U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
This section summarizes the following actions to improve data management and discusses each action using the framework established in the introduction.
| Data Analysis | Action | Priority | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Develop a reference for States to integrate data from various agencies and move towards a modern relational database with a comprehensive data clearinghouse for centralized and decentralized structures. | HIGH | |
| B | Provide a reference to include pilots and case studies for State DOT leaders
to understand how highly ranked data management States use data governance and data management through a strong IT-driven data governance process or alternative means. |
CRITICAL | |
| C | Develop a common glossary of terms can assist safety professionals to
understand information technology (IT) terminology and vice versa. |
HIGH | |
| D | Provide a reference for State DOTs to understand the benefits of how to use data management documentation to retain institutional knowledge, practices, organizational structures, etc. | HIGH | |
| E | Develop a reference for State DOTs that includes talking points and
training webinars on data sharing expectations for roadway safety data for the public and between stakeholders. |
MEDIUM | |
| F | Develop and implement performance measurement models where
system-wide performance is monitored. |
MEDIUM | |
| G | Conduct model pilots and case studies on data quality management from
highly ranked data management States. |
CRITICAL | |
| H | Develop and implement USDOT coordination models where FHWA Division
Offices coordinate with NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and the three administrations act in concert, eliminate duplicative efforts, and mutually reinforce USDOT objectives. |
HIGH | |
As recorded in the peer exchanges, there are four types of roadway safety data systems:
While putting everything into a centralized model requires a lot of effort and can be difficult to implement, tools for integrating data sets are getting better, and it may be easier to combine data in a data mart or a smaller data warehouse.
Enterprise-wide data systems require a coordinated organizational effort and a long range vision of where and how data resources are deployed. An enterprise data system requires commitment from across an organization, but the payoff can be huge. They often fail because there are not enough personnel or financial resources, and the timeframes are often too short. As agencies experience some failures in implementing this concept, successes will follow.
"Big data" is a hot topic now and there has always been a focus on decision-making. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) projects are looking at geographic information systems (GIS), business intelligence, and applications of data to intelligent decision-making. Tools are getting better to do these things; however, the hardest part is integrating the data across an enterprise. FHWA can assist by exploring these structures further and demonstrating the models. States need to know best practices in shifting into a GIS warehouse or traffic safety data fusion center.
HIGH – This action was supported by the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 15 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data management emphasis area.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☒ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☒ | Other: Model Pilots | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that new case studies and pilots provide guidance on how to structure data management practices and integrate the data across an enterprise. States want to know what the pros and cons are to the various data management structures and decide which structure would best assist them in meeting their safety analysis needs. These case studies would support States to meet their safety data capability needs in the most efficient and cost-effective data management structure.
There is no obvious goal for data management of highway safety data. Should States truly aspire to having a strong IT-driven data governance process, or, should they strive to have systems and data to meet users' needs regardless of how they are governed? These two concerns are not incompatible, but we often see that the system management initiatives in safety data are placed too low in the set of IT priorities and that, as a result, users are left either without data or having to develop work-arounds to get their jobs done. At the national level, some case studies or pilots of successful partnerships among the creators, managers, and users of systems are needed. In particular, if data governance is a "goal", then practitioners have to be convinced that inviting IT into the process can result in better systems, more responsive support, and, ultimately, more satisfied users. This is one key area of the RSDP capabilities matrix where we had several States shying away from the "top" level of capability because, in their present environments, it would mean turning control of a key system over to adversaries in the IT group. FHWA can help to develop the models for how data governance can work. This is also a good opportunity for peer exchange in which States could describe how they succeeded (or failed) and what other States can do to replicate the successes and avoid the pitfalls.
CRITICAL – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments. The team also identified this as a key priority to move data improvements forward in involved States. It was supported by the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 6 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data management emphasis area.
| ☐ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☒ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☒ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☒ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☒ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☐ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☒ | Other: Pilots |
The project team recommends new case studies and pilots to provide guidance on how highly ranked data management States use data governance and how to advance system management initiatives. States want to know how successful IT partnerships among the system developers, managers, and users can benefit practitioners through better systems, more responsive support, and satisfied users. These case studies and pilots would dovetail into the previous proposed action. The case studies would support States to meet their safety data capability needs by documenting what works well and how to select the best data management model to match a particular need. This reference should note how to advance and elevate system management initiatives involving safety data higher in the set of IT priorities. Case studies should include national data governance models where successful IT partnerships among the system developers, managers, and users benefit practitioners through better systems, more responsive support, and satisfied users.
Early on in the pilot portion of the data capabilities assessment, the team found that the original data management portion of the questionnaire was not understood by the States. As a result, there was a significant revision performed to clarify and simplify this section of the assessment. A number of the questions were placed in the appendix and set aside specifically for IT professionals to respond to as the IT language was not understood by transportation engineers. Similarly, IT professionals often do not grasp the language, vision, mission, and goals of traffic safety engineers and planners. There is no ready resource describing to IT professionals the process of data collection, analysis, and management to achieve the end goals of selecting sites with promise to fund appropriate 4-E improvements. FHWA can provide guidance to bridge the language differences between IT professionals and safety professionals.
HIGH – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments. It was supported by the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 7 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data management emphasis area.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☐ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☐ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that a new guidebook be developed to bridge the language differences between IT professionals and safety professionals. This guidebook would support both safety and IT professionals to communicate needs and limitations regarding people, policies, and technology. It is recommended that this glossary be combined with the action following this one.
