fully into consideration.

Real option valuation is known using binomial lattices (a form of decision trees) and/or Brownian motion random walk algorithms. Infrastructure life-time net benefits can also be calculated by simulating the uncertainty using continuous Monte Carlo simulations. Using different stakeholders’ costs of different design alternatives and management strategies, the costs can be calculated over a large sample of potential futures. The methodology is able to address multiple levels of risk and weight them as necessary and thus make multi-objective, cross-asset investment decisions under uncertainty to best support the national goals identified in 23 USC 150(b).

The ultimate objective is to provide the decision-maker with tools that add value to the decision-making process and improve the robustness of the infrastructure network as a whole. In that sense, novel approaches for the evaluation of risk will be sought to capture the stochastic nature of interdependent infrastructure. A graph theory approach to evaluate criticality of network node failure as shown by Buldyrev and colleagues (2010) may prove interesting for the evaluation of consequences, and thus the real option value for the infrastructure, simulated by network programming methods.

The application and evaluation of a large sample of data and data simulations is computationally challenging. Furthermore, decision-making tools are urged to be simple and understandable. As big data may improve predictability and performance of models, strong emphasis must be laid on the usability of such models. In this project, it is suggested that particular focus will be on addressing these challenges with the outlook of combining big data and the model’s user interface design.

References:
Buldyrev, S. V., R. Parshani, G. Paul, H. E. Stanley and S. Havlin (2010) Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks, Nature, 464, 1025-1028.
de Neufville, R. and S. Scholtes (2011) Flexibility in Engineering Design, Engineering Systems, MIT Press, ISBN 978-0262297332.
Savage, S. (2012) The Flaw of Averages: Why we underestimate Risk in the face of Uncertainty, Wiley, ISBN 978-1118073759.
Prof. Dr. Rade Hajdin, July 2019

The ultimate objective is to provide the decision-maker with tools that add value to the decision-making process and improve the robustness of the infrastructure network as a whole. In that sense, novel approaches for the evaluation of risk will be sought to capture the stochastic nature of interdependent infrastructure. A graph theory approach to evaluate criticality of network node failure as shown by Buldyrev and colleagues (2010) may prove interesting for the evaluation of consequences, and thus the real option value for the infrastructure, simulated by network programming methods.

Synthesize best practices for workforce development and training in order to enhance the capabilities of a TAM team/staff or attract internal staff to become involved in TAM program/implementation.

Document and provide examples of condition assessments for all types of assets.

Create case studies addressing noteworthy applications of big data analytics to TAM.

This is a note test.

Research effective corridor planning strategies that promote sustainable capital asset improvements that impact asset class performance and other performance areas.

Develop a framework, recommended actions, and synthesis of noteworthy practices for agencies to use in incorporating change management strategies in TAM practice.

• Asset conditions are typically determined currently in separate silos - leading to asset treatments that are applied on varied schedules by asset (pavement, bridges, culverts) even over the same corridor.
• Significant resources may be misallocated on treatments applied at the wrong time due to lack of coordinated corridor planning.
• Corridor planning can organize the asset treatments — while also looking at environmental issues, congestion, and safety
• There may be other issues such as operation needs in a corridor as well.
o “Project delivery” can be achieved more efficiently because projects are organized into a corridor delivery strategy. Projects can be peeled off as funding is available
o Public can be engaged all at once instead of multiple times for multiple projects.
o Minimize contractor costs

Develop guidance on an asset management corridor planning process to prioritize and schedule project delivery for cost effectiveness while also considering mobility/accessibility issues, drainage, and more.

