HSM Implementation Guide for Managers - Section 2

HSM Implementation Guide for Managers

2. HSM Implementation Considerations

Any new organizational initiative requires careful thought and planning. DOT managers can expect that introduction of new requirements, technical or process, will be met with some skepticism and fear. Indeed, for staff successfully doing their jobs for many years, delivering a message that they need to do something new may require extra effort and sensitivity to demonstrate the value and necessity of the new initiative.

There will be many within an agency that will understand and embrace the new approach. Such early, enthusiastic adopters should be sought and nurtured. Implementation planning for the HSM should reflect the specific attributes, culture and organizational structure, and capabilities of the organization. The culture of DOTs with respect to participation in industry research and application of new ideas and technology varies widely. Managers should understand their unique culture and plan accordingly. Managers should approach implementation with an understanding of how their agency is organized, who are the important influencers and decision-makers, who can and should be allies and supporters of the effort, and what is reasonably achievable over time given the agency’s other priorities.

Implementation Guiding Principles

Lessons learned from early adopters of the HSM, including AASHTO lead states, produce the following guiding principles that managers should incorporate in their implementation efforts.

• Employ a Consistent Technical Approach – Predictive methods, assumptions, use of common databases, common crash modification factors, and common benefit/cost approaches are all important for both internal purposes and external credibility.
• Encourage Gradual Changes – Agencies will have varying levels of quality and quantity of necessary data and IT systems. Changes in policies, use of the HSM and training of staff should not “outpace” the ability or progress of the data and decision-support systems. Seek to establish and then maintain momentum in implementation.
• Anticipate and Champion Culture Change – Many HSM concepts are new and may run counter to staff understanding of safety. Training of staff, particularly highway designers, should carefully explain HSM concepts in their proper context stressing that the HSM does not replace design manuals and standards, but merely supplements them.
• Manage Training – Not everyone needs to be an expert in the HSM, but most will benefit from basic knowledge and all should understand the concept of substantive safety. Managers should consider how the HSM will be used, who within the organization (by position, by location) should have a deep understanding, and how their internal experts will be used. Managers should also consider how others may benefit from the knowledge base without having to undergo extensive training.

Drivers and Challenges to Successful Implementation of the HSM

Managers will find that implementing the HSM will present challenges similar to the implementation of other significant advancements or innovations in the field of transportation, such as Context Sensitive Solutions and Complete Streets initiatives. Successful implementation involves identifying and taking advantage of “drivers” and overcoming “barriers” or challenges.

Successfully implemented innovations invariably have drivers, that is, forces that tend to promote the innovation. External drivers include customer expectations about the work of the agency to deliver safe roads, and the need to justify or account for value from investments in projects. For the foreseeable future, it seems clear that funding demands and competing priorities will greatly outstrip available resources. In such an environment, it may be easy to dismiss the implementation of any new initiative. In the case of the HSM, managers can turn the argument around. The DOT’scustomers assume that their actions and decisions are intended to produce a performance outcome. When investments are made through the application of science-based safety concepts in the HSM, agency leaders can feel confident in sharing with the public the expected reduction in fatalities and injuries that result from these investments.

Significant internal drivers include the individual professionals in the agency, their natural desire to be seen as applying the latest and best practices, and their related pride in the organization they work for and its place among its peers. Regardless of position within the agency, the vast majority of professionals want to do the best job they can and want to learn and apply the latest innovations and knowledge in their field. Managers should seek opportunities to identify and take advantage of these drivers within their organizations.

There are also typically challenges or restraining forces to any change, which tend to reflect the natural human tendency to resist something new. Exhibit 2 summarizes what early adopting managers have faced when attempting to introduce the HSM and concepts of quantitative safety. Note that these restraining forces tend to reflect internal factors or constraints within the agency. All such challenges can be addressed within training and during implementation.

EXHIBIT 2. Examples of Driving Forces and Restraining Forces to Apply Quantitative Safety Information to Transportation Engineering

Management Strategies

DOTs that are rapidly implementing the HSM have executed similar strategic approaches. Each of these approaches has involved:

• A well-respected leader serving as a champion;
• Development and execution of an implementation plan;
• Examination and revision or development of agency policies and resources;
• Examination of risk management and legal issues;
• Examination of data, information technology, and analytical tools;
• Assessment of budgets and phased approaches to implementation;
• Identification of technical expertise needs and sustainability of technical expertise; and
• Identification of organizational needs and issues.

All of the above are essential elements of successful HSM implementation. The amount of effort and resources to adopt each will vary from state to state. The remainder of this document will discuss each of these items in further detail.

