Report on User Needs

Transcription

1 TELEMATICS APPLICATION PROGRAMME 4th FWP - SECTOR Transport Telematics DG XIII IN-RESPONSE / TR 1030 (INcident RESPonse with ON-line innovative SEnsing) Deliverable 3.1 (Version 1.0) Report on User Needs 31/07/1996

2 IN-RESPONSE (INcident RESPonse with ON-line innovative SEnsing) Report on User Needs (Version 1.0) Deliverable:3.1 Work Package: 3 Dissemination Level : PU Nature: Report Agreed delivery date :31/07/96 Actual delivery date : 31/07/96 Partner responsible for the deliverable: TRD International S.A. Technical Abstract: This document, prepared by the IN-RESPONSE consortium, presents the Consolidated Report on the specific User Requirements for the operations realized during the management of the incidents, in terms of incident detection, incident response, and traffic management. Based on user needs and application area on the one hand and available technologies, standards and products on the other, the analysis of user groups, their objectives and requirements are performed. User requirements are derived from shortcomings and deficiencies of current systems, and with reference to the potential of technologies not yet applied. Keywords: transport telematics, user forum, user groups, user requirements, incident detection, incident response, emergency control center, traffic management, motorist information systems, communication networks, information flow. D3.1 Report on User Needs V1.0 31/07/1996 page 2

3 IN-RESPONSE (INcident RESPonse with ON-line innovative SEnsing) Report on User Needs (Version 1.0) Project Co-ordinator: Dr. John Chrisoulakis Transeuropean Consulting Unit of Thessaloniki S.A. (TRUTh) Tel. : /9 Fax : truthsa@athena.compulink.gr Project Technical Manager: Prof. Yorgos J. Stephanedes Transeuropean Consulting Unit of Thessaloniki S.A. (TRUTh) Tel. : /9 Fax : truthsa@athena.compulink.gr Produced by: Responsible Organization TRD Authors and Contributors TRUTh SINTEF SICE NPRA GDS SSP RWS-AVV ADK INRETS AUTH TRD TEO ITEL Express Service TEI Ippokratio AHEPA UPC AUMAR GV OPD OFD UUH TNO-INRO TNO-TPD Univ. of Patras SAMU N o. PAGES 153 TABLES 108 FIGURES 29 ANNEXES 2 D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 3

4 LIST OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF REPORT STRUCTURE OF REPORT METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR USER NEEDS ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR USER NEEDS ANALYSIS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Terminology Incident management functions USERS AND USER GROUPS USER NEED ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire content and rationale THE INFORMATION GATHERING PROCESS National user fora European users forum Personal interviews USER NEEDS ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS OF USER NEEDS RESULTS USER PROFILES AND ROLES IN THE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT DOMAIN INTRODUCTION FRANCE GERMANY GREECE THE NETHERLANDS NORWAY SPAIN SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PRACTICES INTRODUCTION INCIDENT CATEGORIZATION / PRIORITIZATION France Germany Greece The Netherlands Norway Spain Conclusions INCIDENT DETECTION Incident detection data collection, and analysis Incident detection methods Incident detection equipment Evaluation methodology for incident detection and threshold values Conclusions DISPATCHING OF RESPONSE VEHICLES Dispatching policies and methods Emergency fleet dispatching equipment Evaluation methodology for emergency fleet dispatching and threshold values ROUTING OF RESPONSE VEHICLES ON-SCENE AND POST INCIDENT CLEARANCE ACTIONS Data collection and analysis for the on-scene and post incident clearance actions Methods for on-scene and post incident clearance actions Equipment used for the realization of the operations of the response vehicles Evaluation methodology for the operations of response vehicles, observed and desired values Conclusions TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Traffic management systems D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 4

5 4.7.2 Traffic management equipment Evaluation methodology for traffic management operations Conclusions LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS France Germany Greece Netherlands Norway Spain Conclusions SUMMARY IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND USER EXPECTATIONS INTRODUCTION FUNCTIONAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES Data collection and analysis Information flow and communication Incident detection Incident response Traffic management COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTORS LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS France Germany Greece TECHNOLOGICAL INEFFICIENCIES EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE France Germany Greece Norway Netherlands Spain SUMMARY IMPLICATIONS OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES INTRODUCTION USER UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE France Germany Greece The Netherlands Norway Spain Summary ERGONOMIC ISSUES: USER INTERFACES AND USER FRIENDLINESS France Germany Greece The Netherlands Norway Spain PRIORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INCIDENT MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS INTRODUCTION PREFERRED FUNCTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM France Germany Greece The Netherlands D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 5

