National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework (2011)

Chapter: Appendix C - Validation Report

« Previous: Appendix B - State of the Practice Synthesis
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Validation Report." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14561.
×
Page 139

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

128 Validation Report A P P E N D I X C

129 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 130 Overview: Validation Report 130 Background 130 Objectives 130 Methodology 130 Validation Task Findings 131 Feedback on Navigating through the Wiki 131 Page-Specific Feedback 131 Front Page 131 Overview Page and Sub-pages 132 Guidance for Transit Managers 132 Approach to Business Case Methodology Pages 132 System Engineering 132 EA/EAP 133 About the Project/Survey Results 133 Glossary 133 Access and Control of Wiki Site 133 Other Feedback 134 Summary of the Validation Research and Recommendations for Improvements 134 Recommendations for Improvements 135 Recommendations for the Wiki Operations and Maintenance 135 Appendices 135 Appendix A: General Facilitation Guide 137 Appendix B: EA/EAP Focused Facilitation Guide 138 Appendix C: Validation Workshop Invitees and Attendees

130 Overview: Validation Report Background The Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework project seeks to provide transit agencies with a roadmap, based on a Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning (TEAP) Framework, to successfully implement Information Technol- ogy (IT) and ITS technologies that meet their business needs. The draft guidance on the Framework topics was incorporated into a wiki site. The Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning (TEAP) Framework wiki was developed to facilitate access to informa- tion about the Framework elements, and their tools, references, examples, and relationships to other Framework elements. Since the various elements of the Framework are related and inter-linked to maximize their benefits, the hyper-linked structure of wiki is well suited for finding information quickly, helping understand relationships among elements, and moving between topics efficiently. The wiki is designed for transit industry managers and staff that are involved in planning, funding, implementing or assessing IT/ITS projects. A subsection of the wiki is designed specifically for transit managers. Project managers and staff will also find useful information in the section for transit managers. This Task 8 research validation effort focused on obtaining stakeholder feedback on multiple facets of the Framework and EA/EAP guidance and tool concept. Objectives The primary research goal for this research validation task was to obtain customer feedback on the TEAP Framework and guidance (Task 4 deliverable) and EA/EAP Guidebook and tool suite (Task 7 deliverable). In addition, the following Validation Workshop objectives were developed: • Introduce the draft TCRP project content and the new draft presentation format • Obtain feedback on the “wiki approach” for presenting the information • Obtain feedback on the content and recommendations on other materials to add • Obtain feedback on how the wiki content might be managed and how content might be “quality-controlled” (i.e., what sections should be open to anyone to add/edit?) Methodology The validation research methodology activities included the following: • Two facilitation guides, one general and one focused on EA/EAP, were designed to trigger valuable discussion and insights about the selected topics. The general facilitation guide is included in Appendix A and the EA/EAP focused guide is included in Appendix B. • Transit agencies were selected and invited to participate in the teleconference workshops. Some participants were from transit agencies that currently have a very basic IT/ITS planning methodology and some participants were from agencies that are more experienced with formal planning processes and systems engineering practices. Some people who were interviewed in prior tasks were invited to partic- ipate in these teleconferences. In addition, personnel who were new to the project and the framework were also invited and included in the Workshops. Appendix C contains tables that list the transit agencies that were invited to participate in the workshops and the individuals who participated in the workshops. • Three workshops were designed and conducted. The work- shops were conducted as teleconferences using the www.goto meeting.com meeting tools, which allowed the Facilitator to guide the participants through the wiki. • Two 75-minute workshops, conducted on June 16th and June 22nd, 2009, followed the general facilitation guide. A 90-minute workshop, which focused on EA/EAP was conducted on June 24th, 2009. In addition, several transit agencies that were invited were later contacted for feedback, after they called and apologized for not being able to attend the workshops. • Project team members debriefed on the workshops and developed key findings for improving the wiki, guidance and tool suite. The findings are incorporated into this Validation Report. Validation Task Findings Feedback from the webinars is included in the sections below. The feedback falls into several categories: • Navigability and layout • Content of topics and pages • Access and control • Other feedback Each section cites general statements and specific comments made by webinar participants. Although the general sentiment was positive, the comments varied by the level of technical expertise of the speaker. So when relevant, the feedback indi- cates the background of the commenter. In the invitation to participate, invitees were asked to spend some time reviewing the site prior to the workshop. In half the cases, participants complied with the request. Some of the differences in the feedback can be ascribed to the familiarity of the participant with the site.