Agency Champion(s)

There must be at least one strong, visible, and well-respected manager or executive who has a stated interest in promoting safety and who can appeal to the sense of professionalism within the staff. The finding and designation of a champion – someone who will accept the challenge, own the task of HSM implementation, and commit to driving it within the agency is an essential element. A champion can insure statewide, consistent, and directed effort towards the advancement of safety across various programs and processes. Lack of a champion results in no one owning the implementation task, with diversion to other priorities inevitable.

The champion should recruit other like-minded staff, if possible from different offices and with different functions or jobs. An ideal team includes someone from key headquarters functions such as the design and/or traffic engineering offices, the state safety engineer, IT experts, or owners of data systems, and mid-level project managers and department managers from field or District offices. Each individual can offer insights on the specific barriers to be overcome, technical or resource needs, potential early successes, and how to best incorporate changes in department policies or approaches.

There should also be an executive sponsor who is high enough up in the organization that he or she can make clear the importance of the HSM and how safety will be dealt with going forward. The executive sponsor should act in a way that demonstrates the agency’s commitment, through providing the right resources, advertising the visibility of the team and its mission, and rewarding interim milestones met and early successes.

Develop an Implementation Plan

With formation of a carefully built team of committed agency staff, the next critical strategic step is to develop a plan for HSM implementation. A good plan addresses specific actions and assigns timeframes. It need not be overly detailed, but should be sufficient to communicate what needs to be done, in what order, and what issues will need addressing in completing each task. A good plan will recognize and respect the make-up of the organization and other known priorities. It will be ambitious but not overly so. Implementation plans should contain basic tasks such as training, organizational issues, revision of agency policies, risk management and legal issues, and information technology requirements. These are discussed in detail below. For an example of an HSM implementation plan, see the Florida DOT web site.

NCHRP 17-50, an AASHTO-sponsored HSM Lead State Initiative, kicked off in 2011 to support and encourage the implementation of the HSM. The project allows for sharing of lessons learned and a forum for discussion among states participating in the initiative. Lead and support states were identified. Lead states provide assistance to the support states. Exhibit 3 shows the states participating in the project.

EXHIBIT 3. Lead States and Support States in the NCHRP 17-50 HSM Lead State Initiative Project

Examine and Revise Agency Policies

Implementation managers should lay out a roadmap, articulating a vision for how the HSM can over time influence how the DOT insures that safety is explicitly considered in all decisions and is incorporated into the overall project development process. The following are examples of key policies that some DOTs have begun to change based on HSM concepts or content:

• Program Prioritization – Use of HSM methods in agency planning and programming processes to identify “locations with promise” (i.e., black spots or high-crash locations); use of HSM values for CMFs to replace an agency’s crash reduction factors, and economic value of crashes, which is used as part of benefit/cost analyses. The Illinois DOT, for example, replaced their method for identifying high-accident locations with an HSM-based method used to identify roadway segments and intersections with significant opportunity for safety improvement and to develop their five percent reports to the FHWA.
• Asset Management – State programs are heavily influenced by use of data and analyses from their asset management systems. These include bridge and pavement management. The HSM offers the ability to add quantitative safety information into overall project programming, thereby redirecting or influencing the prioritization of projects based not only on asset condition and preservation but also safety performance.
• Warrants and Guidelines – Most state policies and manuals include warrants and guidelines for capacity and other improvements. Examples include “two-lane to four-lane” projects and grade separations to replace interchanges. The performance basis for such guidelines is typically mobility or operations-based. The HSM methods can be used to expand such guidelines to include threshold safety performance measures.
• Project Development – Incorporation of HSM concepts in project development decision-making process, including planning and programming, scoping, design criteria development, alternatives development, screening, and selection of preferred alternatives. This is done through revisions to DOT design manuals and reporting requirements, and is discussed in greater detail in the following section.
• Risk Management Processes – Design exceptions, deviations, and waivers are all fundamental design development processes. As discussed below, the HSM has direct application to how such processes are executed.

Revisions to policies or approaches will require much groundwork and coordination across offices and with the FHWA Division office. A well-thought-out roadmap will acknowledge limitations in data, and knowledge, and will produce a schedule that focuses on where early successes are most likely so that confidence is gained and benefits are immediately perceived.

Address Risk Management and Legal Issues

The team that produced the HSM over its 10-year development period included the former Chief Counsel for a state DOT, a current state DOT risk manager, and two university professors who served as risk management consultants to their state DOTs. The HSM was reviewed and vetted by the Transportation Research Board’s Tort Liability Committee. Managers should be assured that, as written and properly used, the HSM would not increase risk.