6 7.2.5 Norway Spain CONSOLIDATION OF THE FUNCTION REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY GENERAL REFERENCES D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 6

7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Main Activities in each phase of the life - cycle Table 2.1 Incident Management Functions, Tasks and Subtasks Table 3.1: Incident management functions in France Table 3.2: Information flow amongst authorities involved in the incident management domain Table 3.3: Contents of the incident database in France Table 3.4: Tasks within incident management in Germany Table 3.5: Data exchanged between actors in Germany Table 3.6: Collected / stored data by each involved actor in Germany, and access restrictions Table 3.7: Groups and operations involved in incident management in Greece Table 3.8: Data exchange between incident management actors in Greece Table 3.9: Data maintained and analyzed by various incident management actors in Greece Table 3.10: Tasks undertaken by actors involved in incident management in the Netherlands Table 3.11: Information flow in the Netherlands Table 3.12: Data maintained by various incident management actors in the Netherlands Table 3.13: Actions performed by incident management actors in Norway Table 3.14: Data exchanged between authorities /organizations in Norway Table 3.15: Tasks undertaken by various incident management actors in Spain Table 3.16: Information flow amongst incident management actors in Spain Table 3.17: Incident data maintained and analyzed in Spain Table 4.1: Incident severity weights in France Table 4.2: Incident severity weights in Germany Table 4.3: Incident severity weights in Greece Table 4.4: Incident severity weight in the Netherlands Table 4.5: Incident severity weights in Norway Table 4.6: Incident severity weights in Spain Table 4.7: Major factors affecting incident severity per actor group Table 4.8: Incident detection methods in Germany Table 4.9: Incident detection and verification methods in the Netherlands Table 4.10: Incident detection and verification methods in Norway Table 4.11: Incident detection and verification methods in Spain Table 4.12: Evaluation criteria for incident detection in France Table 4.13: Evaluation criteria for incident detection in Germany Table 4.14: Evaluation criteria for incident detection in Greece Table 4.15: Dispatching methods implemented in France Table 4.16: Districting methods applied in Germany Table 4.17: Districting criteria and policies and disciplines in Greece Table 4.18: Dispatching Policies and Dispatching Disciplines in the Netherlands Table 4.19: Districting criteria and Dispatching policies and disciplines in Norway Table 4.20: Districting criteria and Dispatching policies in Spain Table 4.21: Evaluation criteria for the dispatching system in France D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 7

8 Table 4.22: Evaluation criteria for the dispatching system in Germany Table 4.23 : Evaluation criteria for the dispatching system in Greece Table 4.24: Evaluation criteria for the routing of response vehicles in Germany Table 4.25: Data required for the on-scene actions in Germany Table 4.26: Data required for on-scene actions and source of information in Greece Table 4.27: Data required for on-scene actions and source of information in the Netherlands Table 4.28: On-scene actions and criteria for their selection in Germany Table 4.29: Post-clearance actions in Germany Table 4.30: On-scene actions and methods for their selection in Greece Table 4.31: Post-clearance actions in Greece Table 4.32: On-scene actions in the Netherlands Table 4.33: Post-clearance actions in the Netherlands Table 4.34: On scene actions and selection methods in Norway Table 4.35: Post-clearance actions in Norway Table 4.36: On-scene actions and selection method in Spain Table 4.37: Post-clearance actions in Spain Table 4.38: Evaluation criteria for the response vehicles operations in Germany Table 4.39: Evaluation criteria for response vehicle operations in Greece Table 4.40: Traffic management systems in France Table 4.41: Traffic management systems in Germany Table 4.42 : Traffic management systems in Greece Table 4.43: Traffic management systems in the Netherlands Table 4.44 : Traffic management systems in Norway Table 4.45 : Traffic management systems in Spain Table 4.46: Motorist information in France Table 4.47: Motorist information in Germany Table 4.48 Motorist information systems in Greece Table 4.49: Motorist information systems in the Netherlands Table 4.50: Motorist information systems in Norway Table 4.51: Motorist information systems in Spain Table 4.52: Evaluation criteria and values for traffic management system in Germany Table 5.1: Incident detection features and proposed methods for improvement Table 5.2: Incident response features and proposed methods for improvement Table 5.3: Priority weights of incident management system evaluation indicators in France Table 5.4: Priority weights of incident management system evaluation indicators in Germany Table 5.5: Priority weights of incident management system evaluation indicators in Greece Table 5.6: Priority weights of incident management system evaluation indicators in Norway Table 5.7: Priority weights of incident management system evaluation indicators in Spain Table 6.1: Relative weights of advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in France D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 8

