Regional
ITS Architecture Maintenance Resources
Technical Advisory
June 23, 2005
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Estimate of resource allocation
3 Variables influencing resource allocation
3.1 USING the regional ITS architecture
for project development
3.2 MAINTAINING the regional ITS architecture
to address incremental revisions
3.3 EVOLVING the regional ITS architecture
into a full baseline update
4 Where substantially more resources may be
needed
4.1 Regional ITS architecture maintainer experience
4.2 Region size and complexity
Regional ITS Architecture Maintenance Resources
Technical Advisory
1 Introduction
Over the last several years regions throughout the United States have
established their regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
architectures and to varying degrees are incorporating this work into
their overall Transportation Planning Process. Due to state, regional,
and local variations in the practice of transportation planning, local
stakeholders decide how best to incorporate the regional ITS architecture
and the products produced during its development into the Transportation
Planning Process, and vice versa. The planning process has two primary
planning and programming documents as its overall output. They are Transportation
Plan [1] and
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Numerous transportation
planning activities feed information to the development of the Transportation
Plan and TIP. Resources needed for these planning process developments
are well understood. Incorporation of the regional ITS architecture
as another input to that process has not challenged those resource allocations.
Resources needed for the maintenance of a regional ITS architecture
and facilitating its use during project development are not as clearly
understood or documented to date. This Technical Advisory begins to
clarify these needs.
The regional ITS architecture becomes the blueprint or framework for
integrating ITS systems operationally from a regional perspective. This
cooperative development results from efforts to comply with the FHWA
published Final Rule on ITS Architecture and Standards (23
CFR 940) and the FTA published companion Final Policy. There are two
aspects to the Final Rule/Final Policy architecture requirement: 1.)
develop the architecture, 2.) establish the maintenance plan to manage
change and facilitate use by project sponsors.
As preparations get underway for each new planning year, a main consideration
for regions is actual administration of the maintenance plan. Having
a regional ITS architecture change management plan is one thing, having
the resources identified to administer the plan is another. THIS IS
NOT A ONE-TIME NEED. A region has made substantial investment in their
regional ITS architecture and it will pay dividends over the long run.
By failing to keep the architecture current, it will become obsolete,
and potential benefits of regional implementation and operations will
be lost.
To maintain a regional ITS architecture consensus, all stakeholders
will need to participate to some extent. Typically, one agency or institutional
group will take the lead responsibility to maintain the regional ITS
architecture. Although the responsibility may be delegated to an individual
at any given time, overall responsibility is the stated role of an institution
or agency in the region. For the purposes of this Technical Advisory,
the term "regional ITS architecture maintainer" will
refer to that organizational body, not a specific individual or champion.
It is important that the regional ITS architecture maintainer identify
their planned architecture maintenance plan activities and applied resources,
within their operational emphasis area and related budget.
The discussion that follows will do the following:
- Suggest a resource estimate to start with, in a work-load/budget
analysis
- Describe the variables that influence resource allocation up or
down, and
- Explain where substantially more resources may be needed
The Regional ITS Architecture Maintenance White Paper, dated January
31, 2004 is recommended reading. It is a complete and detailed guide
for the development of a regional ITS architecture maintenance plan
and the activities involved in maintaining it. This Technical Advisory
builds upon that White Paper, providing an understanding of resources
needed to effectively maintain a regional ITS architecture. This may
be downloaded from the FHWA's ITS Electronic Document Library (EDL)
at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13957.html.