• Conduct a review and evaluation of existing agency corridor planning processes with respect to transportation asset management
• Synthesize noteworthy practices in asset management corridor planning
o Identify potential case studies targeting specific corridor planning scenarios
o Develop a framework for corridor plans that can be applied for better asset management and resource allocation
• Conduct targeted stakeholder outreach (interviews or similar) to validate and further develop noteworthy practices and framework (consider whether research statement addresses inclusion of international practice)
• Develop asset management corridor planning guide outline and complete how-to guide
o Identify steps for agency necessary to address, for example: potential project areas; asset inventory/proposed treatment schedule; traffic volume/transit analysis; land use inventory and future land use; drainage issues; financial resources, schedule and coordination).
o Identify candidate case studies
• Drawing upon review and outreach efforts, develop 3-6 case studies for inclusion in the guide
• Plan and deliver three regional workshops to present guide and framework and advance corridor planning at DOTs/MPOs

• Asset management corridor planning how-to guide including case studies
• Workshops to introduce guide and advance corridor planning

Agencies have made progress in implementing TAM within their agencies. The impact of TAM will be much greater if stakeholders are engaged as a part of the decision-making and TAM approaches were collaborative for given geographic areas.

Develop communication tools and methodologies for engaging stakeholders in TAM program activities such as strategies development, performance management implementation, and budget development.

• Collect existing documentation of best practices related to TAM stakeholder engagement and communication
• Consider conducting a synthesis of practices used by agencies to communicate successfully the importance and value of TAM
• Package communication and other engagement resources from existing examples in a way that makes it possible for other agencies to use it for their stakeholder communication and engagement needs
• Assess the stages of maturity in communication and engagement and determine what actions and resources are most relevant to advance practice given current practices
• Develop guidance on when stakeholder engagement is important and what processes and products are most useful at each engagement opportunity
• Develop new resources that support the guidance

• Communication portfolio that allows asset owners/managers to draw on best practices from others during TAM program activities to engage stakeholders
• Stakeholder communication and engagement guidance

• Recent NCHRP research products have documented data governance techniques and provided tools for agencies to assess their current data governance practices and identify strategies for improvement.
• NCHRP 08-115 (publication pending) included data governance as one of several foundational activities for improving use of data and information for transportation asset management. An NCHRP 20-44 proposal is in process to conduct pilot implementations of the guidance and assessment tool developed through that project, and produce supplemental guidance materials based on the pilots.
• Many DOTs are implementing data governance – through establishing governance bodies, defining data stewardship roles and putting standard processes in place. The AASHTO Data Management and Analytics Committee has established a Chief Data Officer (CDO) peer group to enable ongoing sharing of data governance practices.
• This project would build on the established base of prior and ongoing work on data governance. It would focus specifically on providing specific examples or models that can be applied to help advance asset management practice through data governance.

Provide support to implement the data governance practices and processes recommended through NCHRP 08-115, Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management.

• Conduct outreach to identify implemented examples of transferable TAM-related data governance practices. These might include:
o role/responsibility descriptions for asset data stewards and asset management system owners,
o charters for TAM advisory bodies or governance groups,
o asset data-related policies or guidance documents,
o flowcharts or process descriptions for initiating new asset data collection efforts,
o work products related to establishment of data glossaries, catalogs or standards,
o asset data quality management plans or process descriptions, and
o asset data MOUs or agreements.
• Conduct a series of follow-up interviews to document the processes by which each of the identified examples were developed, and to seek permission for sharing the examples.
• Make the documented examples accessible (via the AASHTO TAM Portal and/or the AASHTO Data Management and Analytics Committee website)
• Conduct a webinar highlighting selected examples – featuring the DOT staff who were involved in their implementation.
• Recommend an ongoing mechanism for periodically refreshing the body of examples collected through this effort.

• Library of documented examples
• Webinar slides and recording
• Recommended approach for ongoing updates to the body of examples

• It’s difficult to communicate the value of an asset management approach to the public.
• In many cases agency leaders and stakeholders, including the public, may not see discernable benefits from TAM, reducing support for a preservation-focused investment strategy and/or improved systems and data required to support a TAM approach.
• Research has been performed in the past regarding how to calculate the return on investment (ROI) of TAM systems and how to communicate the value of preservation. Also, private sector entities use a separate set of approaches for evaluating the benefits of providing transportation as a concession.
• Additional research is needed to quantify the benefits of TAM generally, and incorporate consideration of other factors such as sustainability, equity, resilience, etc.