9 Table 6.2: Relative weights of disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in France Table 6.3: Relative weights of advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Germany Table 6.4: Relative weights of disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Germany Table 6.5 Relative weights of advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Greece Table 6.6: Relative weights of disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Greece Table 6.7: Advantages and disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in the Netherlands Table 6.8: Relative weights of advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Norway Table 6.9: Relative weights of disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Norway Table 6.10: Anticipated advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Spain.123 Table 6.11: Anticipated disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management in Spain.123 Table 6.12: Main advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management Table 6.13: Main disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management Table 6.14: Relative weights of technological attributes in France Table 6.15: Relative weights of technological attributes in Germany Table 6.16: Relative weights of technological attributes in Greece Table 6.17: Relative weights of technological attributes in Norway Table 6.18: Relative weights of technological attributes in Spain Table 6.19: Software, hardware, and operating systems selected by country and actor Table 6.19: Software, hardware, and operating systems selected by country and actor (cont.) Table 6.20: Preferences of data entry mode, and information display type by country and actor Table 6.20: Preferences of data entry mode, and information display type by country and actor (cont.) Table 6.21:Prevailing technological attributes of proposed incident management system Table 7.1: Relative weights of incident management functions in France Table 7.2: Relative weights of incident management functions in Germany Table 7.3: Relative weights of incident management functions in Greece Table 7.4: Relative weights of incident management functions in the Netherlands Table 7.5: Relative weights of incident management functions in Norway Table 7.6: Relative weights of incident management functions in Spain Table 8.1: Incident management functions and tasks per actor group per country D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 9

10 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 2.1: The 5 phases of the life-cycle of transport projects Figure 2.2. The inputs and outputs of each phase of the project life-cycle Figure 2.3: The proposed methodological framework for user needs analysis Figure 2.4: Time components of incident duration and RU utilization time Figure 4.1: Incident severity weights for the police group (for all countries) Figure 4.2: Incident severity weights for the fire department group (for all countries) Figure 4.3: Incident severity weights for the ambulance service group (for all countries) Figure 4.4: Incident severity weights for the roadway assistance group (for all countries) Figure 4.5: Incident severity weights for the traffic management group (for all countries) Figure 6.1: Relative weights of the advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the police group (all countries) Figure 6.2: Relative weights of the advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the fire department group (all countries) Figure 6.3: Relative weights of the advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the ambulance service group (all countries) Figure 6.4: Relative weights of the advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the roadway assistance group (all countries) Figure 6.5: Relative weights of the advantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the traffic management center group (all countries) Figure 6.6: Relative weights of the disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the police group (all countries) Figure 6.7: Relative weights of the disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the fire department group (all countries) Figure 6.8: Relative weights of the disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the ambulance service group (all countries) Figure 6.9: Relative weights of the disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the roadway assistance group (all countries) Figure 6.10: Relative weights of the disadvantages of the application of advanced technologies in incident management for the traffic management center group (all countries) Figure 6.11: Prioritization of technological attributes of integrated incident management system for the police group (all countries) Figure 6.12: Prioritization of technological attributes of integrated incident management system for the fire department group (all countries) Figure 6.13: Prioritization of technological attributes of integrated incident management system for the ambulance service group (all countries) Figure 6.14: Prioritization of technological attributes of integrated incident management system for the roadway assistance group (all countries) Figure 6.15: Prioritization of technological attributes of integrated incident management system for the traffic management group (all countries) D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 10

11 Figure 7.1: Prioritization of preferences in incident management functions by the police group (all countries) Figure 7.2: Prioritization of preferences in incident management functions by the fire department group (all countries) Figure 7.3: Prioritization of preferences in incident management functions by the ambulance service group (all countries) Figure 7.4: Prioritization of preferences in incident management functions by the roadway assistance group (all countries) Figure 7.5: Prioritization of preferences in incident management functions by the traffic management group (all countries) D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 11

12 LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEXI QUESTIONNAIRE ON USER NEEDS AND STRATEGIES ANNEX II MINUTES OF THE EUROPEAN USER FORUM MINUTES OF THE FRENCH USER FORUM MINUTES OF THE GERMAN USER FORUM MINUTES OF THE GREEK USER FORUM MINUTES OF THE NORWEGIAN USER FORUM MINUTES OF THE SPANISH USER FORUM D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 12

