Transportation Knowledge Networks: A Management Strategy for the 21st Century -- Special Report 284 (2006)

In this chapter the committee presents its proposal for a nationwide transportation information management system to help guide and manage the services required to meet the information needs of the transportation sector in the 21st century. The chapter starts with a review of models for managing information services from other sectors. Drawing on this experience, the committee presents its approach, tailored to the transportation sector, and outlines potential benefits. Next, the critical building blocks of the system—transportation knowledge networks (TKNs) and a coordinating mechanism—are described in turn, and their core functions and services are defined. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of what is necessary to implement the recommended system.

The committee examined the characteristics of national libraries and networks of information service providers in other major economic sectors—the National Library of Medicine (NLM), the National Agricultural Library (NAL), and the National Library of Education (NLE)—as potential models for the transportation sector. Also examined were nongovernmental consortia of library and information professionals, as well as other transportation networks. Special attention was focused on the organization and development of network structures in recognition of the important role played by networks in the information age and their potential for organizing the provision of transportation information.

NLM is the gold standard of national libraries. The National Library of Medicine Act of 1956 authorized the creation of NLM to assist the

advancement of medical science through the collection, organization, and dissemination of biomedical information through widely publicized information services to health professionals.¹ In 1999, the NLM Board of Regents expanded the library’s mission to encompass the general public.

With a current (FY 2005) budget of approximately $330 million and a staff of 685 full-time federal employees supplemented by 500 contractors, NLM is the world’s largest biomedical library (see Table 2-1).² It also contracts with eight regional libraries of medicine covering the United States—the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM)—that, together with numerous academic and hospital libraries and an increasing number of public libraries, help bring NLM services to researchers, health providers, and the general public. One library—the New York Academy of Medicine—serves as a national training center and clearinghouse, providing training on NLM systems throughout the regions.³ NLM provides leadership for development of the network. NN/LM members, in turn, have access to interlibrary loan services, receive special NLM publications, are eligible to apply for various funding opportunities, and may be considered for service on the Regional Medical Library’s Regional Advisory Committee. Total funding for NN/LM was $11.5 million in FY 2005.⁴

NLM also operates several databases—the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), a major bibliographic database freely accessible on the World Wide Web; MEDLINEplus, which targets consumer health information to the general public; and GenBank, which provides DNA sequence data, as well as other data—that are easily accessed through the NLM web portal.⁵ Finally, NLM conducts both intramural

and extramural research programs on computer and information technology applications in the health sciences.

NLM is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and reports directly to the NIH director. The library has benefited from congressional interest and the growing budget of NIH in recent years. Nevertheless, it does not serve NIH researchers and administrators directly; a separate library carries out this function.⁶ A distinguished board of regents appointed by the Secretary of HHS provides oversight for NLM, helps direct long-range planning, and advises the secretary on general policies with respect to the library’s scope and services. It also serves as the advisory board for NLM’s extramural grants program. Technical advisory committees oversee NLM and related information center operations.

Among the strengths of NLM are a broad and clear mandate, constituent backing and congressional support, financial stability, efficacious governance arrangements, a successful history of long-range planning, a national network of more than 5,000 libraries through which to provide its services, a research program that enables it to remain on the cutting edge of technology developments, and reliable and useful products (linked databases and user-friendly search capability) provided through a single portal—the NLM website. Although the transportation sector is unlikely to replicate either the budget or staffing levels of NLM, it could emulate many of the keys to its success, such as its strong network, effective governance arrangements, and useful products.

Founded as the departmental library for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1862, NAL was officially designated a national library by Congress in 1990.⁷ Its mission is to increase the availability and use of agricultural information for researchers, educators, policy makers, consumers of agricultural products, and the general public. In addition to its own collections, NAL coordinates a national network of state land-grant and

USDA field libraries—the United States Agricultural Information Network (USAIN); supports a bibliographic database, Agricultural OnLine Access (AGRICOLA), of citations to the agricultural literature; provides DigiTop, a digital desktop library that brings published information on agriculture and related sciences to the desktops of USDA employees; operates seven national centers that provide information on such key topics as alternative farming, animal welfare, and food and nutrition; and collaborates with universities and other partners in the Agriculture Network Information Center (AgNIC), which provides reliable web-based information and expertise on food, agriculture, and natural resources to national and international users.