Develop a framework and guidance for calculating and communicating the overall benefit of improved asset management approaches to transportation agencies, transportation system users, and society of improved asset management approaches. The framework should address monetized benefits, as well as issues such as equity, sustainability, and resilience. Illustrate use of the framework and examples through a set of pilot studies of U.S. agencies.

• Literature and practice review
• Develop TAM benefit framework
• Prepare guidance for implementing the framework
• Perform a set of pilots to test and refine the guidance, as well as to help illustrate the benefits of TAM
• Provide updated examples of effective communication of TAM benefits
• Prepare a guidebook detailing the framework, guidance, pilots and communication examples.

• Guidebook for calculating and communicating the benefits of a TAM approach
• Spreadsheet or web-based tool transportation agencies can use to perform their own calculations following the guidance.

Managing risk is a critical component of asset management. On a day-to-day basis transportation asset managers spend much of their time responding to or mitigating a large number of risks, which may range from external events that damage transportation infrastructure to unplanned changes to budget or workloads resulting from unexpected events. Various recent and on-going research efforts aim to improve approaches for risk management for transportation agencies. However, most of these efforts treat risk management as a high-level activity. Further research is needed to develop quantitative, repeatable approaches at the appropriate staff level, to assessing and identifying the highest priority risks transportation agencies face in managing physical assets. This project aims to develop such approaches to assess risks (e.g., financial, strategic, operational, political, environmental, technological, social justice risks) and incorporate them into life cycle analysis and planning efforts.

The objectives of this research are to:
• Generate risk identification techniques to determine high risk threats at project and network levels,
• Develop quantitative, repeatable approaches for assessing likelihood and consequences for these threats,
• Develop visual, interactive characterization methods (e.g., dashboards) to reflect an agency’s level of risk and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation actions,
• Allow risk and resilience to be on par with traditional performance measures.

High risk threats to be studied include, but are not limited to, extreme events (e.g., earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes), asset failure (structural and operational), financial, strategic, political, environmental (e.g., sea level rise, flooding), technological, and social justice risks.

The final deliverables could include guidebook with a spreadsheet or a framework for assessing high risk threats and incorporating the results into TAM efforts. The guidebook should feature a comprehensive review of existing literature and current practice. It should present a standard definition of resilience as well as step-by-step instructions to develop models, methods, and metrics for estimating resilience of highway systems to high risk threats. Pilot studies should be conducted with select agencies to test the guidance and calculation procedures.

The target audience for the research results is asset management and risk-management champions at state and local government transportation agencies. The results of this project will potentially empower these individuals in convincing other decision makers in these agencies to take actions that not only align with traditional performance management objectives but also that result in lower risk and higher resilience for the whole transportation system. The results of this project can also be effective in communicating the rationale behind risk-based decisions to the general public. Due to legal implications of identifying and documenting risks, the research and final product should include advice on how to protect the agency from litigation if they cannot implement a recommended action.