13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AD AID ANWB AS AVLM AVLM CB CCTV CIM DAISI EKAV FCFS FD GIS GPS GSM HO IN LE OTH PO RA RC RDS RU SIER SR S/W TM TP TRISTAR VHF VMS WE WIM WS Administration Automatic Incident Detection Road Patrol Agency Ambulance service Automatic Vehicle Location Module Automatic Vehicle Location System Citizen Band Closed Circuit Television Communication and Information software package National Center of Medical Aid First Come First Served Fire department Geographic Information System Global Positioning System Global System Mobile Communication Hospital Insurance Legislation Other actor group Police Roadway assistance Research center Radio Data System Response Unit Roadway authority in special response forces Software Traffic management center Technology provider Computer program Very High Frequencies Variable Message Sign Weather center Weigh-In-Motion Warning System D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 13

14 1. INTRODUCTION 1.0 General Incident management is a complex decision making process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders. Successful incident management operations rely on the cooperation amongst these actors and efficient use of resources. An important step towards developing an incident management system is the identification of user needs and expectations. User needs analysis can be performed following two alternative approaches depending on the source of information guiding the analysis process [Robert, J.M., and B. Pavard, (1996)]: the bottom up approach the top down approach According to the bottom up approach, the users are contacted first, in order to identify the functions and tasks they perform and their perceived needs and requirements for improving existing conditions. Alternatively, the top down approach aims to the specification of the system components which best fit a specific users domain based on the attributes of existing technologies. The investigation of the user needs within the framework of a Transport Telematics project is a continuous process which should be maintained during the project life cycle. The technological evolution and the development of new concepts towards innovative telematic applications affect the user requirements and reinforce the need for maintaining a communication link with the users [Robert J.M & Pavard B. (1996), Towards a guidebook for User Needs Analysis in Transport Telematics Applications]. The development of a telematic application within the 4 th Framework Program is a complex activity, which, according to the rules governed by the Commission should be implemented in five phases, with close involvement of the users at each of the following stages: 1. User needs identification 2. Functional specifications 3. Build a demonstrator 4. Validation 5. Exploitation The procedure followed within IN-RESPONSE project coincides with the basic lines provided by the Commission. The project ensured that it followed the general guidelines as defined by CODE, the horizontal project which provides support to the DGXIII Transport Telematics projects. D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 14

15 As per the guidelines (see Table 1: Main activities in each phase of the life - cycle ), the starting point of the project was the identification and analysis of the user requirements as described within the context of this deliverable. The assessment of the user needs will be followed by their translation in functional specifications. Once the specifications are determined and approved, the project will proceed to the system design phase (build a demonstrator), where a technical framework will be developed in order to support the design of the IN-RESPONSE applications. The next step in the IN-RESPONSE chain will be the validation phase, where the designed system will be tested in the real life environment and the soundness of its design will be verified. Particular emphasis will be placed on the development of an exploitation plan for publishing and disseminating the project results. As mentioned previously, the first phase of the IN-RESPONSE project was dedicated to the identification of the user needs. After initial definition, the user requirements have been collected and structured according to their nature and level of importance. Particular attention has been given to the identification of incident management functions, tasks and ways in which these are performed. Presently, the first assessment of the user needs has been accomplished, within the context of the technical annex of the IN-RESPONSE project. This report presents the results from the user needs analysis. The scope, objectives and structure of the report are presented in the following paragraphs. 1.1 Objectives of report The objectives of the report may be summarized in the following points: selection and enhancement of a methodological framework for performing user needs analysis within the context of incident management operations development of questionnaire for soliciting information leading to the definition of user needs for incident management operations, especially within IN-RESPONSE identification and classification of the multiple stakeholders and their specific role in the incident management chain determination of the various functions and tasks included in the overall incident management system identification of current practices in terms of data collection, analysis and information flow, implemented methods, and applied technologies identification of existing system inefficiencies and bottlenecks investigation on the users expectations identification of the measures to be taken for the improvement of the incident management sector The user needs analysis encompasses actors involved in, and affected by, incident management operations at all IN-RESPONSE sites. D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 15

