AASHTO RAC TKN Task Force

Meeting Notes
October 10, 2013

AGENDA

  1. Roll call and welcome
    Present: Ron Curb, Gary Hook, Karen Perrin, Mary Moulton, Laura Wilt, Leighton Christiansen, Renee McHenry, Jane Minotti, Cindy Smith, Daniel Yeh, Dawn Vanlandingham, Skip Paul, Betty Ambler, JT Rabun
    Leni Oman, Chair; Kathy Szolomayer, Notes
  2. September Meeting notes – final comments? Please get to Kathy by COB tomorrow.
    As of Monday 10/14/13: no additional comments received, so September notes will be

considered to be approved and sent for posting.

  1. Research problem statements feedback (attached below)

We had plans to submit problem statements but weren’t able to coordinate. To try to keep some work moving forward to address the information needs identified in the framework I prepared and submitted two. I tried to reflect discussions the TKN TF had as well as a conversation I had with Sandy Tucker. Please review them to see if there are fatal flaws (and I’ll pull them) or if there are fixes needed (there will be an opportunity for the first proposal, not sure about the second).

  1. NCHRP proposal: Guidance for Information Portal Development & Management– the calendar proposal could dovetail with this effort.


  1. Standing Committee on Planning (NCHRP 8-36): Transportation Plan Repository

Leni described her talks with Sandy Tucker on this, as it’s based on previous work Sandy and others were involved with. NTL has been mentioned as the repository host, but Mary said NTL has a quite specific mandate which may not encompass this.

After everyone has had a chance to review the above proposals, we’ll discuss them further

at November’s meeting.

  1. Reauthorization TKN language update.
    Daniel reported on what SCOR is looking at for language in several areas, including the TKN language. A paper has been drafted and it could be approved at SCOR’s annual meeting next week, with more development through the early part of next year. Skip commented that most states seem happy with MAP-21 and the freedom it provides, so no grand changes are anticipated.
  2. Discussion with RAC members about the TKN TF– Leni has not sent her notes for review with the group yet, but provided some comments related to the heading below.
  3. Summary – The gist of the conversation is that the TKN TF gets pretty heavily into library subjects and the RAC members don’t necessarily need/want that. Seems like less of a TKN focus and more of a library focus. Research managers could add more value in terms of describing what networking needs there are (based on business needs of our organizations, for example), that could guide our efforts and allow the research managers to be more engaged. There were some questions about the scope of our efforts and opportunities to collaborate/align with other efforts in play in other committees and groups within RAC.
  4. Discussion about next steps – Explore a different structure – perhaps a subcommittee that is more library-focused but elevating the TKN group to a higher level within RAC?
    Laura commented that at the WTKN meeting following the Pooled Fund meeting in MN last month, there was discussion about engaging the TKNs more directly with TKN TF efforts. Leni said that doesn’t really address the idea of engaging the broader community. Dawn agreed that engaging folks outside the library realm is a good idea; she is an example of how non-librarians can learn from the library community and help support it and translate its efforts to the broader transportation information community. Leni added that there is still a lack of understanding among managers of the importance of information and good management of it. Dawn reminded the group that we need to use more general language and concepts to engage the business side of the community. As a research manager, Daniel stated that it’s probably not just a language issue, but an issue of describing the benefits of TKNs – how do they add value? What is the application/where do TKNs help?
    “Grand challenges” have been on Leni’s mind – including those associated with delivering an effective and reliable information network. We need more clarity on business needs and how good information practices can support those needs, etc. We lack a common vision and direction, as well as tools and understanding of good practice and how to implement those practices. Skip commented that having KM/IM associated with research managers is a good idea since research solves problems and is integrated within all aspects of our organizations. We already work with the many groups involved in the transportation field so have good positioning to try to effect positive changes. Laura said in some ways, these efforts can be very overwhelming because in order to communicate with all the stakeholders, we have to learn the lingo of those groups, as well as how to translate our ideas into language that is accessible to them. Although she’s a librarian, she does not necessarily have the expertise in KM and data management that would help support and sustain the efforts within the broad community. Leni stated that within the research community there is wide support for librarians and what they do. While collaboration and networking are standard operating procedures for librarians, Laura said, that outlook is not necessarily shared by other stakeholders. Building relationships with folks in data and other areas will be a big part of moving forward.
    Karen commented that many of our projects are research-focused so she’s not sure what other things we should be doing to engage that group further. Ron talked about the importance of subject expertise and how no one person has all the answers. Karen reiterated that collaboration/coordination (between librarians/researchers/subject experts) is key to making sure literature searches are thorough, for example.
    Leni described WSDOT’s current work on information management. She sees it as a Venn diagram that includes content management, technology and business needs. Perhaps a conversation about these aspects within the research community would be fruitful to find out what the business needs really are.
    Daniel talked about “storytelling” to provide some context for selling the idea that strong information management is valuable and supports efficient business practices. Being proactive to show value. Leni cautioned that while this is a good idea, we also need to educate folks about the costs of information management – it’s not just magic. Resources are needed. How do we demonstrate to “the power base” what can be done with appropriate resourcing?
    Leni asked the group to ponder how to move forward.
  5. Task updates
  6. Library Connectivity TPFResearch Report project – Renee said this is temporarily on hold due to annual meeting prep and hosting. She will be in touch with Maggie.
  7. Repository – Dale forwarded the paper (~7 pages now) and Leni is trying to distill the main ideas down to about 2 pages for RAC membership; she has a draft going and will send it to Dale for review.
  8. Calendar project – project submitted to Library Connectivity TPF – Laura described the proposal she put forth (it is attached below). She’s working on getting some cost information nailed down, having made an estimate when submitting the proposal.
  1. Literature review project – Jane reported that Roberto asked for volunteers for the “how to search” committee and the “where to search” committee. Both of those groups are working. Several folks across the community are involved – mainly librarians. Jane is on the “where to search” committee with Barbara Post, Rita Evans et al.; Ken Winter and others are involved in the other group.
  2. Others? Data – nothing new to report

