Recognize integration issues in Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) Projects, and follow the systems engineering approach to establish a project's foundation.

Experience from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.

April 2006
Pennsylvania,United States

Background (Show)

Lesson Learned

A key component of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's ATIS project was the implementation and integration of a central software system to operate and control the Commission's ITS subsystems. Based on the challenges encountered during the software design and integration phase, the following set of lessons learned is highlighted.
  • Clearly define integration and control project limits. For this project, the first bid process resulted in a rejection of the bid and no selection. The software requirements and the large project area resulted in an extremely high bid that could not be justified. For the second bid process, the integration efforts of the field device deployment were better defined and the limits were set on the project. For example the TRWS functional requirements were re-evaluated and a less complex system with no software integration was designed. In addition, two field installation contracts were prepared, based on geography to provide better competition and economies with more localized contracts. Also, the contract required use of the Commission's existing wide area network (WAN) to convey data from the field devices to the Commission's operations center. The device deployment contracts had a stipulation added that the Acceptance Testing would be administered by the Design and Integration consultants (DMJM Harris and PB Farradyne), respectively. In addition to the two field device contracts, another separate contract was awarded for strictly software integration. As a result of a more clearly defined and controlled project, a favorable bid was obtained (within 1% of the engineer's estimate).
  • Follow the systems engineering approach. The systems engineering approach establishes the foundation for the project and helps to prevent scope creep.
    • For the integration project, a concept of operations, as well as a high level and detailed design requirements were created early on in the process and were agreed to by all project team members. This provided the project team with focus and direction. From this understanding, the detailed design, implementation, integration and testing, system verification and system acceptance were performed with few issues.
  • Know your field device inventory. At the beginning of the software integration project, the agency should have a list of all equipment that is owned, operated, and maintained by the agency. The list should include the following information about each piece of equipment: manufacturer/make/model; communications protocols; installation and test dates; warranty periods; spare parts inventory; software version; NTCIP compliance.
    • At the beginning of the project, the agency did not have all this information. When the field devices were integrated into the software, there were compatibility issues and multiple modules required to integrate similar equipment. Also, it was discovered that different versions or releases of similar equipment were not compatible with NTCIP standards and required multiple modules to integrate the equipment. This resulted in delays in the completion of the software.
    • In this project, the Commission did not know the status of the spare parts until the end of the maintenance period, when the contractor provided the equipment to the Commission. However, spare parts should be tracked during the installation/maintenance portion of the contract. On many projects spare equipment is used during maintenance if a part is malfunctioning or broken. The Commission needs to be able to verify that that the spare equipment that has been used is either restored or replaced with a working part, and that part is inventoried and accessible to the Commission.
  • Provide a burn-in period prior to operational testing. During this period, the operators will use the system under everyday working conditions, providing an opportunity for the field equipment to be used and stressed. It is during this initial period that the equipment is most likely to experience failures. If there are minor equipment failures, these can easily be corrected during the burn-in period, so that ideally, there will be no failures during the operational testing period. The burn-in period should coincide with the hands-on training.
Based on the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's experience during the integration phase of this project, the agency learned the importance of having well-defined parameters for the integration of the project, following the systems engineering approach, maintaining a good inventory and allowing for a burn-in period. Through addressing these issues, an agency can contribute to the success of its ATIS project, and thus maximize the mobility and safety benefits of the system.

Lesson Comments

No comments posted to date

Comment on this Lesson

To comment on this lesson, fill in the information below and click on submit. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field. Your name and email address, if provided, will not be posted, but are to contact you, if needed to clarify your comments.


Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) Phase III Project

Author: Cortelazzi, Lou, et al.

Published By: Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Prepared by DMJM Harris, Inc. for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Source Date: April 2006

EDL Number: 14308

URL: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/3788

Other Lessons From this Source

Lesson Contacts

Lesson Contact(s):

Daniel Corey
DMJM Harris, Inc.
(215) 735-0832

Agency Contact(s):

Louis Cortelazzi
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
(717) 939-9551 x3452

Lesson Analyst:

Margaret Petrella
RITA/Volpe National Transportation Systems Center


Average User Rating

0 ( ratings)

Rate this Lesson

(click stars to rate)

Lesson ID: 2008-00429