16 Table 1: Main Activities in each phase of the life - cycle Phase Questions Activities How? User needs identification What are the user needs? (nature, underlying goals, structure, categories, level of importance, priorities,...) Detect/anticipate, define, structure, categorize, justify, measure, weigh... the user needs. Task analysis User analysis Analysis of products or services Analysis of technology Analysis of context Functional specifications What functions meet the user needs? (nature, structure, categories, level of importance, priorities,...) Identify, define, structure, categorize, justify, weigh... the functions Functional analysis and Value analysis Demonstrator Validation Exploitation Plan What product or service can best integrate the functional specifications? Is the product or service appropriate, and how good is it? How to best exploit the product or service? Integrate the functions, estimate their value, define new solutions or adapt existing solutions, make compromises, optimize,... Build a Mock-up, a Prototype, a full Product Validate the product or service Test the product or service with real users in a real context Provide the support for exploiting and maintaining the product or service. Brain storming Team discussion Analysis of technical possibilities and constraints... Use appropriate tools Walkthrough Heuristics Ergonomic audit Usability at a discount Formal Usability testing Measure criteria Claims Analysis Follow-up-studies Hot-line service Logbook [Robert J.M & Pavard B. (1996), Towards a guidebook for User Needs Analysis in Transport Telematics Applications, Brussels, June.] D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 16

17 1.2 Structure of report This report consists of eight chapters. Following the introductory chapter, Chapter 2 presents the methodological framework developed in the IN-RESPONSE project. In Chapter 3, a description of the profiles of the users and their involvement in incident management operations is presented. Chapter 4 describes the ways in which incident management functions and tasks are practiced in each of the participating countries in IN-RESPONSE. Chapter 5 provides an account of the major issues in incident management, and suggestions for improvement as determined by the users. Chapter 6, discusses the implications of the advanced technologies for improving incident management operations. Based on the findings of the analysis performed in the previous chapters, a preliminary synthesis of user requirements is performed in chapter 7. This is achieved by considering the preferences expressed by the users and the capabilities offered by ATT. Finally, chapter 8 summarizes the results from the user needs analysis and provides a perspective for using these results as an input in the subsequent phase of functional specifications. D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 17

18 2. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR USER NEEDS ANALYSIS 2.1 Description of the methodological framework for user needs analysis The development of the IN-RESPONSE project will span all five phases of project life-cycle. The five phases of the project life-cycle in sequential order are: 1) identification of user needs, 2) development of functional specifications, 3) building of the demonstrator, 4) validation, and 5) exploitation plan. Figure 2.1, shows the relationship between the five phases of the project lifecycle at a macroscopic level, while Figure 2.2 shows the input / output relationship between the phases of the project life-cycle. Two important observations can be made regarding the characteristics of the relationships between the various phases of the project life-cycle. The first observation relates to the decisive role of the first phase, i.e. identification of user needs, of the life-cycle on the subsequent phases. The second observation relates to the presence of a continuous feed-back between the various phases of the project life-cycle. For the IN-RESPONSE project the objective of the user-needs analysis is to identify the expectations, needs, and requirements of the various groups involved in and affected by incident management operations. The results of the user-needs analysis will provide the essential input for the development of the functional specifications which in-turn will provide the necessary input for building the IN-RESPONSE demonstrator. The decisive role of the user-needs analysis, requires the development and application of a methodological framework that will be able to : 1) identify all actors (stakeholders) involved in and affected by incident management actions, 2) identify the context within which incident management functions are performed, 3) identify the functions, tasks, and sub-tasks involved in incident management, 4) recognize the communication difficulties between system designers, developers, and users, 5) recognize the limitations of the users to identify explicitly their needs, 6) understand differences in incident management goals, objectives, and priorities between the various actors involved in and affected by incident management actions, 7) understand the differences of incident management operations within a variety of legal, institutional, organizational, and technological settings across Europe, and 8) synthesize user-needs and requirements in order to provide meaningful input for the subsequent phases of the project life-cycle. The methodology used for performing user-requirement analysis for the IN-RESPONSE project incorporates all the above characteristics and is shown schematically in Figure 2.3. As it can be seen in Figure 2.3, the starting point of the user requirements analysis is the identification and classification of the IN-RESPONSE user groups. The user groups in each country were identified by collecting relevant information from the participating organizations/sites in the IN- RESPONSE project. The experience accumulated by the sites and the international literature was used for the preliminary design of the IN-RESPONSE survey instrument, i.e. questionnaire. The preliminary version of the questionnaire was tested in group meetings held separately in each country participating in the project, i.e. national user fora, and at a joint international meeting, i.e. international user forum. The results of the national and international user fora were used to perform preliminary user-needs analysis and to improve the questionnaire content and structure. D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 18

19 User needs Identification Functional Specifications Demonstrator Each phase helps to better understand the User needs Validation Exploitation plan Fig. 2.1: The 5 phases of the life-cycle of transport projects [Source: Towards a guidebook for User Needs Analysis in Transport Telematics Applications, J-M Robert, B. Pavard, 1996] D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 19