Risk assessment is at the core of implementing a risk-based asset management approach. Therefore, FHWA and AASHTO view this as a subject of great importance. In addition, risk management cuts across all areas of a state DOT’s business and just about any AASHTO Committee and any state DOT and local agency could realize benefits from these research results.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) transportation bill established federal regulations that require each State Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop a Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP), and implement Performance Management. These regulations require all DOTs to utilize nationally defined performance measures for pavements on the National Highway System (NHS). These nationally defined performance measures (referred as PM2 hereafter) are aimed at providing nationally consistent metrics for DOTs to measure condition, establish targets, assess progress toward targets, and report on condition and performance. Furthermore, Federal measures provide the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) the ability to better communicate a national performance story and to more reliably assess the impacts of Federal funding investments.
State DOTs are expected to use the information and data generated from these Federal measures to inform their transportation planning and programming decisions. However, State DOTs are finding discrepancies between pavement conditions from PM2 measures as compared to their internal, state-developed measures. This discrepancy hampers the adoption of the PM2 pavement measures as the primary input into condition summary reporting and pavement investment prioritization and decision-making. In other words, State DOTs do not have confidence in the Federal measures, primarily because these measures cannot be used to inform decision-making processes such as investment decisions. Furthermore, the resulting differences between state metric-determined and federal metric-determined network conditions creates confusion among the public, senior executive staff, and legislative bodies, along with non-DOT owners of NHS assets.
As mentioned before, FHWA needs to collect consistent Federal measures across all State DOTs to assess the impact of Federal funding investment at the national level. However, State DOTs have been collecting pavement performance data for decades and used this data to inform their pavement management systems and processes to address specific needs. Typically, the data collection processes cover state-owned pavements and not only NHS pavements, which brings another layer of inconsistency. For this reason, there is a need for more flexible metrics that can be aligned to performance measures currently used by State DOTs and support decision-making processes such as investment decisions.

The objective of this research is to:
1. Evaluate current federal pavement condition measures (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking), performance thresholds, and overall performance measure with respect to:
a. Consistency – across various pavement types, network designations, and lane configurations
b. Usefulness – in network-level pavement condition summary and asset management decision-making, prioritization, and forecasts; and
c. Alignment – with state established pavement condition metrics

2. Provide recommendations to improve existing measures and/or identify metrics that better reflect pavement failure mechanisms and enhance decision-making taking into account not
only the assessment of current and future condition but also their implications in economic analyses of long-term maintenance and rehabilitation. Evaluate pavement leading indicators as an alternative to the current version of the PM2.

3. Identify and address in detail specific challenges for each condition measure (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking) for consistency, including thresholds. For example, determine if wheel path cracking considerations could be revised to provide more consistent results across pavement types (e.g. composite, concrete) and pavement widths (e.g. <12 ft.) 4. Evaluate structural capacity indicators for potential consideration as a Federal measure.

Proposed research activities include:
1. Conduct outreach interviews to State DOTs and evaluate DOT publications (e.g TAMPs) to:
a. Capture current uses for federal and state-specific pavement condition metrics and their relative strengths and weakness with respect to identified network-level uses
b. Quantify the extent of the State DOTs’ differences with current federal pavement metrics
c. Capture alternative procedures states are using to determine and communicate pavement condition and/or failure as well as network-level decision-making
d. Source State DOT condition data sets, including corresponding state and federal ratings and network-level pavement maintenance recommendations

2. Conduct a comparative analysis between state and federal measures and determine the ability to utilize federal measures to replicate network-level decisions.

3. Evaluate alternative methods of federal measure with best practices of state measures to develop a list of alternative methods that could be used for pavement management measures and meet both State and Federal needs.

4. Provide summary and comparison of current vs. alternative methods with respect to evaluation criteria at national and individual state levels

5. Provide guidance on how to enhance the utility of current federal measures and/or condition thresholds and recommend revisions in a format useful to adoption into the HPMS Field Manual

Desired products include:
• Evaluation of federal measure with respect to consistency, usefulness, and alignment
• Guidance on how to increase the utility of current metrics and/or thresholds
• Recommendations for revised pavement condition metrics and/or thresholds
• Recommendations for updated HPMS Field Manual

