复制成功
  • 图案背景
  • 纯色背景
  •   |  注册
  • /
  • 批注本地保存成功,开通会员云端永久保存 去开通
  • mushroom格..

    上传于:2012-10-18

    粉丝量:22

    该亚博足球app下载贡献者很忙,什么也没留下。

    

    e-Transit Electronic Business - Strategies for Public Transportation, Volume 9

    下载积分:800

    内容提示: e-Transit: Electronic Business Strategies for Public TransportationVolume 9Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning FrameworkTRANSIT COOPERATIVERESEARCHPROGRAMTRANSIT COOPERATIVERESEARCHPROGRAMTCRP REPORT 84Sponsored by the Federal Transit AdministrationSponsored by the Federal Transit Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*OFFICERSCHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore VICE CHAIR: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning...

    亚博足球app下载格式:PDF| 浏览次数:6| 上传日期:2012-10-18 10:12:05| 亚博足球app下载星级:
    e-Transit: Electronic Business Strategies for Public TransportationVolume 9Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning FrameworkTRANSIT COOPERATIVERESEARCHPROGRAMTRANSIT COOPERATIVERESEARCHPROGRAMTCRP REPORT 84Sponsored by the Federal Transit AdministrationSponsored by the Federal Transit Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*OFFICERSCHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore VICE CHAIR: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, TucsonEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research BoardMEMBERSJ. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KYDeborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation,Norfolk, VAWilliam A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los AngelesEugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, RaleighJames M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TXPaula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, OlympiaMichael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, FrankfortAdib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyMichael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island DOT, ProvidenceSusan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson CityMichael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, ArlingtonTracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LASteven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WAHenry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MOBeverly A. Scott, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GADavid Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PALawrence A. Selzer, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VAKumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, WestLafayette, IN Thomas K. Sorel, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, St. PaulDaniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute ofTransportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, DavisKirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, LansingDouglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MIC. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, AustinEX OFFICIO MEMBERSPeter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOTJ. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOTRebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GAAnne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.DOTJohn T. Gray, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DCJohn C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DCDavid T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOTVictor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOTWilliam W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DCTara O’Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,Washington, DCRobert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DCCynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,U.S.DOTPeter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOTDavid L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOTJoseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOTPolly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOTRobert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DCBarry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CATCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECTSELECTION COMMITTEE*CHAIRKeith ParkerVIA Metropolitan TransitMEMBERSJohn BartosiewiczMcDonald Transit AssociatesMichael BlaylockJacksonville Transportation AuthorityLinda J. BohlingerHNTB Corp.Raul BravoRaul V. Bravo & AssociatesTerry Garcia CrewsMetro CincinnatiCarolyn FlowersCharlotte Area Transit SystemAngela IannuzzielloENTRA ConsultantsJohn InglishUtah Transit AuthorityPaul JablonskiSan Diego Metropolitan Transit SystemSherry LittleSpartan Solutions, LLCJonathan H. McDonaldHNTB CorporationGary W. McNeilGO TransitMichael P. MelaniphyMotor Coach IndustriesBradford MillerDes Moines Area Regional Transit AuthorityFrank OteroPACO TechnologiesPeter RogoffFTAJeffrey RosenbergAmalgamated Transit UnionRichard SarlesWashington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityMichael ScanlonSan Mateo County Transit DistrictJames StemUnited Transportation UnionGary ThomasDallas Area Rapid TransitFrank TobeyFirst TransitMatthew O. TuckerNorth County Transit DistrictPam WardOttumwa Transit AuthorityPhillip WashingtonDenver Regional Transit DistrictAlice Wiggins-TolbertParsons BrinckerhoffEX OFFICIO MEMBERSWilliam W. MillarAPTARobert E. Skinner, Jr.TRBJohn C. HorsleyAASHTOVictor MendezFHWATDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORLouis SandersAPTASECRETARYChristopher W. JenksTRB*Membership as of June 2011.*Membership as of June 2011. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDWASHINGTON, D.C.2011www.TRB.org T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A MTCRP REPORT 84Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development CorporationSubscriber CategoriesPublic Transportatione-Transit: Electronic BusinessStrategies for Public TransportationVolume 9Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning FrameworkPaula OkunieffBruce EisenhartCONSENSUS SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONShenorock, NYNancy NeuerburgN-SQUARED ASSOCIATESSeattle, WAEdward ThomasAEGIRVentura, CAANDSusan SharpSHARP & COMPANYRockville, MD TCRP REPORT 84, VOLUME 9Project J-09/Task 13ISSN 1073-4872ISBN 978-0-309-21331-8Library of Congress Control Number 2002112858© 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.COPYRIGHT INFORMATIONAuthors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtainingwritten permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previouslypublished or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in thispublication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with theunderstanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document foreducational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source ofany reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permissionfrom CRP.NOTICEThe project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative ResearchProgram, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of theGoverning Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review thisreport were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according toprocedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approvedby the Governing Board of the National Research Council.The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of theresearchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the TransportationResearch Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National ResearchCouncil, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorseproducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely becausethey are considered essential to the object of the report.TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMThe nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental,and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Currentsystems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expandservice area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to servethese demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, toadapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro-duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit CooperativeResearch Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means bywhich the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutionsto meet demands placed on it.The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass TransportationAdministration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Areport by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA),Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success-ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakesresearch and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran-sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transitresearch fields including planning, service configuration, equipment,facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, andadministrative practices.TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro-posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho-rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Actof 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out-lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper-ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through theTransportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit DevelopmentCorporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga-nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming theindependent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight andProject Selection (TOPS) Committee.Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically butmay be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibilityof the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi-fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPSCommittee defines funding levels and expected products.Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointedby the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state-ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni-cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The processfor developing research problem statements and selecting researchagencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro-grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels servevoluntarily without compensation.Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail toreach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi-nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran-sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a seriesof research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support-ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange forworkshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensurethat results are implemented by urban and rural transit industrypractitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperativelyaddress common operational problems. The TCRP results support andcomplement other ongoing transit research and training programs.Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMare available from:Transportation Research BoardBusiness Office500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001and can be ordered through the Internet athttp://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstorePrinted in the United States of America The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with theNational Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering alsosponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superiorachievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent membersof appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under theresponsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal governmentand, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of theInstitute of Medicine.The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community ofscience and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning inaccordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, andthe scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta-tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange,conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia,all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu-als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 84, VOLUME 9Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research ProgramsCrawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research ProgramsGwen Chisholm Smith, Senior Program OfficerMegha Khadka, Senior Program AssistantEileen P. Delaney, Director of PublicationsNatassja Linzau, EditorTCRP PROJECT J-09 PANELField of Special ProjectsPaul A. Toliver, New Age Industries, Seattle, WA (Chair)Peter Anderson, Fort Worth City Government, Fort Worth, TXRobin Cody, SunRise Consulting, Concord, CARaymond H. Ellis, AECOM, Arlington, VALawrence J. Harman, Harman Consulting, Boston, MAJamey Harvey, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DCRosie Perez, Overtown Village Transit Center, Miami, FLMichael Shiffer, Translink (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority), Burnaby, BCRobin C. Stevens, Robin Stevens Consulting, Ltd., New York, NYNigel H. M. Wilson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAMokhtee Ahmad, FTA LiaisonMichael Baltes, FTA LiaisonAUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project J-09 Task 13 by Consensus SystemsTechnologies (ConSysTec), N-Squared Associates, AEGIR, and Sharp & Company. ConSysTec was thecontractor for this project.Ms. Paula Okunieff of ConSysTec was the Project Principal Investigator. The other authors of thisreport are Nancy Neuerburg of N-Squared Associates, Bruce Eisenhart of ConSysTec, Edward Thomas ofAEGIR, and Susan Sharp of Sharp & Company.As a project team, we can say with gratitude that without WMATA’s staff contribution and resources,this effort would be far smaller in scope, with fewer, less well-developed deliverables. WMATA, particu-larly Jamey Harvey, not only contributed their Enterprise Architecture Process (EAP) for reference, theyalso contributed their IT governance model, additional guidance, and the time and effort of both in-housestaff and contractors to update and support the workshops. In large part, the benefits of the end productare due to their contribution.C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S TCRP Report 84: e-Transit: Electronic Business Strategies for Public Transportation docu-ments principles, techniques, strategies, and processes that are used in electronic businessstrategies for public transportation. TCRP Report 84 is being published in multiple volumes;Volume 9: Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework presents multi-facetedmethods, tools and examples within a framework to help agencies successfully implementtechnologies. It helps show the connections between their business and the technology, assistswith building the business case for specific investments, highlights different financingoptions, provides guidance on an enterprise-wide approach to create more efficient andeffective system deployments, and provides a method to show the benefits of a technologyinvestment. The report provides a framework that incorporates five systems management dis-ciplines: Enterprise Architecture Planning, Business Case Methodology, Systems Engineering,Financial Implementation Methods, and Post-Implementation Assessment. The Transit Enter-prise Architecture Planning (TEAP) Framework incorporates best practices in applying thesedisciplines from the transit industry practices as well as from other commercial and govern-ment sectors into an integrated approach to assist agencies in implementing informationtechnologies (IT) and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies to better meettheir business goals and objectives and operational needs. This report describes and providesguidance on how to implement the Framework.New information and communication technologies are revolutionizing the way services aredelivered and organizations are structured. Electronic business processes change the waysorganizations operate and conduct business. Opportunities to lower operations and mainte-nance costs and improve efficiency have changed relationships between transit agencies andtheir suppliers and customers, and electronic business processes are likely to change industrystructures in the long term.The declining costs of communications, data storage, and data retrieval are acceleratingthe opportunities spawned by the Internet and other information and communications tech-nologies. Choosing and sequencing investments in technologies, processes, and people toreduce costs and increase productivity present challenges to the transit manager, who mustweigh the costs, benefits, and risks of changing the ways services are delivered. To assist inmeeting such challenges, TCRP Project J-09 produces a multiple-volume series under TCRPReport 84. The research program identifies, develops, and provides flexible, ongoing, quick-response research designed to bring electronic business strategies to public transportation andmobility management. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Frameworkis the ninth volume in the TCRPReport 84 multiple-volume series. In this volume, the authors from Consensus SystemsF O R E W O R DBy Gwen Chisholm SmithStaff OfficerTransportation Research Board Technologies, N-Squared Associates, AEGIR and Sharp & Co. describe the TEAP Frame-work. They drew from transit agencies and other government and commercial businessesthat employ best practices, to develop this Framework that is applicable to transit agencies,large or small, and of different modes. The research team synthesized the information collectedfrom a state of the practice scan, and developed a model for an effective and consistent approachto transit enterprise architecture planning (TEAP) that may be used by transit agencies to assistwith many aspects of implementing technology projects.The report provides practical guidance, models, templates, and examples for large andsmall projects, simplifying the complex procedures related to the multiple stages of the tech-nology investment. The report includes materials targeted to different audiences includinginformation that can be readily used by transit executives, senior managers and programmanagers in their IT and ITS planning and decision making.Volumes issued under TCRP Report 84 may be found on the TRB website at http://www.trb.org/Publications/PubsTCRPProjectReportsAll.aspx. C O N T E N T S1Executive Summary1Project Overview2Phase I Results4Phase II Results: Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit7Chapter 1 Introduction7Project Objectives7Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning (TEAP) Framework Objectives8Final Report Scope9Chapter 2 Research Approach—Methodology9Phase I: Development of the TEAP Framework10Phase II: Reference Transit Enterprise Architecture Process11Chapter 3 State of the Practice11Summary of Results11Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architecture Planning (EA/EAP)11Business Case Methodology (BCM)14IT/ITS Funding Implementation14Systems Engineering (SE)15Post-Implementation Analysis (PIA)17Chapter 4 Development of the TEAP Framework17TEAP Framework Overview20TEAP Framework Wiki Overview21TEAP Guidebook24Chapter 5 Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit24Purpose of a Transit Enterprise Architecture Process Reference Model24Methodology Used to Develop the Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit25What Is in the Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit?25TEAP Metamodel Overview25Overview of the Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit28TEAP Solutions for Fare Management30Chapter 6 Evaluation and Next Steps30Evaluation Phase Goal35Summary and Key Findings36Conclusion and Final Comments37References38Abbreviations and Acronyms 40Appendix A Guidance for Transit Managers49Appendix B State of the Practice Synthesis128Appendix C Validation ReportNote: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscalefor printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions. E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R YThe Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning (TEAP) Framework project sought toprovide transit agencies with a roadmap and tools to successfully implement InformationTechnology (IT) and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies that meet theirbusiness needs. The systems management areas that compose the TEAP Framework includethe following disciplines:• Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architecture Process (EA/EAP)• Business Case Methodology (BCM)• Funding Implementation (FI)• Project Systems Engineering (SE)• Post-Implementation Analysis (PIA)Project OverviewThe objective of the project was to identify key elements and develop a coherent frame-work that is critical to successfully deploying IT (specifically ITS) projects. The resultingframework should adopt best, streamlined practices from the broader IT industry and show-case good examples from the transit industry. Furthermore, the resulting research shouldprovide resources and building blocks that other public transportation organizations couldshare, borrow, and learn from each other.The project was divided into two phases. In Phase I, the tasks consisted of doing research tounderstand the current state of the practice and developing the preliminary TEAP Framework,guidance and tools that compose the roadmap for developing successful IT/ITS projects. TheFramework guidance and tools were placed on a wiki website, www.tcrp-teap.pbworks.com.Specifically, the Framework helps:• Guide an agency’s planning process and investment criteria,• Improve its understanding of risks and risk management,• Verify and validate compliance with its needs and stakeholder requirements,• Better manage system project implementation, and• Enhance the measurement of results and benefits.The Phase II objectives focused on refining the Framework materials and developingenterprise architecture-related building blocks for the transit industry so that they canmore quickly create their own agency-specific enterprise architectures. Transit enterprisearchitecture templates and tools were created by adapting an existing transit enterprisearchitecture developed by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework1 2into a more generic Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit. The TEAP Framework’senterprise architecture materials and tools were the focus of the Phase II evaluation and pilotefforts by transit agencies.Phase I ResultsPhase I tasks consisted of preparing a research synthesis and developing the preliminaryTEAP Framework, guidance, and tools. Part of the Phase I research focused on understand-ing the current state of the practice in transit, that is, how transit agencies and transportationauthorities currently understand, apply, and use each of the five disciplines that compose theTEAP Framework. Building on the project research and best practices, the project fusedthese disciplines into a coherent TEAP Framework that showed their interrelationships,flows, and synergies. A wiki website was developed to store the project results. As