20 Goal Context Analysis Task Analysis User Analysis Analysis of Competitive products New Technology User Needs Identification Real tasks / Task scenarios Evaluation Functional Specifications General Design Science & Technology Money/Time constraints etc. Mock-up Regulations and Standards Prototype Human factors recommandations Product Exploitation plan Figure 2.2. The inputs and outputs of each phase of the project life-cycle [Source: Towards a guidebook for User Needs Analysis in Transport Telematics Applications, J-M Robert, B. Pavard, 1996] D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 20

21 STATE OF THE ART STATE OF PRACTICE PROJECT SITES USER GROUP IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL FORA PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS CONTEXT ANALYSIS - INCIDENT MANAGEMENT FUNCTION IDENTIFICATION IMPROVED QUESTIONNAIRE TASK ANALYSIS EXISTING TECHNOLOGY NEW TECHNOLOGIES N th ITERATION ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS OF N th ITERATION USER- NEEDS ANALYSIS RESULTS FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS Continues as in figure 2 Figure 2.3: The proposed methodological framework for user needs analysis D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 21

22 The improved questionnaire was used by each project site to collect the required information for the final analysis of user requirements. The final stage of the user needs analysis methodology is the synthesis of the results and the establishment of the first iteration user requirements. The first iteration of user requirements analysis will be used for the development of the preliminary IN-RESPONSE functional specifications. Here, it should be stressed that the term first iteration user requirements means that these requirements may be modified in subsequent iterations by using feed-back information from the other phases of the project life-cycle development, as figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 suggest. A more extensive description for the building blocks of the proposed methodology is provided in the subsequent sections of this chapter. Section 2.2 presents an overview of the incident management system and provides a description of the incident management functions and tasks. Section 2.3 identifies and classifies the incident management stakeholders. Section 2.4 describes the rational of the questionnaire development and questionnaire content. Section 2.5 presents the milestones of the Information gathering process. Section 2.6 describes the analysis of the collected data, while Section 2.7 provides a brief description of the synthesis methodology. 2.2 Incident management system Terminology Incident is defined as any non-recurrent event which causes reduction of roadway capacity. For instance, incidents include vehicle breakdowns, spilled cargo, accidents, and any obstacles on the road. Incident duration is the time elapsed between the incident occurrence and the total clearance of the incident. This time is analyzed in the four time components, as shown in figure Detection Time (T1), is the time interval from the occurrence of the incident until the time that the incident is detected and verified (i.e., the exact location, the nature, and the severity are determined and all information is transmitted to the incident management center). 2. Dispatching time (T2), is the time interval between the detection \ verification of the incident and the dispatching of the first available Response Unit (RU), assigned to the clearance of the incident. Response Unit is any equipped vehicle dispatched to the incident site that contributes to the elimination of incident duration and consequences, e.g., police vehicles, ambulances, motorist assistance vehicles, etc. 3. Arrival Time (T3), is the interval between the RU assignment and its arrival to the scene of the incident. 4. On-scene time (T4), is the time required by the dispatched RU to completely clear the incident and restore the roadway capacity. The time interval that the RU is engaged in servicing the incident after the incident clearance from the road, in order to transfer the involved vehicles or persons to facilities for further treatment (if such actions are required) is the post-clearance service time. D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 22

23 Incident occurrence Notification of response center Dispatching of RU On-scene arrival of RU Incident removal Completion of RU actions Detection Time Dispatching Time Arrival Time On-scene Time Post-clearance Service Time Incident duration Response time RU utilization time Figure 2.4: Time components of incident duration and RU utilization time. (Zografos et al, 1993) Incident management signifies the coordinated, planned real-time use of human, and technical resources, which aim to the reduction of the duration and consequences of incidents. Incident management involves a systematic approach for establishing accurate and reliable incident detection and verification, deploying the appropriate response resources, clearing the incident, managing the oncoming traffic until normal flow is restored, and reducing the overall time form detecting an incident until normal flow is restored Incident management functions Incident management programs are realized by various actors of diverse interests and thus vary widely in cost and sophistication. However, incident management operations involve three basic functional areas: a. Incident detection: This sector aims at the identification of the incident occurrences, and the determination of the incident location and incident type. Once an incident is detected, verification of the incident is required in order to eliminate false alarms impacts and to identify the specific characteristics of the incident. Furhtermore, and depending on the type of the incident and the actor first receiving the incident information, the appropriate response authority is notified. b. Incident response: This sector includes all activities involved in servicing an incident, and is activated from the moment incident notification is provided by the detection system to the responsible parties. Incident response is achieved in the following steps: D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 23