In contrast to those of NLM, NAL networks of information providers operate more autonomously and receive limited financial support from NAL.⁸ For example, USAIN is a people network, not an electronic network, and all support is provided by the elected officers and shared among participating institutions.⁹ Over the years, USAIN has performed a wide range of activities that include offering opportunities for networking at annual meetings, providing a forum for member discussion of agricultural issues, and sponsoring conferences. AgNIC—an alliance of NAL, land-grant universities, and others—operates as a voluntary organization of equal partners with minimal overhead and bureaucracy. NAL provides the secretariat, comprising an AgNIC coordinator and an information technology specialist, and hosts the central AgNIC website. Members take responsibility for small segments of agricultural information, and at their own cost develop websites and reference services within specific subject areas. An executive board (consisting primarily of representatives of AgNIC institutions) provides administrative oversight, and a coordinating committee of representatives from each alliance member sets policy and operating procedures (e.g., standards for website design), determines subjects and content development for websites, and sets the agenda for outreach and dissemination efforts.

With relatively flat funding over the past decade and a current budget (FY 2005) of about $25 million that supports a staff of 168 full-time federal employees and 68 contractors, NAL has, according to a recent assessment, operated satisfactorily as the USDA library but not met expectations as a national library (NAL 2002) (see Table 2-1). The assessment panel recommended new leadership and a significant increase in resources to support such services as a greatly enhanced AGRICOLA (similar to NLM’s MEDLINE and PubMed), further development of AgNIC as the foundation of a digital library for agriculture, and establishment of a national grant program (along the lines of the NLM model) for innovative and collaborative digital projects in agricultural information systems.¹⁰ NAL was exhorted to “change its self-concept from being a place to that of performing customer-driven functions and … of being the hub through which every item can be obtained online anytime” (NAL 2002, E3).

A new director of NAL was hired in 2002. Although many of the assessment panel’s recommendations have not yet been implemented or the necessary resources secured, the director views his role as providing the leadership and strategic vision required to reinvent NAL from a library focused on a building to a customer-driven operation linking people, services, and systems. In his view, accomplishing this goal will require a well-articulated vision, customer-users connected with the information they need, and strong stakeholder support. These objectives are being accomplished through such initiatives as convening a leadership council focused on the future of agricultural information, strengthening congressional relationships, and promoting NAL as coordinator of a national network of information specialists that serves a broader audience than USDA.

NLE is a relative latecomer as a national library. The Department of Education (DOE) was founded in 1980.¹¹ The library served the department

only, although inadequately according to a study by the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office),¹² until 1994, when the Clinton administration signed into law a bill substantially expanding its mission and functions and designating it the National Library of Education.¹³ Under the authorizing legislation, NLE was to serve as the federal government’s principal center for the collection, preservation, and effective utilization of education-related information; ensure widespread access to the library’s facilities and materials covering all education issues and subjects; provide quality control; have an expert library staff; and use modern information technology with the potential to link major libraries, schools, and educational centers across the United States into a network of national education resources. The first NLE director sought to create a National Education Network, modeled on USAIN, to carry out the library’s charge of promoting greater cooperation and resource sharing among libraries and archives with significant education collections. Unfortunately, NLE’s ambitious mission was not accompanied by congressionally authorized funding.

NLE was reauthorized by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, which specified a more focused mission.¹⁴ Today with a current (FY 2005) budget of approximately $9 million, six full-time federal staff (three professionals and three support staff), two primary contractors, and numerous subcontractors, NLE operates as part of the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of DOE (see Table 2-1). The library collects and archives information on a wide range of topics related to education. It makes this collection available to DOE staff and contractors and to a broader audience through local libraries. NLE operates the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), a large bibliographic database of education literature that can be freely searched on line, with links to about

150,000 free-text documents. Finally, NLE provides virtual reference services to DOE staff, other government agencies, and the general public. The current leadership has chosen to carry out the library’s mission to foster cooperation and resource sharing among providers of education information through the ERIC program, working with the Online Computer Library Center’s (OCLC’s) WorldCat and selected libraries, as well as with secondary vendors of the ERIC database and content providers, to improve access to education information. The National Education Network is largely dormant.