With high turnover rates, retirements, and downsizing, documenting data management policies are critical to pass knowledge of systems and procedures onto the next set of employees to keep critical systems functioning and productive. Data management policies were the lowest ranked element in the data capabilities assessment nationwide. FHWA can provide information on the benefits of utilizing the best practices in IT policies as it relates to safety data management to retain institutional knowledge.
HIGH – This action was supported by the first two peer exchanges. The team also identified this as a key priority to move data improvements forward in involved States. In the last two peer exchanges, 8 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data management emphasis area.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that common and noteworthy data management documentation techniques or policies be catalogued by topic area to retain institutional knowledge through policy documentation. These best practices would support State DOTs to pass critical institutional knowledge onto the next set of employees to keep these important systems functioning and productive.
Throughout the peer exchanges, the States expressed an uncertainty on how their respective State laws affect their ability to share data between agencies and the public. Most of the concern was associated with tort liability issues. Many State DOT risk managers do not want to release detailed highway safety data to the public. This causes problems from a data quality perspective because one of the key mechanisms for identifying data improvement needs is to let as many people as possible use the data. There are no easy solutions here—tort liability is not an issue that is likely to decrease in importance without specific legislation. However, it should be possible to find examples of data access improvement that do not result in increased tort claims—several States have experience with exactly this outcome after making the data more accessible.
There is an opportunity for FHWA to set the proper expectations for communication, coordination, and cooperation. Simply raising the comfort level of risk managers with the selective release of data would be a good outcome for which to strive. By sharing State success stories, FHWA could help to counter the barriers to data access that exist in many DOTs. Other options might be to share model legislation among States so that risk managers can become aware of how other States have thought to solve the same problems.
MEDIUM – In the last two peer exchanges, 6 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data management emphasis area.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☐ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☐ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that new talking points or webinars be developed to provide safety professionals and managers a level of comfort surrounding tort liability and safety analysis. FHWA Division Offices could use these talking points to set expectations with State DOT management regarding data sharing and work through any challenges that may arise. These training webinars would support States to remove institutional barriers to effective safety data analysis. This action is similar to a data analysis action listed in the data analysis section and may be combined.
There are still too many States where system performance is measured only within a project, and not at the system-wide level. Because of this, we often know whether or not an individual project is meeting its targets, but not whether or how much the entire system has been affected. FHWA could help through the cooperative establishment of guidelines for system-wide performance measures and by setting up opportunities for States to share ideas (e.g., peer exchanges, a clearinghouse, etc.).
MEDIUM – This action was added by the team independent of the capability assessment results and the peer exchanges. It was not vetted by the peer exchange participants.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☒ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☒ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☒ | Other: Pilots | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends pilots and peer exchanges to develop and share system-wide performance measures. These interactive activities would support States to measure safety outcomes in a way broader than just individual projects.
Few States have what could be called a formal, comprehensive data quality management program. Those that do have demonstrably better data than when they started. Too many States operate under the assumption that because they are using field data collection technology and software their data are now of acceptable quality. Without measurement of data quality, they can't prove it, and, often, the improvements in quality that are achieved are the result of the easiest fixes (timeliness is better, fewer reports come in with missing data). Data quality management practices are lacking even in some of the model States for electronic field data capture. National level actions to establish methods and expectations for what constitutes both "good data" and "proper data quality management" are needed.
CRITICAL – This action was added by the team independent of the capability assessment results and the peer exchanges. It was not vetted by the peer exchange participants.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☐ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☒ | Other: Pilots |
The project team recommends case studies and pilots to establish methods and expectations for what constitutes sufficient data quality. Formalizing a comprehensive data quality management program would support States to meet their safety analysis needs.
FHWA Division Offices' efforts are not always well coordinated with their counterparts in the other surface modal agencies (FMCSA Division Offices, NHTSA Regional Offices). The States want USDOT to act in concert and, perhaps more to the point, stop the apparent duplications of effort.
There are too many unrelated strategic plans. It has created a new need: to coordinate and combine plans. This is a big undertaking in part because the plans are not always entirely compatible. States would benefit enormously from standards and examples. In particular, as States move from creating a plan to implementing it, examples of detailed action item table—what it is and how to use it—would be extremely valuable. This is one area where FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA could work together to assist States in coordinating their various plans and developing plans that mutually reinforce one another.
Some State DOTs are barred by state law from working on issues related to local roads per the interpretation of departmental lawyers at both State and local agencies. This makes it very difficult to place a "local road safety management" burden on the State DOT. Under its own State's law (or interpretation thereof) the DOT cannot legally comply. Data sharing and access to analytic resources are two good ways to bring State and local agencies into closer cooperation. This is something that FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA could work together on to foster improvement. Perhaps by targeting the largest States, the three Administrations could ensure that they gain the most for these coordination efforts.
HIGH – In the last peer exchange, 4 participants out of 9 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data management emphasis area. The team also identified this as a key priority to move data improvements forward in involved States.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☐ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☒ | Other: Model Pilots |
The project team recommends that new models of communication, coordination, and collaboration be established for USDOT agencies to act in concert, eliminate duplicative efforts, and mutually reinforce safety data objectives. FHWA, NHTSA, and other agencies would consolidate strategic planning efforts through detailed action plans that would detail how to implement the strategic plan. Division offices and State DOTs would benefit enormously from standards and examples. The Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) presents an opportunity for better coordination and standardization.
| << Previous | Table of Content | Next >> |
