TKN TF Meeting Notes: 7 February 2013

AASHTO RAC Transportation Knowledge Networks Task Force

February 7, 2013

Attendees: Leni Oman (Chair), Andrew Lemer, Sue Sillick, Daniel Yeh, Diane Gurtner, Ron Curb, Lisa Loyo, Kathy Szolomayer (Notes), Renee McHenry, Katy Callon, Shashi Nambisan, Lynn Matis, Louise Rosenzweig, Karen Perrin, Dale Steele, Laura Wilt, Carol Paszamant

Unable to attend: Bob Cullen, Leighton Christiansen, Jane Minotti

Agenda

1. Roll call

2.  Check in on December notes; are any agenda adjustments needed for today?
No other corrections at this time for December notes. (Note: no meeting held in January.)
No additions/adjustments to agenda were requested.

1. SCOR discussion on information

a.  Draft R&D Framework (See attached) – this summarizes information from a literature review, TRB’s review of research needs statements, and some conversations and on-going work. Feedback appreciated.
Leni gave an overview of the SCOR meeting and how their request for the Framework came about, plus how the Framework was shaped and background information used for it. Tacit information is being worked in, as is records management. Leni noted that certain sections are weak but it’s a work in progress. She asked for comments on the Framework.
Daniel asked whether records management should really be added to this mix, as it’s very different from KM. Leni agreed but stressed that info management practices can support records management. Also, some of the old KM models are not valid anymore; there’s fluidity between records and documents/publications (the same item can be both a record and a document/publication/information to be managed), so it’s worth mentioning if only for that reason. Daniel responded that this is a good approach and cautioned that we need to continue to be careful to clarify the distinctions.
Laura added that records management is often “siloed” at ODOT and information may be destroyed per retention schedules, when there is historical value to the information in those records; there’s definitely a need to be aware of this.
Karen agreed with this observation --- and stated there is a problem with information which is submitted via records management channels -- even when the info is not destroyed, it is difficult to access – retrieval, whether in the short-term or long-term is often a secondary consideration for records managers who (for a variety of reasons) are more focused on complying with the exact details of the retention schedules (which do not typically emphasize retrieval methods or requirements).
No other comments. Leni did ask if someone comes up with a better term than “Human Factors”, please let her know, but it seems okay for now.
Other reviewers of this Framework have provided some input and Leni briefly described that.

1. Problem statement ideas that have been mentioned or are brewing:

i.  Improving information networking capacity: metadata (intellectual property aspects), format of information, management (uses, retention…); improving findability (content description/steps toward a common language; practices to facilitate networking (XML?, extensible languages, etc.)
Lisa’s comments regarding “findability”: we don’t always know what needs to be found, so we could start by trying to narrow down what it is we need to find (e.g. blueprints, documents, etc.). Developing common vocabularies would help in this. Leni added that data architecture is important to help support findability and networking.

1. Data citation – are elements addressed in the statement proposed about?
   Leni asked for thoughts around data citation as a topic for a potential problem statement. No comments from the group right away, but later in the call, Kathy asked if Data for Decisions (which she has not read) had any ideas for research that could be built into a proposal. Leni said it has not been published but that data citation was not on the radar for that.
   