Although some differences in function among NLE, NLM, and NAL are recognized, NLE has not achieved the comprehensiveness of either NLM or NAL, despite its designation as a national library. This may be explained in part by the fact that by some accounts, NLE has never been provided sufficient funding or personnel¹⁵ or received strong support from DOE leadership. The importance of these factors should be kept in mind in creating a transportation information management system.

The committee was briefed on two nongovernmental library consortia that could also serve as models for organizing the provision of transportation information. Although there are many other such networks, the two organizations—the Southeast Library Network, Inc. (SOLINET) and the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)—represent two different approaches to networking. SOLINET has a sizable staff and provides numerous member services, while CNI is small and provides strategic leadership.

A membership-based, not-for-profit library cooperative founded in 1973, SOLINET provides leadership, cooperative initiatives, and a full line of services for some 2,500 libraries in the southeastern United States. It is the largest regional library network in the United States. Among the services provided to members are access to OCLC and various databases on a dis-

counted basis, conferences and workshops, training, and opportunities for networking. Annual revenues of $48 million ($40.5 million of which is pass-through) support a staff of about 60. SOLINET’s executive office develops programs, policies, and budgets, with oversight provided by a six-member board of directors. Three board members are elected from the membership, and three are experts drawn from outside the library community. Several advisory groups help guide the development of products and services.

Also a member-based and -financed coalition, CNI was founded in 1990 to provide programs related to the development and use of networked information for institutions representing higher education.¹⁶ In contrast to SOLINET, CNI is a small, staff-driven organization of six (three full-time) with an annual budget of approximately $1.2 million. It provides strategic advice and expertise (but not services) to its membership on such issues as developing and managing networked information content; building technology, standards, and infrastructure; and developing new competencies and collaborations among professions and professionals. CNI is funded entirely by 200 dues-paying members. Its primary activities include preparation of white papers, provision of advice and expertise, monitoring of existing programs, and planning for new initiatives. It hosts two membership meetings per year that highlight the latest developments in networked information. The coalition is governed by a steering committee that includes three at-large members from outside the library and information technology community, who bring other expertise and breadth to the governance structure. The success of the organization is attributed to the loyalty of its members and the value added by its knowledgeable staff.

The transportation community operates a network of Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) centers through the Federal Highway Admin-

istration (FHWA) that could be a model for organizing networks of transportation information providers if not in substance, at least in form. Begun in 1982 as the Rural Technical Assistance Program, LTAP was expanded to include local officials in urban areas (with populations of up to 1 million). The program is funded at $55 million for FY 2005 through FY 2009 by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.

From its initial 10 centers, LTAP has grown to become a nationwide network of 57 centers located in universities and state departments of transportation (DOTs), serving each state, Puerto Rico, and six regional centers that in turn serve tribal governments. The aims of the LTAP centers are to improve communications among relevant agencies, encourage technology transfer and adoption, and synthesize best practices (TRB 1999). A variety of activities—including information exchange and dissemination, technical assistance, and training—help centers accomplish these goals. The program also supports a national LTAP information clearinghouse operated by the American Public Works Association and publishes a newsletter.

Funding is shared. Each center receives annual FHWA funding of approximately $100,000, which must be matched by equivalent or greater nonfederal funds. A National LTAP Association, with an executive committee drawn from local centers in each of the 10 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regions, meets annually and serves as a mechanism to facilitate communication and coordination among association members and other government, academic, and private institutions and associations.