2 Estimate of resource allocation
An estimate to start with in a workload and budget
analysis is 5 percent to 10 percent of a mid-level managers' compensation
(salary and benefits) devoted to maintaining and facilitating the use
of the regional ITS architecture for one year (there is no empirical
data available nationally). In addition, there are several factors to
consider when evaluating where in this range is reasonable, or whether
considerably more is needed. These factors are categorized as:
- Comprehensiveness of the current regional ITS architecture, i.e.,
number of stakeholders or services not addressed
- Technical and institutional complexity of the regional ITS architecture,
i.e., number of stakeholders, number and scope of transportation services,
how many elements or connections could potentially be changed, or
the number and types of interagency operational agreements existing
- Complexity of the Regional ITS architecture maintenance plan, i.e.,
extent of configuration management process, frequency of incremental
changes, and full baseline updates
- Level of ITS investment, e.g., amount of planned deployment in the
TIP and the Transportation Plan
- Staff knowledge and experience with ITS and the regional ITS architecture
A higher percentage than 5 percent to 10 percent may be reasonable
under certain combinations of these factors; or perhaps full-time staffing
may be suitable for extremely complex regions (e.g., dozens of public
transit agencies, and hundreds of transportation governmental agencies
and emergency services providers). The discussion that follows should
help tighten these ranges for an individual region.
3 Variables influencing resource allocation
Maintenance for allocating resources by looking at three categorical
functions that are carried out is discussed here. They are prioritized
from a time-critical standpoint. The functions are:
- Using the regional ITS architecture for project development
- Maintaining the regional ITS architecture to address project-related
incremental revisions
- Evolving the regional ITS architecture as a full baseline
update (i.e., version 1.x to 2.x)
3.1 USING the regional ITS architecture
for project development
With the Final Rule/Final Policy project eligibility requirement of
"Identification of portions of the regional ITS architecture
being implemented", time is needed to make the regional ITS
architecture accessible to project sponsors' design staff, and to assist
them in becoming familiar with it. Even though many of the projects
that come forward for design during the first few years will likely
have been reflected in the regional ITS architecture, the reality is
that the specific project designer within the State or local agency
is going to need assistance to become familiar with the regional ITS
architecture and process for comparing the project to the architecture.
Most likely, any participation in the dialogue that led to the regional
ITS architecture was by an agency manager or senior staff member. This
"start up" outreach and education to project designers can
take considerable time. Another consideration is that the project developer
will likely not use these skills again soon enough to remember them,
particularly if the use of the Turbo Architecture electronic database
is involved. Maintainer resources that educate and provide access to
the regional ITS architecture will have to be weighed against effort
to extract the information for the project designer.
Peripherally for the regional ITS architecture maintainer and directly
for the project sponsor, time may also be needed to establish new ITS
project development procedures established to meet the Final Rule/Final
Policy. In the meantime, resources will need to be allocated on a project-by-project
basis to instruct design staff in the use of these new procedures in
adherence to the regional ITS architecture.
ITS projects listed in the TIP should prove useful in a workload and
budget analysis to determine annual resource allocation. Knowing the
level of ITS investment for the upcoming year will judge how much the
regional ITS architecture will be used. The TIP listing will also assist
in providing timely outreach and education of systems engineering best
practices before project design considerations begin.
Regional ITS architecture mapping is an eligibility criterion for federal
funding of ITS projects; therefore, use of the architecture is the most
important and time-critical function of the regional ITS architecture
maintainer. This will represent a large portion of time allocated by
the regional ITS architecture maintainer. Staff turnover may increase
the amount of time needed, unless duties are carefully documented as
part of job responsibilities. In general, the more the architecture
is used to support planning and project development activities, the
greater the level of changes it will probably see. This leads to the
discussion in Section 3.2 on revising the regional ITS architecture.
3.2 MAINTAINING the regional ITS
architecture to address incremental revisions
Minimum maintenance may be needed for projects currently going forward
to design that are direct products of a recently completed or updated
regional ITS architecture. It is important to recognize, though, that
projects will not always be implemented exactly as they were described
in the regional ITS architecture. Detailed design scope and operational
considerations will result from the initial tasks of project development
using the systems engineering process. There is a need to "close
the loop" by ensuring that "as-built" information is
fed back into the regional ITS architecture in a timely fashion (e.g.,
immediately after detailed design). If the project was not well described
in the regional ITS architecture (i.e., a generic description of bus
signal priority), or if significant changes to the project occurred,
the maintenance effort will be greater and more time-critical.