iii.  Setting a strategic vision and strategies to move toward that….
The Framework is designed to provide context for research – do we need something more robust?
Sidebar: SCOP (Standing Committee on Planning) has a data subgroup and it has just proposed data management principles. The goal is to take the principles to CEOs at AASHTO for support; MAP-21 is an inspiration for this effort. Matt Hardy and Leni discussed how we can work together on this. This is potentially a problem statement. Thoughts?
Daniel commented that regarding data citation we need to keep in mind the privacy issues related to data and how data can/cannot be released. Massachusetts DOT has a nice statement about data (using it/sharing it, etc.), Leni mentioned.
In our community we need to try to define what we mean by data and information, to keep things clear.
Leni asked if there are other areas that need to be considered before the proposed areas, above. Is findability important? Laura said it is.
Leni is working on problem statements; Lisa helping with the networking piece in findability topic. From TKN chairs, “people side” of KM . . . Trying to get something to SCOR in March.
Laura asked where capturing institutional knowledge falls in this framework – in human factors, or ? How is operational knowledge effectively captured? Do we need research in this, or work to develop it? Leni mentioned that some efforts are already underway, but we need to share these better. Also raising awareness of this issue with executives and CEOs is important.
Sue mentioned LIST might be able to co-sponsor some of this research.
Andy L. wants to feel confident that folks think things are moving in the right direction; Dale commented that he’s struck by the enormity of what needs to be done/what could be done.
Shashi mentioned that visualization/synthesis of data is also something to be aware of: how to communicate data visually.
Ron commented on the different approaches taken to find information, by engineers versus librarians, for example. How do engineers know, for example, the best way to exploit metadata to help with searches? Training is needed so users have the ability to find what they are looking for.
Dale observed that controlled vocabularies can help with Ron’s issues. Also, at this point, librarians are good at indexing to the document level, but what is needed is some work at the “sub-document” level, but a lot of resources would be needed for that.
Laura commented that in order for controlled vocabularies to be truly useful, there needs to be input from practitioners as well as librarians.
Lisa said for the TRT, they do consult practitioners, and Leni mentioned Andy Everett’s efforts to build SME (subject matter expert) input into the WSDOT data catalog definitions.
Information literacy for the community will also be a need, Kathy observed, to allow users to leverage how info is organized into their search strategies to return the best results.
Lynn said it’s important to collaborate to get information centralized and go beyond the needs/perspectives of our own organizations.
Louise agreed that findability is important and noted that cross-references are important, especially in their catalog. Accurately representing technical terms and concepts with appropriate metadata is critical to point researchers to the information they are seeking.

1. NTKN Coordinating Committee (see notes)
   Met at beginning of month and the governance document is being finalized and will be distributed in near future.
   TLCat – is going away, but as Lynn observed, the information is in WorldCat.
   This year’s NTKN meeting will probably not be after SLA, but rather a series of focused web-based meetings. Also, there should/could be opportunities to achieve some synergy with TRB attendees to broaden audience.
   Logo and templates – work is being done on these; more simplified look than previous attempts.

5.  TRB Annual Meeting news
Daniel said at the Conduct of Research meeting, there was an interesting presentation on how engineers like to receive information, and that this group might find it interesting. Leni will send out a link to those presentation materials.
Discussion of literature reviews vs. lit searches. Sue has scheduled a meeting with representatives from the TRB COR and LIST Committees to discuss this topic. Sue is not anticipating a problem statement; rather, LIST will likely develop a guidance document.

1. Other updates
2. Calendars – no updates. Library TPF did not fund this proposal. Sue asked Laura to keep her in the loop; there is broad interest in this.

b.  Communication plan – Lynn has some ideas for moving forward and outlined some of them, since the survey she and Kathy sent out last year did not provide input. For example, the TRB reports dealing with “communicating the value of research” and “communicating the value of preservation” give some good ideas for getting the message out. Should the TKN video be put on DVDs? Or would a link be better? Kathy and Lynn will figure it out, and as Leni said, once we figure out who we are targeting this will be easier. We need to keep in mind who can access YouTube, for example. For next month, let’s try to come back with a plan for who we want to get this out to.

1. Report distribution – Daniel said the Library Connectivity TPF did pick up this project and Karen reported there’s a kickoff meeting today, directly following this meeting; she’ll make sure future meetings include all interested parties. She also mentioned that the Technical Report page proposal was approved, as well, and the kickoff meeting for that will also be today, following the reports distribution kickoff meeting.
   Daniel gave some background on these projects for the group: one is to develop guidance for filling out the technical report documentation page and the other is aimed at developing a streamlined process for submitting reports, including a list of recipients (required and recommended), etc.
   Carol asked whether FHWA is being consulted on the technical report page, since it is their form? Yes, Dawn V. (of this committee) is in the loop.

d.  Data management – no updates (Mary, Frances, Andy A. not on the call today)
Data citation presentation at TRB was an outgrowth of work by these 3 folks

e.  Repository paper – Dale received comments and is still working on integrating them.

Other news?

Laura said that Barnie Jones, the long-time research manager at Oregon DOT, is retiring at the end of March and the new manager is on board now, so there will be some overlap and continuity there. Just FYI for the group . . .

Meeting adjourned at 9:57

Next Meeting: March 7th, 2013 at 8:30 am Pacific Time