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

In this chapter, various options are considered for locating the national coordinating structure described in the previous chapter. Characteristics for successful operation are defined, the pros and cons of alternative institutional arrangements are examined in light of these characteristics, and the committee’s recommendation for a sustainable administrative structure is presented. The chapter, drawing on the experience in other sectors and other transportation programs, then turns to a discussion of appropriate governance arrangements for guidance and oversight of the coordinating structure.

The coordinating structure will serve a national purpose for the transportation sector. Thus as a general principle, it should be located in an institution with a national transportation role. In addition, the following four characteristics, distilled from the models described in the previous chapter and briefings at committee meetings, are important for the successful operation of the coordinating structure:

• Independence: The coordinating structure must have a sufficient degree of autonomy to carry out its mission, plan, and set priorities. If the coordinating structure is located within an existing organization, it must have the backing of that organization’s leadership to operate in this manner. If a new structure is created, the coordinating structure will start with a clean slate and the ability to define its own mission.

• Close links with stakeholders: Libraries and other information providers must maintain close links with stakeholders so they can tailor products

to meet user needs and requirements. Such links are particularly important in today’s environment as information providers adapt to the digital age and supply many services directly to their customers. They are also critical, especially in the development phase of a new operation, to provide the strong commitment and sustained support necessary to surmount any start-up problems. Stakeholder support will be particularly critical if the coordinating structure is a new organization.

• Sustained funding: As discussed in Chapter 1, a lack of adequate resources has been a major impediment to realizing the full potential of the National Transportation Library (NTL) and creating more comprehensive networks of transportation information providers. Ad hoc funding arrangements have long characterized the provision of transportation information services generally. A successful coordinating structure requires sustained funding. Although it is highly unlikely that available funding for transportation information services will approach the levels of the health or even the agricultural sector at least in the short term, transportation could support a much broader and better-funded effort than is currently the case.

• Minimization of time and costs of start-up: Given the relatively modest amount of resources currently directed toward the provision of transportation information services (see Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1), it is particularly important to seek ways of minimizing administrative and overhead costs, thereby focusing funds on services and providing a good return on investment. Minimizing start-up time is also desirable; a more systematic approach for coordinating transportation information providers and services is long overdue.

The committee considered three options for locating the coordinating structure: placing it at the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), locating it within an existing nonfederal transportation organization, and creating a new entity (see Figure 3-1). The strengths and weaknesses of each alternative are discussed in light of the characteristics outlined above (see Table 3-1).

FIGURE 3-1 Options for locating the coordinating structure for a transportation information management system. (AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; NTL = National Transportation Library; RITA = Research and Innovative Technology Administration; TRB = Transportation Research Board; USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation.)

USDOT is the federal headquarters for nationwide multimodal transportation activities and thus is a natural location for the coordinating structure, which would have a national transportation mission. More specifically, locating the coordinating structure within the new Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) would make it part of a new agency with the attention of that agency’s current leadership. The direct involvement of Secretary Mineta in the establishment of RITA and its mission¹ to generate greater collaboration, information sharing, coordination, support, and advocacy for research make it an appropriate entity in which to house the coordinating structure. RITA is also responsible for

NTL and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the main transportation statistical agency. A well-managed coordinating structure serving a system of transportation knowledge networks (TKNs) would complement the functions of both NTL and BTS and provide natural outlets through which federally conducted research and related databases in the modal administrations at USDOT could be distributed widely to users. There is no guarantee, however, that the coordinating structure would secure the degree of backing and autonomy it would need within RITA to carry out its mission or that RITA itself will continue to have the support of USDOT leadership. Nevertheless, locating the coordinating structure within RITA offers promising conditions for a good start.

RITA also offers the potential for the coordinating structure to forge close links with key stakeholder groups. NTL, BTS, and the Office of Research, Development and Technology (which manages the University Transportation Centers program in RITA) are well known to key user groups, such as state departments of transportation (DOTs) and universities, that are critical to the development and support of a coordinating structure.

RITA also has staff, particularly at NTL, who are knowledgeable about many of the proposed functions of the coordinating structure. The coordinating structure could build on that staff and the organizational support already in place and thereby avoid lengthy start-up time and costs.

Adequate funding for the coordinating structure could be a problem in the short term. The BTS budget—the major component of RITA funding—was reduced by more than one-fifth in the 2005 reauthorization of the surface transportation legislation. With the support of the secretary, however, the new administration has the opportunity to reshape its programs and functions, of which the coordinating structure could be a part, and to secure more adequate funding in the next reauthorization.

The committee considered two alternatives under this option. The first is to establish the coordinating structure as a Center of Excellence within the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the primary professional association for state DOTs. This

alternative would ensure that the coordinating structure would have close links with a major stakeholder group—the state DOTs—which are all AASHTO members. Costs of operation could also be lowered because the coordinating structure, as part of AASHTO, could take advantage of existing facilities and support services (e.g., building, telephone system, information technology infrastructure).

One of the primary weaknesses of this arrangement, however, is AASHTO’s lack of experience with many of the library-related functions of operating a coordinating structure. AASHTO has set up several Centers of Excellence in recent years to provide information exchange and partnership-building opportunities in various areas (e.g., the environment, intelligent transportation systems). AASHTO leadership could support a new center for the coordinating structure, but this would take time and require new expertise as AASHTO remains primarily a membership organization. Furthermore, it could be difficult for an AASHTO-based coordinating structure to reach other potential major stakeholders, such as universities, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and the private sector. Finally, providing financial support for an AASHTO-based coordinating structure could be difficult if it involved increasing AASHTO membership dues.