guidancefor transit was developed, it was made available on the website, including a Guidance forTransit Managers document. A summary of these Phase I results is included below.Research SynthesisThe research included a task to identify best practices in the IT industry and the currentstate of the practice for transit providers with respect to the five disciplines, as well as howthey fit together within an agency. A literature search was conducted, and surveys weredeveloped to interview transit professionals in a range of different transit agencies. To pro-vide a reasonable sample of agencies for the telephone interviews, a group of 14 transit agen-cies and three DOTs was selected for interviews. The results of the surveys are included inAppendix B. In summary, the synthesis found that application of each of the five disciplinesis growing, but lags behind other vertical industries. Many large transit agencies are currentlydeveloping more formal methods and procedures to implement all of the included disci-plines. The most difficult of the five disciplines for agencies to implement is the enterprisearchitecture, and very few agencies have the resources or time to implement even part of anenterprise architecture.TEAP Framework OverviewThe Framework helps transit professionals understand the financial, operational, and man-agement impacts of technologies, to help them better meet their enterprise business processneeds and corporate objectives. The Framework helps guide an agency’s IT/ITS planningprocess, improve its understanding of risks, better manage the project implementation effort,validate and verify compliance with its needs, and measure results and benefits.Specifically, the TEAP Framework guides transit in:• Planning how information, services, and technology will connect across an enterprise tosupport business processes, solve problems, and measure performance;• Promoting information sharing across agency and institutional barriers;• Ensuring that IT/ITS projects are defined and staged in a way that delivers the best valueand supports successful project implementation, operations, and maintenance;• Ensuring that the benefits and costs of proposed IT/ITS projects are understood across theproject’s lifecycle (including operations and maintenance) and that resources are availableto support the program;• Specifying IT/ITS projects to maximize the IT/ITS investment decisions across theorganization; 3• Ensuring that IT/ITS projects meet stakeholder needs: requirements are explicitly described,risks are identified and mitigated, and the system development process is managed toensure that correct operations and requirements are met; and• Describing the leadership and processes that ensure that the organization’s IT groupsupports and extends corporate strategies and objectives.The Framework is composed of five System Development disciplines as follows:• Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP), which is used to model the organization’s poli-cies, structure, locations, business processes, information, applications, and technologies,and their relationship to each other (i.e., the organization’s blueprint);• Business Case Methodology (BCM),which describes how well a project fits into the orga-nization’s stated priorities, as well as the risks, benefits and costs, and estimated return oninvestment (ROI);• Funding Implementation, which investigates alternative approaches for how to pay forIT/ITS projects;• Systems Engineering (SE), which is used to help design and manage an IT/ITS Projectimplementation; and• Post-Implementation Analysis (PIA), which provides a method to assess whether theimplementation met project and agency goals and achieved a meaningful (estimated) ROIand to review the project implementation experience for lessons learned.Figure 1 shows the flow of these five TEAP components.TEAP WikiOutreach, transfer, and sustainability of the Framework depends on communicating andsharing the best ideas and efforts with other transit professionals. Building on best practicesfrom the transit industry and other industries, a wiki, or collaborative website, was devel-oped to document the recommendations for the Framework, as well as provide a forum andspace for transit professionals to share and exchange their approaches to implementing ele-ments of the Framework. The resources collected during the synthesis tasks were made avail-able on the wiki so that transit staff could find a collection of existing resources that explainthe multitude of approaches that are available through National Transit Institute (NTI),American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA),and other outreach efforts.The medium that presented the TEAP Framework needed to address three major needs:• Develop guidance on the TEAP that targeted multiple audiences (without intimidating anyof them by the size of the document).• Present the material using a medium that was logical, easy to use, and allowed for seam-less linkage to show the relationships between the elements (and external resources).• Provide the industry with a site where collaboration and information navigation was intu-itive and easy to use while preventing spamming and misuse of the site.The research team populated the site with the Framework Guidance and EA/EAP Guide-book. The site lays out the Framework Guidance in a systematic way, with sections target-ing different audiences, from executives and senior managers to program managers andtechnical practitioners (see Table 1 for details). 4Guidance for Transit ManagersA short executive report was developed for executive and senior managers (see Guidancefor Transit Managers in Appendix A), which included a high-...

    关注我们

  • 新浪微博
  • 关注微信公众号

  • 打印亚博足球app下载
  • 复制文本
  • 下载e-Transit Electronic Business - Strategies for Public Transportation, Volume 9.XDF
  • 您选择了以下内容