131 Feedback on Navigating through the Wiki Several Workshop discussion questions elicited feedback on the presentation of the material. With respect to navigation, open ended questions were asked of the webinar participants to solicit their initial experience with the various buttons and pages that were available for revealing the site’s organization and links to different areas of the wiki’s content. Following the questions, the Workshop facilitators showed the participants the links, training sections, and pages that help traverse the wiki. The responses to these questions were mixed. Several participants thought the web site was laid out in a well orga- nized manner, others thought they needed more direction to get to topics of their interest. • “The wiki is very intuitive to use, well laid out, clean. I like the Navigator, had no trouble finding stuff.” (from a wiki user and CIO) • Put the “How to navigate the wiki into the Navigator” [Note: We can’t do this unless we make a special folder for navigating through wiki] • A new user asked, “Where do I start if I have a project and I want to find information on it?” • “The structure for organizing the material is good.” • “I really like that it is searchable.” • An interviewee said, “It would be great if there was a graphic that was consistent throughout the site that showed where you were in the grand scheme of the wiki. Maybe use the circle diagram and have the subarea in color or marked differently.” • Side Bar: Several reviewers mentioned that they prefer the side bar on the left because the right hand side is generally considered the area for advertising. Page-Specific Feedback Feedback was sought about each of the major sections of the wiki, and targeted a diverse range of pages. Discussion focused particularly on the Front Page, the Guidance for Transit Managers, Overview, Business Case Methodology, EA/EAP Guidebook, and FAQ section that contains the Glossary/ Acronyms. The feedback as if they did not have a guide to explain the purpose or content of the page. Then the parts of each section were described and additional feedback was solicited. Front Page The Front Page elicited the strongest reaction from most Workshop participants. As one respondent said, “The Front Page needs to establish credibility for the site.” The page is too wordy, and it needs to engage transit professionals more effectively. Participants made these comments: • The Front Page needs to establish credibility for the site. • The Front Page needs to invite people into the wiki • It needs to make a good first impression and tell the reader, “Why should I be interested in this and what the main topics are.” The first page does say what the key topics are, but parts of the page are too wordy. • Bring them in with leading questions. Use short questions to hook them . . . Would you build a house without plans? . . . Are you tired of failed IT projects? . . . or Here is a method to manage . . . • Maybe say there are “Top ten transit” issues for transit executives • Consider splitting the page into two pages or splitting the bottom of the Front Page into two boxes, where one focuses on the benefits of the wiki to the reader and the other high- lights the content areas • Words by themselves don’t attract transit managers, add more pictures • It can’t start too technical • Many participants agreed they would click the Overview link on the Front Page first. Overview Page and Sub-pages Several questions were asked about the placement, content and presentation of the Overview and sub pages. The diagram showing the TEAP Framework (Figure 2) was highlighted to show how the different Enterprise Architecture and IT/ITS Planning and Management elements inter-related. The name of the Framework (e.g., TEAP) is still confusing to the major- ity of reviewers and there were some suggestions to change the name of the Framework to also emphasize the system management processes (BCM, Systems Engineering, post- implementation analysis) rather than exclusively on the enter- prise architecture processes. The comments that emerged from these sets of questions included: • The group agreed on the placement of the Executive Summary. • The level of detail and content seemed appropriate in the Executive Summary • One participant wanted to know “Why are those the five concepts in the TEAP?” because the name TEAP, Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning, could lead a person to believe that the project was only on transit EAP. They didn’t understand why BCM and systems engineering, etc., were included, given the project name. (Note: maybe