Concerns over tort liability are among the early questions and barriers raised by staff when they understand what the HSM is all about. Managers should anticipate these concerns and be prepared in advance to deal with them. The following are key strategies to incorporate:

• Be familiar with the specific tort issues in your state, and how these are currently communicated to DOT staff.
• Implementation managers and trainers should meet with the agency’s risk manager or chief counsel. Ideally, some risk management representation would be included in the core team. The HSM web site contains training materials that include key messages regarding tort liability, legal framework, what the HSM is (and is not), and names of DOT risk managers who worked on the HSM and can help develop deep understanding and comfort.
• Discuss the implications of the HSM on legal protections associated with USC 409 with chief counsel and data managers or IT staff. Take action to post appropriate notices, conduct training, and implement safeguards in the access to databases, and publication or use of data to retain the legal protections.
• Review and revise or strengthen as needed guidance to staff on how to write reports dealing with crash data and HSM methods. Such guidance would include what words should be avoided (e.g., “high-accident sites,” “hazardous locations,” “unsafe,” “unacceptable safety record,” etc.); how not to characterize a decision or proposed action, how to describe analyses and properly discuss potentially controversial subjects such as safety “tradeoffs.”
• Review current procedures for design exceptions reports, including the nature and type of documentation, who reviews and approves the analyses, what specific safety-based inputs are used, and how decisions are described and documented.
• Meet with FHWA Division staff to discuss design exceptions and how the process may change with application of the HSM. Make sure there is a common understanding and buy-in prior to suggesting or implementing revised design exception processes.
• Review current internal training programs on design exceptions and risk management to seek opportunities to include information on the HSM; and where no such training exists, consider developing it as part of an overall safety and project development training initiative. Note that FHWA’s document “Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions” which was written prior to publication of the HSM actually includes technical content on safety performance from the same research sources as were cited in the HSM.

Data and Data Systems

Data to support implementation include crash records, traffic volume data, roadway inventory and traffic control data such as locations of signalized and stop-controlled intersections. As noted above, such data are typically maintained by different offices and different data management systems. For traffic volume and roadway inventory data the quality of the data may reflect other needs such as asset management systems. Data managers will need to understand the level of data quality needed to support HSM analyses. Investments in increased coverage or updating of data will need to be considered. For example, the agency may wish to consider expansion of intersection traffic volume counting programs. The extent of such investments should reflect and influence decisions about how the agency will adopt the HSM Part C predictive methods for their system (discussed below). The NCHRP Research Results Digest (2008) offers a reference to the data requirements to support the HSM.

Many questions need answering, such as: Who owns the data needed for implementation? (crashes, driver licensing, roadway geometry, design information, traffic data); Are the crashes geo-referenced? How complete are the different data sources? Are data available for all roads in the state or just state-maintained roads? How often are databases updated? How can the agency integrate data sources geographically? Is the data infrastructure compatible across data sources? What are the resources – funding and staffing – needed to implement improved data and data systems?

Virtually all state HSM Implementation plans will include acquisition of data not already gathered. These may include additional traffic volume information, alignment data, and roadside condition data. In working with IT staff, the full vision of eventual data needs to be understood and accommodated. This may not occur for five years or more, but the technology requirements to be able to collect, maintain, and use all potential data need to be understood.

Information Technology

Most agencies do not currently maintain data systems robust enough to support full HSM analyses. Implementation of the HSM will require establishing close relationships with IT staff to outline what needs to be done to facilitate implementation. Many questions need answering, such as: How often are databases updated? Who has access to databases for analyses? What types of security are necessary to safeguard sensitive information? If consultants outside the agency are used routinely how will access to these data sources by their staff be managed? Are policies and procedures in place to accommodate for any liability and risk concerns that may exist? Is legal or risk management part of considerations related to implementation? Are there any existing tools in place at the agency? Are any other tools anticipated to support HSM implementation? How can the database infrastructure support seamless integration of these tools – is a phased approach necessary?

Development of Tools for HSM Implementation

The HSM contains presentation and documentation of models, and worksheets and methodology descriptions. Two types of tools will be needed for efficient application of the HSM – network screening tools and project-level design tools.