As time eclipses and the current TIP and new projects/applications
come forward, considerable more time may need to be devoted to changing
the regional ITS architecture. There may be an increase in the number
of changes submitted between updates. Applications may broaden in scope
and significance across stakeholder groups. Changes may trace deeper
into the strategic planning process (i.e., changes to operational concept
rather than simply changing an information flow). Through an accumulation
of these factors, incremental revision may eventually prove unreasonable.
Evolving the regional ITS architecture into a full baseline update (as
discussed below in Section 3.3) may better reflect time and effort needed
for maintenance. It will be a regional judgement when that balance may
possibly shift from incremental change to full update.
The regional ITS architecture development may not have included participation
by all stakeholders or stakeholder groups. Depending on the level of
consolidation represented in the regional ITS architecture, resources
may need to be allocated for outreach to stakeholders that have not
been engaged.
Whether in group discussions, or individually, it is important to validate
whether the regional ITS architecture represents their ITS requirements
as well. Depending on the number of additional stakeholders, number
of new ITS requirements, and extent of change needed for the strategic
planning that led to the regional ITS architecture, incremental revision
may eventually prove unreasonable. Evolving the regional ITS architecture
into a full baseline update may better reflect time and effort needed
for introducing a number of new stakeholders. A broader initiative to
periodically reach out to all stakeholders within a region
to validate their interests is the subject of evolving the regional
ITS architecture into a full baseline update, covered in Section 3.3.
Making these incremental revisions to the regional ITS architecture
is less time-critical than assuring access and use, but may need to
be done at least every 6-12 months.
3.3 EVOLVING the regional ITS architecture
into a full baseline update
The regional ITS architecture is a snapshot in time that may not have
engaged every stakeholder group in the region, nor cover every transportation
service in the most recent update to the National ITS Architecture.
An initiative needs to be in place to periodically reach out to all
stakeholders in a region to assure that new applications are represented
and their operation reflects regional interests. Periodic validation
of regional horizon goals and existing stakeholder interests is a byproduct
of this initiative. Additional time will be spent getting some subset
of the stakeholders together in one or more workshops to review the
architecture. A series of changes will naturally flow from these meetings
that can be incorporated into the architecture. The level of effort
required for these meetings will be dependent on how many meetings are
planned and the presentation of the architecture to the stakeholders
and the documentation of their discussions. This can be a challenge
when the stakeholders are outside the historically traditional transportation
community, for example emergency services providers.
New elements from the National ITS Architecture will also have to be
considered, such as the recent addition of improved coverage of transportation
security applications. These applications may result in revisiting the
early stages of strategic planning to establish new operational concepts
and functional requirements driven by the need for these services in
the region.
The regional ITS architecture maintainer is not expected to have a
full depth of knowledge in all National ITS Architecture transportation
services. An update of this scale using strategic planning from needs
and analysis to final regional ITS architecture project can be daunting
for the regional ITS architecture maintainer. Contracting out this update
may be a more practical solution. Certainly costs and resource time
will increase with this scenario, whether performed in-house or outsourced.
These initiatives to evolve the regional ITS architecture into a new
baseline version are the most negotiable and exchangeable because a
little or a lot can be done as time allows. This may be an initiative
to undertake as part of the 3- to 5-year Regional Transportation Plan
update.
4 Where substantially more
resources may be needed
As an estimate, the following issues could double the original estimate
from 10 percent to 20 percent time allocated by the regional ITS architecture
maintainer for regional ITS architecture maintenance or, full-time staffing
may apply for extremely complex regions (dozens of public transit agencies,
and hundreds of transportation governmental agencies and emergency services
providers). These overriding issues are:
- Regional ITS architecture maintainer experience in ITS and the regional
ITS architecture
- Region size and complexity
4.1 Regional ITS architecture maintainer
experience
The discussion of this Technical Advisory - up to now - has been from
the viewpoint that the regional ITS architecture maintainer personnel
have been involved in the regional ITS architecture development all
along and/or have a good understanding of ITS. When new personnel are
assigned to ITS and the regional ITS architecture, they must "climb
the learning curve". At this point, the resource allocation for
maintenance becomes several orders of magnitude larger. They will need
training on the National ITS Architecture, training on the Turbo Architecture
software tool for regional ITS architecture documentation, possibly
an introduction to ITS in general, plus time to become familiar with
the contents of their regional ITS architecture. Familiarity with new
ITS project development procedures established to meet 23CFR940 will
also be necessary.