The second alternative under this option is to locate the coordinating structure at the Transportation Research Board (TRB). TRB has experience with many of the proposed services of the coordinating structure through its own library; its development and maintenance of the primary transportation bibliographic database, the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) database; and its preparation and circulation of extensive publications that form the core of many transportation library collections. Hence, TRB provides the type of setting in which the coordinating structure could carry out its mission. In addition, TRB is well known by the major stakeholder groups; has existing mechanisms in place to receive funds from multiple sources; and, with its multimodal focus, would be in a better position than AASHTO to reach out to a broad group of stakeholders. As with the AASHTO alternative, a TRB-based coordinating structure could take advantage of existing facilities and support services to reduce operating costs. A difference, however, is that start-up time could probably be reduced because of TRB’s familiarity with many of the

functions of the coordinating structure. On the other hand, a primary drawback of this alternative is the possible higher cost of operating the coordinating structure at TRB.² The uncertainties of the annual appropriations process could also be a problem for sustained funding.

A final option is to start afresh and create the coordinating structure as a new organization. The primary benefit of this option is the ability to start with a clean slate. A nonprofit consortium could be established to carry out the functions of the coordinating structure along the lines of the library consortia discussed in the previous chapter. A new organization would enable the coordinating structure to start without existing organizational encumbrances, define a clear and focused mission, and operate independently.

Given such a new organization’s lack of a track record and name recognition among stakeholders, however, generating sufficient visibility to gain broad stakeholder support could take time, and the outcome would be uncertain. Costs of operation would also be higher than with an existing organization, because costs would be spread over a smaller base. Moreover, obtaining funding, particularly federal support, could be a problem if USDOT continues to support NTL and its activities.

After reviewing each of the above options in light of the characteristics outlined earlier, the committee recommends the first option—locating the coordinating structure within RITA at USDOT—as the best course. USDOT in general, and RITA in particular, is the logical location for the coordinating function. With its multimodal focus, USDOT offers links to

many key stakeholders. RITA houses two agencies—NTL and BTS—whose missions and activities are closely linked with the functions of the proposed coordinating structure, as is the mission of RITA itself. These synergies would likely reduce start-up time and operating costs. In addition, the new entity has the potential, at least in the short term, to prosper in an administration that currently has the attention and support of Secretary Mineta. In the committee’s judgment, these benefits are more compelling than those of the other options and outweigh the potential limitations of locating the coordinating structure within RITA.

If adequately funded and supported, NTL could manage the coordinating structure. Information coordination is clearly part of NTL’s mission. Moreover, NTL is well known to transportation librarians and information professionals and has good relationships with many stakeholder groups—an important asset. It has successfully undertaken several initiatives and possesses a core staff and facilities on which a coordinating structure could be built. Nevertheless, the committee was concerned about the historical lack of support for NTL by BTS and USDOT and its current uncertain status in the department. Alternatively, the coordinating structure could be located within another office in RITA, for example, the new Office of Research, Development and Technology. Either alternative would avoid lengthy start-up time and the costs of creating a new organization.

The committee chose not to recommend which entity within RITA should manage the new coordinating structure but believes this decision is more appropriately left to RITA and USDOT administrators. Nevertheless, the committee urges USDOT leadership to study the alternatives carefully and place the coordinating structure where it can best obtain the funding and support it needs to carry out its leadership role.

Building a strong, effective, and accountable coordinating entity requires a governance structure to provide policy direction, long-range planning, and oversight. The experience of the National Library of Medicine (NLM), for example, illustrates the importance of a strong governing board in pro-

viding policy direction and oversight and in acting as a champion for NLM programs and services on Capitol Hill. The coordinating structure could benefit from a similar governance arrangement.

An Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics already exists to provide guidance and advice to the director of BTS.³ The committee believes its focus and membership should be broadened, and it should be retitled the Advisory Council on Transportation Information, with responsibility for oversight of the coordinating structure in addition to BTS. The membership of the current advisory council represents a cross section of transportation community stakeholders, who could provide guidance to the coordinating structure. A reconstituted council should also represent key information providers and users (e.g., federal agencies, state DOTs, universities, private companies), the regional TKNs, and the federal TKN, as well as experts in information, communications, and computer technology drawn from outside the field of transportation.

Key activities of the advisory council related specifically to the coordinating structure would include reviewing long-range strategic plans, monitoring the coordinating structure’s performance, examining annual evaluations prepared by RITA, and reporting annually to Congress on how the coordinating structure is working. Elements of this recommendation, such as the composition and broadened focus of the advisory council and added reporting functions, require revision of current legislation.

Periodic external peer reviews of the activities of the coordinating structure should also be conducted. These assessments should be undertaken by an independent group of experts, such as the periodic commissions formed to review the activities of the National Agricultural Library, to provide a neutral assessment of the progress of the coordinating structure.

Finally, the TKNs could consider organizing a representative nonprofit association external to USDOT to address local network issues. Such an association should not duplicate the coordinating structure but would provide an opportunity to generate grassroots support for the TKNs, facilitate communication on local and operational issues (e.g., cooperative purchasing arrangements), and act as a checks-and-balances mech-

anism outside of USDOT. The Local Technical Assistance Program Association and the governance arrangements of the library consortia discussed in the previous chapter provide models for such a member-governed association.

This chapter has addressed two topics vital to the success of the coordinating structure: where it should be located and how it should be governed. The next chapter considers another critical factor—options for ensuring sustained funding of both the coordinating structure and the TKNs.

This page intially left blank