Many states are implementing SafetyAnalyst to serve as the basis for Part B HSM methods. SafetyAnalyst is a software tool which supports safety management decision-making by state and local highway agencies using state-of-the-art analytical methods. SafetyAnalyst was developed through an FHWA-pooled funds study and is now offered as AASHTO-Ware. Many states are implementing SafetyAnalyst to serve as the basis for Part B HSM methods. For example, Ohio is currently using SafetyAnalyst to develop a new roadway safety management process. Working together with their IT department was critical in implementing the software. Assistance for states encountering technical difficulties in getting SafetyAnalyst to work is available through the service units for those licensing SafetyAnalyst or through FHWA for states considering licensing SafetyAnalyst. For project-level design analysis, FHWA’s Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) contains all Part C predictive models. IHSDM is a suite of software tools that support project-level geometric design decisions by providing quantitative information on the expected safety and operational performance. FHWA will continue the use of IHSDM as the support platform for Part C predictive models in future editions of the HSM. The IHSDM software is available for free download. The National Highway Institute (NHI) offers training in the IHSDM.

For many applications such as small project or site specific analyses, simple spreadsheet tools will suffice. Some states are developing their own tools. NCHRP Project 17-38 produced a spreadsheet designed as a training tool; this has been adopted and refined by some states for their use. These spreadsheets can be downloaded from the AASHTO HSM web site.

Budgets for Implementation

Implementation efforts will require both staff time and other budgets. These will generally come from reallocation and deferral of other agency priorities. External assistance in many areas is available and thus should be considered. In addition to the Federal funding programs that would generally support research and implementation, State Planning and Research (SPR) funds, state training set-asides, and STP funding, other sources at the Division Office, such as technology transfer funding may be available to support implementation of the HSM.

Some states have undertaken their own research or development efforts for their own HSM-type tools. University partners can assist states here using funds to perform implementation tasks such as development of safety performance functions, benefit/cost tools, or conduct special studies of CMFs of interest to the state.

While the law (23 U.S.C. 148) and regulation (23 CFR 924) governing the HSIP lists transportation safety planning and improvement in the collection and analysis of safety data as eligible highway safety improvement projects, these activities must directly support HSIP implementation efforts. Activities supported with HSIP funds should address SHSP priorities, be supported by a data-driven process, and be used where they are likely to achieve significant reductions in fatalities and serious injuries.

States may leverage other federal-aid funds to support HSM implementation efforts. For example, state planning and research funds can be used to support data collection efforts. In addition, training is an eligible expense under core federal-aid programs. Improvements to the collection and analysis of safety data can also be funded by NHTSA Section 402 and 408 State Highway Safety Grant Programs.

Initiate HSM Training

Training of staff will undoubtedly be a part of any agency’s plan. Indeed, it tends to be among the first things discussed and conducted. Before signing up for training, review the agency’s plan for overall implementation. Focus on training materials that will address early action items. Lessons learned from states who were early recipients of training include the following insights:

• Resist the urge to train everyone initially or at once. Think strategically about which staff within the agency needs to learn the HSM first. This may be a select group of mid-level or senior managers or PMs; technical experts, and others who can be trusted to transfer the knowledge to others.
• Recruit and encourage senior leadership participation in at least part of the training to “set the stage” and send a clear message that implementing the HSM is a top priority of the agency, and that it will be beneficial to them and their customers.
• Seek trainers who are capable of tailoring the training to the agency’s needs, systems, and terminology. DOTs that have invested a little money in tailoring the standard, available materials from NCHRP or FHWA have found staff understand better and are more receptive when they recognize references to their processes, data systems, manuals, etc.
• Consider commissioning different training for different staff within the agency. Most available core training materials address all four parts of the HSM. Training for planning and program staff, may best focus on the Part B materials and on the applications and use of SafetyAnalyst. Training of traffic engineering and design staff may best focus on Parts C (predictive methods) and D (CMFs).
• Include FHWA Division staff in training sessions, regardless of who the trainers are and whether Division staff has undergone their own training. Everyone will be working together and using the new materials. Having open discussions of how things will work, what assumptions will be needed, what approaches seem best will foster a cooperative learning environment and minimize conflicts in actual project settings.
• Incorporate into the training a module where the vision for implementation and the agency’s implementation plan are laid out and discussed. This can include the ongoing activities within the agency, timeframes, and individuals and offices included. This module can serve to solicit volunteers to be included in the roll-out of the new material.

A final important point regarding training involves the skills and capabilities and credibility of the trainers themselves. The HSM presents new safety concepts. HSM trainers must have sufficient fundamental knowledge of the new concepts, and be able to effectively communicate them. Among the more important concepts are why the use of crash rate is not the optimal approach, how to compute predicted crash frequencies using the Part C predictive methods, and how to incorporate both actual crash history and predicted crashes to compute expected crashes using the Empirical Bayes’ techniques. They also should be able to explain the relationship between Part D contents and FHWA’s CMF Clearinghouse.