132 the project should be named TEA-IP Framework for Transit Enterprise Architecture and IT/ITS Planning Framework.) • One individual wanted to make sure that the wiki says that doing IT/ITS projects in an isolated or stove-piped manner doesn’t work for Transit any more. • Regarding Figure 2: Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework, – Make items in the diagram clickable. – Provide definitions of the items in diagram. – Provide explanation of the solid and dotted lines. – Make sure reader doesn’t think this is the EAP diagram for transit, it’s a bigger Framework, with funding, BCM, SE, etc. added. – Looks at projects in the context of architecture • One comment was made about IT Governance, that the community of EAP practitioners often viewed it as a three- legged stool (Project Management Office, Capital Planning and Investment, and EAP). The overview section has a discussion of IT Governance based on a model from the IT Governance Institute, which is not inconsistent with that viewpoint, but it uses somewhat different vocabulary at the higher levels. • Use of more graphics and pictures would be good. Guidance for Transit Managers The content of Guidance for Transit Managers received very positive feedback. Several senior transit managers who attended the workshops or were interviewed gave the section high marks for clarity, organization and brevity. • Level of detail looks about right • “Checklist approach works for me” • “It’s very powerful to relate investments to goals.” Approach to Business Case Methodology Pages The pages associated with the Business Case Methodology were shown as a template for the five Framework elements. Workshop respondents liked the content, structure of the material, and resources. In particular, they liked the worksheets and papers that were stored on the site. One participant indi- cated that the pages should further address: • “[W]ho should participate in BCM” to build a project team, develop trust among the team members, visualize what the project is about, create “organizational learning”, bring in diverse perspectives that will execute projects (not just the financial perspective). Make sure it addresses project management—who is in charge? Who is responsible? (if it’s not already described in the wiki). System Engineering The System Engineering section was only briefly shown. It elicited very positive feedback; one person said, “I like how activities are written out. It gives managers a step by step process to follow.” We received an email from a transit pro- fessional (who was invited, but unable to attend) who said he had already used the Systems Engineering section of the wiki to help him write a Concept of Operations. EA/EAP An entire 75 minute workshop was devoted to review the Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architecture Guidebook and Tools section of the wiki. The workshop respondents were very positive about the EA/EAP section, impressed with the details, examples, scope of topics, while simultaneously dis- appointed that it did not include more (prescriptive) guidance, examples, and detailed models. The comments included: • I want this section to say how to do the AS-IS • “I don’t want to have to create my own EA for my agency from scratch, when other agencies are working on theirs as well. Examples or a general template would be really helpful.” • “It’s very good to see how other agencies do things.” • “Would like to see some future or “to-be” enterprise archi- tectures to help people see where they want to go.” • Need to get business managers to the discussion table on this topic. • EA and these disciplines are “complex and difficult work”. The wiki helps point us to resources. However, it cannot do the work. People need to know that it is difficult to start; agencies are missing long range business planning. They won’t realize they need this until they fail and “then realize they need a process . . . don’t get tied up in how to [help people] adopt [use of] this until they need it.” • Someone asked, “Where should Data Standardization information be located?” • Expand the information in the yellow highlighted areas • Who should be the authority on EA/EAP guidance? “A group of legitimate thought leaders need to go through a process to build a model and guidance that works across transit. Then they need to agree to abide by it. Filling in the boxes is not as key as deciding what the boxes are.” • Schedule an open meeting of the community to refine the EA model. “People from the major transit agencies should get together to hammer out the hard questions” related to developing a transit EA model. – “Need to determine the goal or purpose of a Transit EA. For the Federal Government, it was to eliminate over- lap, which may not be the primary goal of transit.”

133 – “Tracking how things relate to each other in transit is currently done ad hoc.” • “The Transit EA can be developed in slices.” About the Project/Survey Results Feedback from a follow-up interview indicated that it was not easy to find the survey results. Also, in the Survey Methodology section, it was sug- gested that the table be clear about the topic areas. They did not want to reader to think that the presence or absence of a check mark reflected on how well an agency did in that topic area. Glossary The glossary was cited as an important help-aid to the site. Specific comments included: • It was suggested that the Glossary link be put by the Site Map link. • Remove the extra lines in the Glossary [this was done soon after the comment was made] • Add a paragraph at the top of the page explaining how to add to the Glossary. Access and Control of Wiki Site A wiki allows any authorized user to add and modify any page in the wiki. Each webinar included a question on whether the wiki should be open to editing by anyone or should be restricted to experts only. The consensus during the three webinars was to control access to the wiki, particularly to control who was allowed to add or modify the wiki material. They suggested that individuals be allowed to comment on a page in the comment section, but restrict editing functions to only authorized “experts” in order to ensure the credibility of the site. Access to Modifying Content A question was asked in all the workshops about who should be given access to modify or add to the wiki content. Specifically, the project researchers wanted to know if the site could be self-managing. The unified agreement was that it needed to be managed by one or more persons with experience and expert credentials. Respondent’s comments included: • “Control Management is necessary” • [Only] approved individuals should be allowed to add comments in the comment field of appropriate pages • “Could be open to spam if it’s not controlled” • Need someone to closely manage the site if anyone can change the pages and control it closely for 6 months to see how usage occurs. • Don’t know if it will become overwhelming with people adding more information • “I like the Add a Comment. Then have the comments edited by an administrator” • Overall the group agreed items submitted should be mod- erated in all areas of the site. Site Credibility The access and control questions led to questions about how to ensure site credibility. Some respondents recommended that the sponsoring agency should brand the homepage. Others suggested that the site would speak for itself and that the site managers should not be listed. Site Committee The respondents of the workshops suggested that a group of people need to manage the wiki. One person proposed a group of three people. Other Feedback Other feedback was collected that was related to next steps. The comments covered topics such as publicizing the wiki, improving the site, completing the site, etc. The specific feed- back is grouped in the sections below. How should we get this to the right people? Many respondents brainstormed about how to publicize the existence of the wiki. The comments included: • ITSC Newsletter. • Create a buzz about the TEAP with the managers/top level • One respondent said her IT staff would not go to the EA/EAP section on their own, unless she directed them, because it’s out of their area of expertise. But it’s of great value to her as the IT Director. Need to Clean-Up Some Typos Specific typos and misspellings were identified. These will be cleaned up before the commencement of the Phase II project. Specific typos include: • On Checklist page, EA/EAP, last bullet under section start- ing with “Foster the mindset . . .”; change “addresses” to “addressed”