24 dispatching of the appropriate available response unit (RU) to clear a given incident routing of the response unit, where the RU takes an itinerary in order to arrive to the scene of the incident from its current location it on-scene operations, which include all necessary actions for the incident clearance and restoration of road capacity post-clearance actions, which take place in cases where the persons and vehicles involved in the incident need to be transferred by the response units to appropriate facilities c. Traffic management: The actions taken for the management of the traffic, in order to facilitate traveling past the incident site. Traffic management may be realized in different ways: motorist information, where the motorists are informed of the incident occurrence, before or during their trip. Depending on the degree of sophistication, motorist information systems may just inform about the incidents or even suggest to the drivers alternative routes in order for them to avoid traffic congestion. traffic diversion, where traffic flow is controlled by the authorities, and guided to other routes, in order to avoid passing through the incident The above described functions are divided in several tasks and subtasks. Table 2.1 presents the functional breakdown of incident management operations: FUNCTIONS Incident detection Incident response Traffic management Detection - Data Collection - Data Analysis Dispatching - Data Collection - Data Analysis Motorist information - Data Collection - Data Analysis TASKS & SUB-TASKS Verificatio n - Data Collection - Data Analysis Routing - Data Collection - Data Analysis Traffic diversion - Data Collection - Data Analysis On scene operations - Data Collection - Data Analysis Postclearance actions - Data Collection - Data Analysis D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 24

25 Table 2.1 Incident Management Functions, Tasks and Subtasks 2.3 Users and user groups Incident management requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders of diverse interests, who implement different technologies and adopt different methodological approaches. For the IN-RESPONSE project, the stakeholders of the incident management system were identified for a variety of technological, organizational, institutional, legal letters across Europe. Depending on the degree and type of involvement in the incident management processes, the users may be categorized in two main groups, the direct and the indirect users of the system. In addition to users, technology providers and system developers have a vested interest in incident management operations. I. Direct users of the system are the users who actively participate in the incident management processes. These are: Control centers, who receive information, analyze it and direct it to the appropriate response actors Response centers, who receive the calls for assistance and proceed in the necessary actions for the incident restoration. The response centers consist of: Dispatchers, who receive the processed and unprocessed data, which indicate the existence of an incident, have knowledge of the status of the response teams and assign the incidents to the most appropriate response team, guiding, at the same time their way to the incident. Response teams, who are dispatched to the site of the incident, and provide the necessary assistance on-scene the incident (e.g. first aid, disabled vehicle removal, roadway clearance, etc.) and may transfer the persons and/or vehicles to another facility for further treatment. Response teams, may be just investigating teams, arriving at the scene of the incident for incident verification purposes, who notify other response centers about the incident, and fill out incident reports. Other control centers, such as traffic control centers, traveller information centers, weather monitoring and forecasting centers, which provide information to the incident management centers, in order to facilitate the decision making processes, regarding the actions to be taken, and manage the traffic, in order to prevent travel delays and secondary accidents. Motorists, who are involved in the incident, or may suffer the incident impacts, such as travel delays, secondary accidents, etc. II. Indirect users of the systems are involved in the incident management processes, but do not come in contact with the incident directly. These users are: Administrations and insurance companies, which impose the legal and institutional regulations, governing the incident management processes. III. System developers and technology providers: Research centers, which develop methods and techniques for the enhancement of the sector, based on the analysis of the incident impacts and of the performance of the incident management system. D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 25

26 Technology providers, who support the incident management processes, by providing the required technological solutions to the users User need analysis questionnaire As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the users of the incident management system are those who identify the requirements and specifications of the desired processes, based on their experience and knowledge of the sector. In order to extract the necessary information from the users for the development of an efficient incident management system, a combined bottom up and top-down approach was adopted. The bottom-up element of the methodology was used in order to understand the needs, concerns, problems, and expectations of the users, by observing their incident management activities. On the other hand, the top-down element was used in order to: 1) examine what new ATT technologies can offer for improving incident management operations and 2) to understand the legal, organizational and institutional issues related to incident management operations across Europe. The user requirements for the IN-RESPONSE project were assessed through: personal interviews using a unified questionnaire for soliciting the necessary information group discussion at national level (i.e. national user fora) group discussion at international level (i.e. International user forum) questionnaire survey Questionnaire content and rationale A comprehensive questionnaire was developed and was used as the primary instrument for assessing the user needs and requirements for the IN-RESPONSE project. As Figure 2.3, suggests the IN-RESPONSE questionnaire was developed in two phases. At the first phase, a preliminary questionnaire was developed by combining information from international literature, and by incorporating the consolidated experience of the organizations participating in the IN- RESPONSE Project. At the second phase the preliminary questionnaire was finalized by incorporating changes and improvements made by users at the national and international user fora. The final questionnaire was used for the personal interviews and the questionnaire survey conducted in the countries involved in the project (France, Germany, Greece, The Netherlands, Norway and Spain). The data collection effort in each country was under the direct responsibility of the relevant IN-RESPONSE partners. The primary objectives of the IN-RESPONSE questionnaire were to: Understand the legal, organizational, and institutional issues related to incident management across Europe Perform user analysis by describing operational incident management systems across Europe Determine the functions, tasks, and sub-tasks involved in Incident Management operations across Europe Determine methods, techniques and technologies used for performs incident management functions and tasks in order to identify : 1) information flow and exchange between various incident stakeholders and 2) deficiencies and bottlenecks in incident management operations. D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 26

