Have your safety data workflows been analyzed and mapped? Please provide an example.

Alaska: The multiagency Crash Data Repository (CDR) provides a central distribution for the

new electronic crash reports from TraCS and other proprietary systems. Agencies developed the CDR following ITS systems engineering principles. The concept of operations detailed the crash data workflow. A high-level work flow analysis is shown in Figure 2.

The department is procuring a new CRASH to replace the 30-year-old mainframe legacy system. The new system will be integrated with the RDS through SIRIS. The concept of

operations and detailed system needs and requirements for the new crash system provides work flow details (current and envisioned) in sufficient detail to procure the system. Alaska DOT&PF modeled the safety data workflow for processing crashes into the department’s transportation

Full Text of State Questionnaire Responses 59

FIGURE 2 Alaska DOT&PF crash work flow analysis.

databases usingUnified Modelling Language Use Cases. These work flows were part of the Concept of Operations and User Needs and Requirements for the new crash data system.

Workflow is another important piece to data governance, i.e., work flow defines the technical and policy related activities to be performed to execute the data governance. The SIRIS data governance workflow outlines a series of steps to take when considering new data sets and implements a strategy for governing each data set. Safety data sets are an integral part of the work flow analysis and mapping. There are three steps in the workflow analysis and mapping:

• Register and catalog existing and new data sets. The first step is to register and catalog existing and new data sets. The registry is simply a catalog of each data set and its metadata. Fortunately the TAM data integration team is creating an information system and data registry that serves a similar purpose for all department critical data sets. They will use the SIRIS data elements as it first entry. Sharing the data registry will reduce any duplicative efforts

between the TAM efforts and SIRIS data governance.

• Evaluate and score existing and new data sets. The transition team created a Data Value Assessment Form to evaluate and score new data sets. This step will allow the transition team to define the critical data elements and document sufficient descriptions of each one. The Data Value Assessment Form includes a list of questions about the proposed data request. If the Data Management Team determines that a proposed data set is critical, they will determine

where on the data management solutions spectrum the data set falls. This step is essential as it determines where the data will be stored and how the data set will integrate with SIRIS components. An illustration of the data management solutions spectrum is shown in Figure 3.

If a data set were to fall in the “registered in catalog only,” it will be stored external to SIRIS components but registered in the SIRIS catalog to enable management and access. The further to the right of the spectrum the data set falls, the more closely it integrates with SIRIS.

• Data Management Team review. The Data Management Team will review and notify the individual or group that initiated the request with feedback and a formal response. If the data set is not selected as a critical SIRIS data set, an explanation will be provided. If the requestor wishes to pursue the discussion further, the Data Governance Board will review and respond. If the data set is selected (i.e., considered critical to SIRIS), the team will provide feedback and suggestions to the requestor along with further instructions on next steps.

It is not the intent of the Data Management Team to turn down a request or to do all the work if the request is approved. The overall intent is ensure improvements to the data are ongoing and to always maintain focus on developing quality data sets. This is also an education process for those requesting the data. Often a requestor is unaware of the level of effort it takes to “just add a data layer” or to “just revise a current layer.” It is the Data Management Team’s job to educate the requester that ifthey want quality data then these are the questions (Data Value Assessment Form) that must be answered in order to ensure a quality data set. If the team can’t approve it then the requestor has more knowledge about what it takes to provide and maintain quality data. Also, as time goes by, users start to think of the SIRIS data set as an asset or resource that they can truly value and support.

A key point to recognize is that this process is addressing the key data elements that should be included in the spatial geodatabase and is integral to the location referencing process. There could be many fields associated with a data set that can potentially be stored in another database. In this case, the key fields are stored in the geodatabase while most of the other fields are in another database. In the safety case, both data sets are in Oracle, with the primary data sets for location referencing in the geodatabase.

Full Text of State Questionnaire Responses 61

Idaho: No.

Iowa: Analyzed, not mapped. Louisiana: No.

Maryland: Yes, Maryland SHA has analyzed and mapped the high-crash locations and

workflows in a Fund 76 Flow Chart as shown in Figure 4.

Michigan: Michigan DOT currently does not have a defined workflow process for all areas of

Safety. Safety Analyst is determined internally with references to Michigan Sufficiency,

CRASH, and other databases. The department’s Roadsoft efforts have resulted from continuous contributions from both state and local agencies along with the utilization of framework

information from the Department of Technology Management and Budget–Center for Shared Solutions (DTMB-CSS).

Montana: Analyzed but not mapped.

Ohio: This has not been created for the Ohio DOT specifically. Figure 5 displays the relationship between the department and the Ohio Department of Public Safety (DPS).

Rhode Island: There is no formal safety data workflow at this time. One will be established as

part of the pilot project for Local–State Data Integration for Asset Management and Safety Analysis.

Washington State: Yes. A data workflow diagram for the Highway Safety Project Program–

Process was prepared as part of the strategic plan for sustainable highway safety at the department.

10. Have your data business rules been documented to facilitate safety data processing,