134 • On BCM pages see header #4—fix caps • In Acronym list TCO, not TCP • (we need to see if wiki provides a spell-check tool) Is this a viable alternative to finding material in a report? A key question for the Researchers was on the “tool” approach. The collaborative, web-based tool was the approach used to present the information. We wanted to understand whether it was a good, effective and successful approach for presenting the Framework material. Most respondents said they would use the Wiki more than they would the official Report. In answer to whether a report would be an alternative approach, one person said he would use the Wiki for day-to-day usage, and only use the Report when he needed to make a formal reference to it. The general reactions to the wiki included: • They like using the wiki because of the search ability and that it’s not intimidating. • Having the material easily locatable across the pages and in a “questions” format made the material less daunting and more accessible • Beneficial in a different way than a paper document would be • The wiki allows interaction and discussion among peers. • Liked the wiki because it is more interactive. A reader can go back and find references more easily, which is worth- while. Maturity Levels One respondent indicated that the material presents the information without discussing the different IT “maturity levels” throughout the industry. This respondent recom- mended that the wiki should acknowledge that different transit agencies are at different maturity levels. Specifically, “it would be nice if [the content] provided tailored guidance for different maturity levels.” Where it is appropriate, indicate what is a “must have” versus a “nice to have.” Address Updating/Upgrading IT/ITS Systems One respondent thought it would be nice if the wiki addressed issues associated with how best to upgrade or update existing IT/ITS systems. They indicated that not everyone would have the budget for new systems. Wiki Upgrades Feedback on how the wiki will change over time was also gathered. One respondent wanted to ensure that users could identify new content and the importance of the modified or added content. Use and/or Recommend Wiki? Finally, workshop respondents were asked if they would recommend the wiki to colleagues and co-workers. The unanimous recommendation was YES! “Yes, . . . because the vendors tend to drive things for the smaller agencies. This puts information, issues and concerns in front of key people . . . so they can make better decisions and provide better guidance.” “Yes, much of is better than what we tried to develop in-house to help with projects and training. It would be great to think about this with respect to training and how to link from these general wiki pages to our agency specific procedures. We may also have a project, depending on timing, which might use this to build a business case. We would like to be considered for Phase II.” “I’ve already been using the wiki and the information. It’s wonderful, I liked its flexibility and how quick it was to find information.” He would direct his different transit stakeholders to different parts of this site (e.g., his high level administrators, operations staff, and his IT Staff). It has information for all, from “high to low level.” Summary of the Validation Research and Recommendations for Improvements As shown in the prior section titled, “Use and/or Recom- mend Wiki?” reviewers liked and would recommend the site. In fact, some are already using it. Recommendations for Improvements There were very good comments provided for improvements and changes to the web site. Some of them are highlighted below as Project Team priorities: • Change the TEAP Framework name to differentiate Enter- prise Architecture from the IT/ITS System Management planning elements. – Change from TEAP to TEA-IP Framework • Fix the Front Page to engage the Transit Professionals and make it easier to read • Add directed questions so Transit Staff looking for specific information can find it more easily. • Add the Glossary to the Side Bar • Separate the collaborative pages in the Enterprise Architec- ture Guidebook from the guidance pages