A well-conceived system for transportation information management must be tailored to the decentralized character of the transportation sector and user community, the uneven development of libraries and other transportation information providers and services across the country, and resource constraints at all government levels. Networks offer an appealing structure that conforms to the decentralized character of the transportation system. Moreover, as previously discussed, regional networks are an integral part of information delivery systems in other sectors, such as

health and agriculture. The transportation sector could organize similarly to bring information services to transportation users. Unlike health and agriculture, however, transportation does not have a system of strong libraries and information providers in each region; the institutional infrastructure to enable networked operations must be developed.

The information technology revolution provides an opportunity for transportation libraries and other information providers to organize and deliver transportation information in new ways. Networks are the organizing structure in the information age, and they can provide the backbone of a well-coordinated transportation information system. In its judgment, the committee believes that the model that best fits the decentralized transportation sector is a distributed network of customer-driven, managed TKNs linking information providers and users wherever they are located.

Although a decentralized model of knowledge networks is envisioned, the committee recognizes the need for a mechanism at the national level to coordinate and manage the activities of the TKNs. The absence of such an institutional arrangement has been recognized as one of the major shortfalls of the current piecemeal system of information provision to the broad and diverse transportation user community. A better system would include a well-funded and strategically focused coordinating structure at the national level to help build and guide the development of TKNs across the nation and to provide the necessary leadership and support so that users will obtain value from networked operations.

The coordinating structure and the TKNs can be conceived of as a pyramid, with the coordinating organization overarching a much larger system of TKNs in all U.S. regions and at the federal level (see Figure 2-1). Together, these entities would fulfill the vision the transportation community first set forth in the 1970s for a network of information services and users coordinated at the national level. To be successful, the TKNs and coordinating structure must encompass the breadth and diversity of the organizations, interests, and geographic locations of those professionals in

FIGURE 2-1 Proposed nationwide system for transportation information management. (BTS = Bureau of Transportation Statistics; MPO = metropolitan planning organization; RITA = Research and Innovative Technology Administration.)

transportation and related fields who will use their services. Thus, they must be

• Multisector, representing public-sector providers and users of transportation information (e.g., USDOT, state and local governments, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations), as well as universities and the private sector;

• Multimodal, including all transportation modes (highways, public transportation, rail, air, waterways, and pipelines); and

• Multigovernmental (local, regional, national, and international).

The proposed system of TKNs and a coordinating structure should provide long-overdue leadership in the provision of information services to the transportation community. The national-level coordinating structure, in particular, would play a central role in helping ensure that information services are available in every region of the United States through networks of transportation information service providers.

A primary benefit of the above system that would distinguish it from the current system is improved user access to transportation and related information. Rapid delivery of reliable information can assist transportation professionals in decisions ranging from selection of better designs and materials for facility construction and preservation, to adoption of state-of-the-practice operating strategies, to identification of cutting-edge research and technologies for further study and application. The coordinating structure operating through the TKNs would help provide the information infrastructure and tools necessary for the delivery of such information—directly to the desktops of individual users where possible, through user-friendly, single-portal electronic gateways. Box 2-1 provides a description of how such a system would function from the user’s perspective.

The new system should also help achieve efficiencies in the provision of information services through partnerships and collaborations, for example, by rationalizing library and collection holdings, creating centers of specialization (e.g., by subject area, mode), and coordinating the preservation and storage of printed and electronic materials. In today’s business environment, in which transportation professionals are asked to do more with less, networking and coordination can help leverage resources, minimize duplication, and stretch budgets for libraries and information services.

Finally, the new system should foster sharing of expertise. This function would include professional capacity building for librarians and other transportation information professionals to help them incorporate new information technologies and remain abreast of rapidly changing technology advances. It would also involve basic training and technical assistance to help ensure, for example, that technical reports are catalogued, if not digitized, so they can be accessed more widely. More training would be developed for users in how to search for and locate transportation information more efficiently and rapidly.

The committee believes that TKNs should be established in every region of the United States.¹⁷ The transportation sector has a working model for establishing regional networks in the Midwest Transportation Knowledge Network (MTKN)—the network of state DOT, university, and corporate libraries described in the previous chapter. MTKN could be replicated in other regions of the country. For example, regional networks could be developed on the basis of the four American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) regions. If these regions are too large, the 10 USDOT regions or some other regional grouping might provide more manageably sized regional coverage.