This professional capacity building regimen assumes the availability
of training courses and orientations, instead of learning by "self-study".
Nationally developed training courses are available through the National
Highway Institute (NHI) and the National Transit Institute (NTI). However,
these are not always available when needed, have a cost associated with
them, and require a minimum class size. More information can be found
on the NHI and NTI internet web sites: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/
and http://www.ntionline.com/.
One-stop access to training, education and technical resources for ITS
success can be found at http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/default.asp.
FHWA Division and Resource Center offices can offer basic introductions
to ITS and architecture, help arrange for delivery of National courses,
and provide technical assistance. Travel costs of participants will
be needed for multiple-day classes centrally delivered within the state
in order to meet minimum class size requirements.
4.2 Region size and complexity
The size of the region, complexity of intergovernmental relations,
and ITS activities already underway and proposed will impact the need
for resources. This will reflect on resource time of the regional ITS
architecture maintainer, most likely it has already been a factor in
all aspects of the regional ITS architecture maintainer's transportation
program. Large regions here are defined to have multiple municipalities,
diverse and/or large number of governmental organizations or service
providers, and often perceived to have incompatible agendas. Where individual
counties within a region have developed regional ITS architectures,
there may be maintenance agreements with the county partners to pool
resources for maintenance of the several regional ITS architectures.
Mediation of conflicting implementation approaches can lead to new
resource considerations where institutional complexity of regions and
conflicting policies exist. While keeping the regional ITS architecture
relevant, there will be times when consensus or buy-in to the architecture
breaks down. Maintenance plans usually point to an existing institutional
management group for overarching policy decisions and as the venue for
executive information. The regional ITS architecture maintainer's management
board of supervisors, policy committee, commission, or council has this
responsibility. The role is often assumed as simply endorsement of staff
recommendations associated with the regional ITS architecture, with
outstanding differences resolved at the staff level. Where strong local
initiatives move quickly and precedent decisions on systems integration
are made without regard for the whole region, conflict may need to be
elevated to the management board (or other agreed upon policy group)
without staff resolution. This has occurred in the past with regard
to the telecommunications backbone communications architecture and the
related protocols for agency systems to share information and control
with each other (electronically talk to each other). This should not
be taken lightly and may sometimes be contentious. Two ingredients to
produce compromise are time and committed members. Depending on what
form this policy group takes in the regional ITS architecture Maintenance
Plan, the members should understand that these issues arise. This should
be kept in mind as regional integration unfolds and resources are needed
to make it happen.
In summary, as you can see there is variability in what resources will
be needed to guide successful integration of ITS systems. Considering
all of the issues brought out here, the perception is that regional
ITS architecture maintenance is a huge order. That is not the case.
Not all of the issues discussed here will have an impact in every region.
This paper, will assure that no major surprises surface during the year
and cause a debate of priority, an imbalance in staff time, or delay
in project funding. The 1997 Transportation Bill (TEA-21) sought to
take the transportation operations community to a new level of collaboration
and cooperation. The concept of a framework for tying systems together
in a region for better control and to share information was new to many
transportation professionals. Today, there is the growing realization
that regionalism is achievable and has potential benefits. Executing
maintenance planning of these architectures is also new territory and
will assure realization of those benefits and sustainability of the
effort. As we progress through these formative years, knowledge and
understanding will be gained. As regions' experience in implementing
23CFR940 grows, better information will be captured and shared.
[1] Because
it is called various names across the country, in this Technical Advisory
the Transportation Plan refers to the product of the process of long-range
planning.