135 • Complete the yellow highlighted sections of the Enterprise Architecture Guidebook • Add more resources to the EA Guidebook (note: this was the intention of the Phase II Work Plan) • The Project Team would like to look for ways to strengthen the connections or linkages between the sections so the value of an integrated approach is very clear. • Several transit agencies said they would be very happy to contribute more examples and tools to the wiki site. This would be an easy way for the Project Team to improve the content, if we followed-up with the agencies. Recommendations for the Wiki Operations and Maintenance There were some recommendations on how to move for- ward on engaging the transit community in the collaborative web site. These included: • Give “read only” access to individuals (so they can comment on a page, but not modify it) for at least the first six months. • Engage a group of transit professionals who are expert in one or more areas of the EA and IT/ITS system management methods. Appendices to Appendix C Appendix A: General Facilitation Guide Facilitation Guide: TCRP Research Validation Facilitator Guidelines • Use an obvious, easy to track cursor symbol • Tell the participants where you are going next on the page • Don’t move too quickly between locations • First answer most questions, such as, “Where is the info on xxx?” with one of our own, such as, “Where would you look for it? Or what would you call it?” • Note: <page> signifies what page of the wiki is under discussion. Facilitator’s Agenda • (Optional) Have the early attendees fill out the following poll: – How much time did you have to review the wiki before this workshop?  None  Less than 30 minutes  30 minutes to an hour  More than an hour • <OBECTIVES PAGE> Welcome everyone (start with the wiki page on the objec- tives of the workshop) and Introduce: – The Project Team (Nancy, Polly, Edward, Susan, Bruce) – The initial need in the industry that lead to the project – The project—TCRP TEAP Framework Project – The Workshop Objectives (indicate that they should be on the screen) Objectives:  Introduce the draft TCRP project content and the new draft presentation format  Obtain feedback on the “wiki approach” for presenting the information  Obtain feedback on the content and recommendations on other materials to add  Obtain feedback on how the wiki content might be managed and content be “quality-controlled” (What sections are open to anyone to add/edit?) – Workshop Protocol  ask us to slow down if needed  ask questions • <FRONT PAGE> – Can you quickly tell from the home page what the wiki is about and who should use it? – Who do you think it is for? Who do you think might be interested in it? – What do you think a new viewer would think the site is about? – There are several ways to navigate through the wiki, which approach would you use? – What is clear? What is confusing? • Objective: Explore some aspects of the site – Did you locate and use the Side Bar? Any suggestions on improving its value? – Is a Site Map important to you? Did you find the Site Map? Where would you go looking for it? – Go to <SITE MAP> Any feedback for us on the Site Map? – Look at <NAVIGATOR> Box Did anyone explore this wiki option? Was it useful? Explain Purpose. – Did anyone go to How to Navigate and Use this Wiki? Where would you look for that information? – Go to <HOW TO NAVIGATE AND USE THIS WIKI?> Any comments on the material or anything to add? Note: If they haven’t spent much time on the site before the workshop, maybe here we could quickly review for them how they can get to the content via the site map, the side bar or the front page and do a quick demo, including how to get back to the home page each time. Return to <FRONT PAGE> Discussion Objective: Obtain feedback on the content and what else to add Will first talk about the managers section