Each region should have a lead core group that would manage network development, interface with the other networks and the national coordinating structure, and play a role in network governance (discussed in the following chapter). For example, in addition to NTL, the primary leaders in developing MTKN were two state DOTs—Minnesota and Wisconsin; a university transportation center—the University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies; and the Northwestern University Transportation Library. The composition of the leadership group in each region should depend on the institutional strengths and resources of that region and would best be left to network members to determine.

Transportation libraries, information services, and professional capacity differ widely across regions. For example, one reason the Midwest was selected for a pilot network was the strength of its transportation libraries and librarians at both state DOTs and universities. This well-established group of library and information professionals already knew one another and were active in transportation and library organizations, thereby making it easier to coordinate and activate MTKN. Developing similar networks in other regions of the country may require more marketing, communications, and training. The MTKN model offers sufficient flexibility to tailor networks to local resources and needs.

Over time, the coverage of regional TKNs could be broadened in several ways. They could be extended to include other data providers, such as transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and consultants. In addition, network information content coverage could be broadened to capture statistical and geospatial data, as well as more traditional narrative information sources (e.g., books, reports, journal articles).

A TKN is needed at the federal level to coordinate transportation information provided by libraries, collections, and related statistical programs and databases at federal agencies. NTL should take the lead in organizing this federal network as part of its mission to work with other transportation libraries and information providers. Other key participants should include the headquarters library at USDOT, the libraries and collections of the USDOT modal administrations, the Turner-Fairbank Reference Technical Center, the Volpe Transportation Library, and the transportation-related libraries and collections of other federal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USDA, DOE). The planned move of USDOT to a new headquarters facility in the next few years offers an opportunity not only for relocating but also for rethinking departmental library operations. Consolidation or better coordination of library functions across the department should achieve operating efficiencies and free up funds that could be used for improving information services. In addition, providers of transportation-related statistical programs and databases—at a minimum, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the statistical programs of the major USDOT modal administrations (e.g., FHWA, the National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)—should be represented in the federal TKN.

The fundamental mission of the TKNs at both the regional and federal levels should be to increase coordination and collaboration among transportation libraries and other information providers so that transportation

information users—managers, engineers, planners, and researchers—will be better able to find and apply to their programs and projects the most recent, credible, and validated technical information.¹⁸ The network should offer a forum to pool resources, collaborate in the development and provision of services, and share expertise and best practices.

The key functions and services provided by the TKNs should be user driven. The committee drew on numerous sources to identify user views on needed transportation information services and current gaps. These sources included interviews with a wide range of customers conducted as part of a scoping study undertaken in anticipation of this study (Harder and Tucker 2003),¹⁹ discussions with selected committees representing information service providers and users at the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) 2005 Annual Meeting,²⁰ a roundtable discussion on this topic from the information provider and user perspectives at the first committee meeting, and discussions with members of AASHTO’s Research Advisory Committee and the Standing Committee on Research of AASHTO at various committee meetings. On the basis of these discussions and its own judgment, the committee agreed on a core list of functions and services for the TKNs, summarized in Box 2-2.

Realizing the full value of the TKNs will require a mechanism at the national level to coordinate and manage their activities.

The primary mission of a coordinating mechanism would be to provide sustained leadership and harmonization for the TKNs. The coordinating structure could help develop collection and reference strategies to minimize duplication, manage appropriate document storage redundancy, take advantage of economies of scale, ensure interoperability across networks so that operations are seamless to users, and share best practices to obtain the greatest value from networked operations. For example, the coordinating structure could help realize economies of scale across the system of TKNs by working with them to develop policies for rationalizing library collections and to create centers of specialization that would reduce duplication in holdings across individual libraries and information providers. In addition, the coordinating structure could establish cooperative purchasing pools and pass along the savings from group discounts to member TKNs. The coordinating structure could also help ensure network interoperability by encouraging and supporting the development of common standards and protocols and common enabling information infrastructure technologies to support network operations.