This topic is of significant interest to AASHTO, TRB, and the DOTs, having ranked third amongst potential NCHRP topics in the recent TAM Research Prioritization conducted as part of the 2020 Mega Meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management, in cooperation with the TRB Asset Management Committee (AJE30).
The following are organizations and contacts who may be interested in using the results of the research and supporting its dissemination:
• AASHTO Committee on Performance-based Management: Tim Henkel, Chair (Minnesota DOT, (651) 366-4829, [email protected]), Matt Hardy (AASHTO, (202) 624-3625, [email protected])
• AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management: Matt Haubrich, Chair (Iowa DOT, (515) 233-7902, [email protected])
• FHWA Office of Asset Management: Steve Gaj (FHWA, (202) 366-1336, [email protected]) Tim Henkel, TAM Expert Task Group Chair (see contact above)
• TRB Asset Management Committee (ABC40): Tim Henkel, Chair (see contact above)

• State departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) across the United States are required to establish performance targets as part of their asset management efforts. The target- setting requirements for transportation performance management (PM2) of pavement and bridge condition generally require agencies to consider three factors; the measured condition of the assets, expected deterioration over time and project level accomplishments. The measured condition of the asset is the ultimate measure of progress and an effective way for agencies to demonstrate that they are making progress as required by federal regulations.
• Research assessing the consistency of National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition metrics has found variability between individual inspectors when inspecting “control bridges” for study. In other words, there is the potential for any given bridge inspector to assess the current condition of same bridge differently. This variability means that the conditions of bridge could improve in the absence of a project just by having a different inspector interpret the field condition differently. A similar potential exists for pavement condition assessments. This demonstrates the potential inconsistencies due to human interaction, but the same could be true of technologies if applied or calibrated differently across agencies.
• Pavement and bridge conditions rely on assessment methods that are subject to variability from one assessment to the next and from one assessor or one technology utilization to the next. This variability may occur in the absence of projects or significant field deterioration. This research project would attempt to evaluate the impact of condition assessment variability on agency wide target setting required for asset management.

The outcome from this effort will benefit quality assurance (QA) methods for data collection and inspection efforts, quantify the variability and sensitivity in target setting for DOTs, and help budget planning for asset inconsistencies.

• Review and summarize existing published research related to the
• consistency of field-assessed pavement and bridges whether based on human interaction or applied automation, and include a review of training programs associated with human and automated assessments. Additionally, review research on the impact of assessed condition variability on target setting.
• Review NBI and Highway Pavement Monitoring System (HPMS) submittals over multiple years to identify examples of spontaneous improvement or rapidly changing conditions from one assessment to the next and assess the sensitivity of condition assessment variability on target setting in transportation asset management.
• Develop a methodology and guidance manual to define the uncertainty associated with variability in condition assessment when setting asset management targets and provide means to rectify inconsistencies in the assessments when they appear.

• According to FHWA’s transportation performance management (TPM), the purpose of transportation asset management is to provide the most efficient investment of funds. This decision-making is being based on data that is subject to variability. Understanding and quantifying (if possible) the impact of data variability will allow federal, state, and local agencies to recognize the importance of data quality and how it might impact their ability to deliver projects and strive for the national transportation goals. The outcomes and benefits are:
o Showcase the importance of quality and consistent data collection methodology
o Tie the data to decision making and funding
o Evaluate the impact of condition assessment variability on agency wide target setting
o Highlight progress on 490.319(c) Data Quality Management Program
o Provide states and federal a baseline expectation for changes in annual variability in measures, failure to reach targets, and/or best practices to avoid data quality issues.

• Since the performance measures are consistently tied to specific data inputs, each state could use this research to understand the potential volatility in target setting and performance measures. The summary of best practices and pitfalls will also allow transportation agencies and vendors to improve inspection protocol. Testing of the data should be a part of the research, with a few select agencies comparing potentially the same data in a single year across multiple sources or reviewing the historic trends of individual data pints to highlight inconsistencies and the impact of those inconsistencies to overall measures and targets.
• This research would best be shared in an open forum or webinar so all agencies and consultants tasked with data management can obtain the information. The AASHTO Performance Management Committee should be interested in supporting this research to ensure that the performance measures produced by transportation agencies are of the highest quality.