136 Go to <GUIDANCE FOR TRANSIT MANAGERS> Explain for whom this section was developed and give a quick tour – How can the value of this section be improved? How can it best be used? (How to encourage managers to read it? Would the project team give portions to the involved managers?) – Should the order of the materials be changed to encour- age further reading? – How well does the checklist approach to providing the information work? Go to <BUSINESS CASE METHODOLOGY> Done by 10:45am • Point out the three main areas Go to <WHAT, WHY, AND BENEFITS OF A BUSINESS CASE> • Scroll through sections providing an overview to the content Go to <BCM BEST PRACTICES> • Scroll through sections providing an overview to the content Go to <ADDITIONAL RESOURCES RELATED TO BUSI- NESS CASE> • Scroll through sections providing an overview to the con- tent • Does anyone have a favorite site or resource on the topic that should be added? Return to <BCM BEST PRACTICES> • Solicit feedback on what is there and what to add/change – What else would you want to know about developing a Business Case? – What do you wish the management team would do with respect to a Business Case or Business Case Methodol- ogy in your organization? – What key messages related to the Business Case or BCM should be included? Go to the <SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PAGE> • Point out and give a quick tour through the three major subsections Go to <UNDERSTANDING THE WHAT, WHY, AND BENEFITS OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING> • Does the Vee-diagram and explanations help? Anything to add? Go to <UNDERSTANDING SE BEST PRACTICES AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER TEAP FRAMEWORK ELEMENTS> • What important best practices messages should be included here? Go to <LOCATING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING> • In addition to the two guidebooks mentioned on the page, are there any other favorite web sites, references or resources that you like or use on systems engineering? Go to <TEAP FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW AND PUR- POSE> Provide quick tour through the three sections and stop on final page, <HOW TEAP FRAMEWORK ELEMENTS RELATE> • Is the figure helpful? Do you have questions about any aspects of it? Return to <FRONT PAGE> • What do you think should be in the FAQ or Frequently Asked Questions section? Go to <FAQ PAGE> • Give a quick tour • Any feedback? What else should be added? • Do other sections if time allows – EAP – Post-implementation Analysis – Funding Quickly go through other parts of site that are listed below, if time allows Go to <IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING> Give quick tour through the four pages • Understanding Transit IT/ITS Implementation Funding • Understanding Transit IT/ITS Implementation Funding Best Practices • Locating Additional Resources on Transit IT ITS Imple- mentation Funding Go to <ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE> Give a high speed intro thru 4 pages • Understanding the What, Why, and Benefits of a EA/EAP • Learning about EA/EAP Best Practices (EA Guidebook) • Locating Additional Resources Related to EA/EAP

137 Go to <POST IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS> Give a quick tour through the 4 pages • Understanding the What, Why, and Benefits of Post- implementation Analysis • Learning about Post-implementation Analysis Best Practices • Locating Additional Resources on Post-Implementation Analysis Transit Involvement with Wiki Discussion Objective: Obtain feedback on how the wiki content might be managed and content be “quality-controlled” (What sections are open to anyone to add/edit?) • If this becomes an open site, where should the general public be allowed to make changes to the content? • How should the content be “quality controlled”? Value and Use of Wiki • The big question: Is this a viable alternative to finding the material in a report? Trade-offs? • If this site were available on the web, would you go back to it, and if so, what would you look for? • Would you be inclined to contribute to the site? • Would you recommend it? If so, under what circumstances and to what kind of people? Terminate Workshop • Thank them for their assistance. • Identify ways they can further provide feedback (email, call, comment on site) Survey? Appendix B: EA/EAP Focused Facilitation Guide Facilitation Guide for Enterprise Architecture TCRP Research Validation Note: <page> signifies what page of the wiki is under discussion. <EAP/EA Webinar Objectives> Welcome everyone (start with the wiki page on the objec- tives of the EAP Workshop) and Introduce: • The Project Team • The initial need in the industry that led to the project • The project—TCRP TEAP Framework Project • The Workshop Objectives • Objectives – Introduce the Enterprise Architecture Guidebook content and presentation format – Obtain feedback on organization of materials – Walk through pages and obtain feedback on usefulness and improvements • Workshop Protocol – ask us to slow down if needed – ask questions whenever you have one Go to <Front Page> • There are several ways to navigate through the wiki and get to the EA/EAP pages. • Show 4 ways to get to the EA/EAP pages • 1—navigation bar • 2—cover • 3—side bar • 4—site map Go to <Enterprise Architecture> • Point out format similar to the other topics – Understanding the What, Why, and Benefits of a EA/EAP – Learning about EA/EAP Best Practices (EA Guidebook) – Locating Additional Resources Related to EA/EAP General Questions About <Enterprise Architecture> • Can you tell from this page what this section is about and who should use it? • Who do you think it is for? • Who do you think might be interested in it? • What questions have you or your colleagues wanted answered about EA/EAP? What answer or help would you like to find in this portion of the wiki about EA or EAP? • How should the benefits be organized or categorized to best attract the reader and help them see the value of an EA? Learning EA Questions About <Enterprise Architecture> Show Guidebook and Guidebook Navigation pages • I’ve shown you one of many ways to organize the informa- tion and materials on EA and EAP. What changes to the organization or the section headings would help you find the material you need more easily? • Again, what information would you be looking for on EA or EAP in this website? • What questions about EA and EAP would you want answered here? • If you wanted to learn about EA/EAP or recommend a site for a colleague to learn about EA/EAP – Would you recommend this wiki? Which sections might you suggest?