NLM and NAL perform this coordinating function in the health and agricultural sectors, respectively. The committee reviewed a wide range of options for placement of such a coordinating structure in the transportation sector—the subject of the next chapter.

In addition to its leadership role, the coordinating structure would play an important part in the development of the TKNs. Like NTL in its sponsoring of MTKN, the coordinating structure would provide seed funds and technical support for network development and assist in inventorying key data and information providers and other resources (in-kind as well as financial) that could be brought to bear in setting up the networks. Another, related key activity would be marketing and communications. The coordinating structure would act as a focal point for promoting the value of information and information services and attracting adequate resources for this purpose. It would also handle government relations, including links with international information providers.

In addition, the coordinating structure would perform several functions in direct support of the TKNs. It would have a convening function, bringing TKN members together to share experiences—at an annual meeting at a minimum. It would assist the TKNs in planning and setting priorities for networkwide projects and initiatives. It would also provide administrative support for TKN operations through a small core staff.

The coordinating structure would have responsibility for developing enabling information infrastructure and tools in support of network operations, such as appropriate user interfaces and one-stop search portals. It would help develop common standards and protocols, including policies concerning authentication of materials, storage and redundancy of materials, and security. The coordinating structure would conduct research to help librarians and information professionals remain on the cutting edge of technology innovations and best practices to better serve users. It would also survey users periodically to stay abreast of their changing needs. Finally, the coordinating structure would engage in professional capacity-building activities for TKN members and users more generally, including curriculum development and technical assistance to individual TKNs. Box 2-3 provides a summary of these core functions and services.

One way to raise awareness of the benefits of the proposed transportation information management system would be to develop a highly useful product that would require the cooperation of multiple information providers and demonstrably benefit users. The Transportation Libraries Catalog (TLCat), which was developed through a partnership among NTL, MTKN, and OCLC, is a good example of this type of approach. The first group catalogue for transportation professionals, TLCat has simpli-

fied and increased access to transportation information resources by state DOT research directors and other transportation officials. It has allowed them to find reports and other documents of participating transportation libraries in a single catalogue (OCLC Group Services 2004; MTKN 2004).

A similar tool could be developed by the coordinating structure as part of a marketing drive to encourage membership in the TKNs. For example, many transportation projects require consideration of environmental impacts, sometimes through formal environmental impact statements (EISs). A geographic information system-based tool could be developed to link regional and local data for environmental assessments. Additional information on regulations for EISs, analysis methods and examples, and contacts for further information could be provided as part of a one-stop portal available to practitioners at their desktops from a new website for the TKNs and coordinating structure.

This chapter has laid out an ambitious proposal for a system of TKNs and a national coordinating structure that could help provide transportation leaders and practitioners alike with the information needed to make good decisions. Making the case for a more substantial and long-overdue investment in managing transportation information resources is not difficult. Turning the vision into a reality, however, requires good choices regarding administration and funding of the system, the topics of the following two chapters.

GAO General Accounting Office

MTKN Midwest Transportation Knowledge Network

NAL National Agricultural Library

OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

TRB Transportation Research Board

GAO. 1991. Education’s Library: Actions to Improve Its Usefulness. HRD-91-61. Washington, D.C., April 11.

Harder, B., and S. Tucker. 2003. Scoping Study for a National Strategic Plan for Transportation Information Management. Draft Final Report, Project 20-7, Task 142. Prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, May.

MTKN. 2004. Making Connections. Brochure.

NAL. 2002. National Agricultural Library Assessment Report—2001. Aug. www.nal.usda.gov/assessment. Accessed April 22, 2005.

OCLC Group Services. 2004. The First Group Catalog for Transportation Professionals, Success Story: Transportation Libraries Catalog, Dublin, Ohio.

Outsell, Inc. 2004. TrendAlert: The Future of Libraries. InfoAboutInfo Briefing, Vol. 7, Jan. 9.

TRB. 1999. Special Report 256: Managing Technology Transfer: A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administration. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.