27 Explore the willingness of users to adopt new methods, techniques, procedures and technologies in Incident Management Operations, and to investigate at a preliminary stage ergonomic issues Determine user expectations and recommendations. The questionnaire analysis and findings constitute the basis for the development of the IN- RESPONSE system, therefore it was of great importance to acquire concrete and complete information from the responders. Therefore, the questionnaire was perceived as an instrument that will facilitate the: Understanding between users and IN-RESPONSE system developers so they can identify at a preliminary level IN-RESPONSE user requirements and allow users to react to alternative technological solutions (in terms of models, hardware and software) available for Incident Management operations. Selection/specification of desirable features of a new Incident Management System by users. Preliminary evaluation of the IN-RESPONSE system by determining the priorities and weights of the users regarding different incident management functions, tasks and the technological solutions. The questionnaire includes a wide spectrum of questions addressing the above issues and is organized in the following Sections. A. Respondent/Organization/Company Information, this part contains questions related to the company/organization profile and its role within incident management domain. B. Operations undertaken by your organization/company, this part contains questions related to the actions performed during incident management process, information about the response units operated by the company/organization, information flow and exchange. C. Methods, Policies, and Systems adopted by the organization/company, this part contains questions related to the different methods and techniques related to all incident management subsystems, i.e., Detection, Response, Dispatching and Routing, On-scene actions, and Postclearance actions. It also contains information related to the performance and the effectiveness of each incident management sub-component. D. General incident management system s attributes and measures of effectiveness, this part contains questions related to the measures of effectiveness used for evaluating the performance of the various incident management sub-components. E. Implications of advanced technologies, this part contains questions related to the user requirement in terms of the computational environment to be used and the willingness to adopt new technological solutions for managing incidents. At the end of this section the responder has opportunity to provide a sketch of the existing and the desired generic system architecture. F. Comments and ideas, where the responder is asked to state issues related to incident management that were not addressed by this questionnaire. G. Annex, that contains some examples clarifying the content of some questions included in the questionnaire. Sample of the questionnaire is attached in Annex I of this report. 2.5 The information gathering process D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 27

28 The process of gathering the information required for the identification and analysis of users needs involved: a) group discussion at national and international level, and b) personal interviews National user fora User fora were organized in France, Germany, Greece, Norway, and Spain, in order to bring together various actors participating in the incident management organization, to introduce them the IN-RESPONSE project, and to conduct a preliminary investigation on their roles in the chain of activities realized in the area of incident management. In some of the above fora, the questionnaire was presented to the users in order to identify missing topics and to achieve a common understanding of its content. The minutes of the national user fora are attached in Annex II of this report European users forum The International IN-RESPONSE forum was organized in conjunction with Intertraffic Users from all countries participating in IN-RESPONSE were invited in order to: discuss the results of the national user fora, and to identify similarities and differences among the involved actors produce the final IN-RESPONSE questionnaire establish a European user initiative to accompany IN-RESPONSE over the whole project lifetime The minutes of the European user forum are attached in Annex II of this report Personal interviews Personal interviews were conducted with users participating mainly in the IN-RESPONSE demonstrators, and other selected parties. These interviews followed the structure of the questionnaire, described above, but gave the opportunity to the interviewed parties to express their opinions in a more descriptive way, and not to be restricted to the standard format of the questionnaire. It was proven that the interviews provided useful information for the purposes of the current analysis. 2.6 User Needs analysis Data obtained through the questionnaire survey, personal interviews, national and international user fora are analyzed for each incident management function and task to identify commonalities and differences in: 1) each user group across all IN-RESPONSE sites, and 2) across user groups at each site In addition to quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis is performed to assess user needs D3.1 Report on User Needs V /07/1996 page 28