138 – In what ways is it useful for learning about EA/EAP? – In what ways could it be improved? • If you wanted to do a EA/EAP – Would you use this site? – In what ways is this site useful? – In what ways could it be improved? What should be added? Walk through problem <Enterprise Architecture> Ask for a question and walk through resources to see if we can answer the question. Field Survey <Enterprise Architecture> Phase II mandate to work with transit agency to work with site. Appendix C: Validation Workshop Invitees and Attendees Table 1 lists the transit agencies invited to participate in the validation workshops. The first column indicates the agencies that were newly introduced to the project with the workshop invitation (they had not been interviewed during the project task to explore the State of the Practice). For some of the agencies, more than one individual in the organization was invited. Invitations were made by a phone call and by email. Participants in the June 16, 22, and 24 Validation Workshops are listed in Tables 2 through 4. In addition, a number of other agencies contacted the project team members to provide feedback on the wiki, because they were unable to attend the workshops. N=New Agency N Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA; Ann Arbor, Michigan) Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART; San Francisco, California) N Capital Metro in Austin N Central Ohio Transit Authority (Columbus, Ohio) N CDTA -Albany Clark County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (C-Tran) N Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, Texas) N Denver RTD Hampton Roads Transit (Norfolk, Virginia) King County Metro (Seattle, Washington) Mike, WW, John N Long Beach N Long Island Railroad (LIRR) N Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority LYNX (Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority) MARTA – Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority N Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston, Texas) Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) N New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (New York City) N NFTA N NJ Transit N PACE Paducah N Phoenix Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority (RIPTA) Riverbend TriMet (Portland, OR) Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, Utah) SEPTA Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA; Wash, D.C.) Wichita Falls Transit System Iowa State Department of Transportation (IA) Kansas State Department of Transportation New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Table 1. List of transit agencies invited to the validation workshops.

139 First Name Last Name Organization Bob McMahan C-TRAN Bruce Eisenhart ConSysTec Sarah Kaufman New York City Transit Dennis McHugh City of Wichita, KS Thomas Guggisberg Capital District Transportation Authority Doug Jamison LYNX Shelley Johnson Sharp and Company Table 2. Webinar participants in the June 16, 2009 workshop. First Name Last Name Organization Peter Anderson City of Fort Worth David Sullivan Hampton Roads Transit Edward Thomas Aegir Systems, Inc. Shirley Hsiao Long Beach Transit Robin Stevens Robin Stevens Consulting Katherine Keller Central Ohio Transit Authority Bruce Eisenhart ConSysTec Table 3. Webinar participants in the June 22, 2009 workshop. First Name Last Name Organization Jamey Harvey WMATA Katherine Keller Central Ohio Transit Authority Shirley Hsiao Long Beach Transit Lawrence Harman GeoGraphics Laboratory, BSC Shelley Johnson Sharp and Company Nancy Neuerburg N-Squared Associates Table 4. Webinar participants in the June 24, 2009 workshop.

Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework Get This Book
×
 Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework
Buy Paperback | $60.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 84, e-Transit: Electronic Business Strategies for Public Transportation, Volume 9, Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework presents multi-faceted methods, tools, and examples within a framework to help transit agencies successfully implement technologies.

The report describes the connections between a transit agency’s business and the technology, assists with building the business case for specific investments, highlights different financing options, provides guidance on an enterprise-wide approach to create more efficient and effective system deployments, and provides a method to show the benefits of a technology investment.

The report provides a framework that incorporates five systems management disciplines: Enterprise Architecture Planning, Business Case Methodology, Systems Engineering, Financial Implementation Methods, and Post-Implementation Assessment.

The declining costs of communications, data storage, and data retrieval are accelerating the opportunities spawned by the Internet and other information and communications technologies. Choosing and sequencing investments in technologies, processes, and people to reduce costs and increase productivity present challenges to the transit manager, who must weigh the costs, benefits, and risks of changing the ways services are delivered. To assist in meeting such challenges, the TCRP Report 84: e-Transit: Electronic Business Strategies for Public Transportation series documents principles, techniques, and strategies that are used in electronic business for public transportation.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!