Newsy Notes:

  1. The NTKN Coordinating Committee will meet on October 11th– rescheduled from October 4th. There will be a report next time around.
  2. The three NCHRP information projects kicked off at the end of September
  3. NCHRP 20-98 A Guide to Agency-WideKnowledge Management for State Departments of Transportation– the RFP has been published:
  4. NCHRP 20-97 Improving Findability and Relevance of Transportation Information - the RFP is now out for this project, as well:
  5. NCHRP 20-96Leadership Guide for Strategic Information Management for State Departments of Transportation– RFP is anticipated to be published soon:

The panel met late last week. Leni and Mary are on that panel, as well as John Cherney.

  1. Domestic Scan on Knowledge Management will be held the week of November 18. Meeting will be in Baltimore and invitees include several states and some federal agencies, plus some private firms. Leni displayed a list of those invited; she will be there.
  2. The Standing Committee on Highways will receive a 10 minute briefing from Randy Battey at the AASHTO Annual Meeting. Info on the NCHRP projects will also be provided for his use. The purpose is to stimulate interest in the findings of the project(s) in anticipation of discussion next year.
  3. TRB Annual Meeting – session plans were due October 2nd and the program is in development. Of potential interest to TKN Task Force members and friends (contingent on programming constraints):
  4. Managing Information and Knowledge: Tools of the Trade - Co-sponsored with Management & Productivity and Library & Information Science for Transportation (yeah!) and including a paper on Topology of Information and Knowledge in the Transportation Sector by Lisa Loyo and Denise Bedford
  5. Advancing DOT Practice in Knowledge Management
  6. Knowledge Management for DOT Resilience Planning & Operations Management
  7. Other session news?
  8. Sessions from the Kent State University Knowledge Sciences Symposium hosted by the National Transportation Library at the USDOT building on September 10th and 11th are available on the Symposium website:

Mary was there and said it was a full 2 days. The keynote speaker was the KM director at Goodyear and his presentation was very good. She recommends it and believes it should be on the symposium website.

  1. Laura reported that Oklahoma DOT is now a member of WTKN.

Next meeting: November 7, 2013 at 8:30 Pacific Standard Time

Meeting adjourned at 9:56.