FHWA has also recently released the Highway Safety Manual Training Guide as a resource document for state DOTs that are developing HSM training plans. It focuses on identifying HSM training currently available to state and local agencies who are considering implementation of the HSM, as well as identifying additional courses under development. Several training opportunities exist for highway safety and safety analysis, but the guide focuses only on courses directly applicable to content in the HSM and only those provided by NHI, FHWA, and ITE. The HSM training guide is available on-line.

Develop Sustainable Technical Expertise

Agencies should have one or more staff at mid- to senior-level management with a deep understanding of what the HSM is and represents. Many states participated in research and development efforts for the HSM and FHWA companion projects such as SafetyAnalyst and the IHSDM. Such internal knowledge is helpful to explain benefits and value to the organization.

Most states will find it necessary to acquire additional expertise. Sources may include:

• Technical training of staff with their assignment as internal experts/resources;
• Retaining of on-call consultants with HSM expertise or background (this strategy can be stand-alone, or used as part of on-call contracting for traffic engineering or related services);
• FHWA Resource Center, Headquarters, and Division Office staff (for conducting of training and consultation on initial project applications); and
• Contracting with University resources who have demonstrated expertise in the HSM contents and concepts.

Such expertise can be used to help the DOT with certain aspects of implementation, or merely with review and analysis of projects as well as revision of policies. The AASHTO HSM User Discussion Forum provides technical assistance to users. A number of support products, such as the HSM User Guide and the HSM Training Guide are currently under development. Once finalized and published, these documents will also be posted on the AASHTO HSM web site or a link to the particular document will be provided on the AASHTO HSM web site.

Technology Transfer to External Partners

Each agency’s plan should envision significant outreach to their partners within the state. County engineers, cities, and MPOs will all eventually need to implement the HSM on their system as well. Clearly, a state needs first to deal with its own data, staff, and systems. Given that in most states at least half the fatalities occur on the local system, outreach and cooperation will need to take place.

A well-thought-out plan envisions eventual institutionalization of the HSM, but recognizes the practical time and resource limitations. A common challenge is the limited technical expertise and resources of county public works agencies. In many instances the county engineer may lack an engineering degree. Strategies to develop and nurture this outreach include:

• Inviting local agencies to attend HSM training, either as a separate group or with the DOT. (The Alabama DOT included a number of County engineers in their initial training in 2010. As part of this effort the county engineers were given copies of the HSM paid for by the state. This was a significant action, as the county engineers noted that they lacked budgets to purchase expensive manuals like the HSM.)
• Enlist the LTAP centers to develop and deliver training on proven, low-cost treatments as for country roads as documented in the HSM.
• Offer technical assistance either using DOT staff or consultants to work with and for the local agencies to apply the HSM methods on their programs, offer additional investments in data acquisition and management to local agencies so that their system can be evaluated in a manner consistent with that of the state system.

Organizational Needs and Issues

The implementation team will need to make decisions regarding what fundamental approaches will be followed in actual implementation of the HSM. These decisions should reflect full understanding of not just initial work, but continuing upkeep and maintenance of the system; the organizational structure of the agency; and business processes.

Implementation actions, timing and needs will vary depending on the organization’s size, structure, and operations. State DOTs can be broadly characterized as either centrally focused or decentralized. In the former, programs are built and projects managed at the Central Office. Geographic responsibilities may be limited to maintenance and operating regimes. In the latter instance, District or Regional staff may be located throughout the state, with professionals building their own programs (following Central Office-driven policies and procedures) and managing their own projects.

Clearly, in the case of decentralized operations the time to successfully implement a new technology or procedure will be greater. This is not just a function of resources but also of reaching professional staff, conducting training and outreach, and in many cases “persuading” them to adopt the new methods. Lessons learned from one lead state, the Illinois DOT, suggest that early positive engagement with regional staff is important, as is patience in rolling out the new approaches. Also, offering “hands-on” assistance to staff through development of tools, making technical resources (DOT staff, on-call consultants) available, or other measures also is important. Finally, seeking out and working directly with District “champions” can help sell the new approaches. This mirrors the “Lead State” approach FHWA and AASHTO promote.

You will need the Adobe Reader to view the PDFs on this page.

<< Section 1

Table of Contents

Section 3 >>