ITS - Intelligent Transportation Systems Report ITS Home Page

Appendix B.
Interview Guide

Kentucky Commercial Vehicle Safety Applications Evaluation

Contract No. DTFH61-02-C-00134, Task Order BA34018

June 20, 2007

The overall purpose of the Kentucky Commercial Vehicle Safety Applications (CVSA) Evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the performance, usability, safety benefits, and wider applicability of an advanced system for screening trucks at the roadside. The system, known as the Integrated Safety and Security Enforcement System (ISSES), is being deployed along interstate highway routes by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, under a grant from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The present evaluation is focused on the first deployment, at Laurel County, near London, Kentucky, on I-75 northbound.

The ISSES technology is intended to give inspectors real-time information about trucks passing by the scale house at a slow ramp speed through several integrated subsystems: a radiation monitor, a thermal (infrared, or IR) inspection device, a laser scanner/vehicle detector, a license plate recognition system, and a USDOT number reader.

Goals of the evaluation are to estimate whether the ISSES will make highways safer and more secure, and to determine how the ISSES makes the commercial vehicle inspection process more efficient and effective. The intent of this survey is to determine the degree of user acceptance and the perceived usefulness and usability of the ISSES as deployed. The overall evaluation will document the performance and benefits of the ISSES from a national point of view and will provide practical information on commercial vehicle safety and efficiency that will be useful to other states considering the deployment of similar equipment.

Contact information is requested below to document who participated in the survey and the date in which it was conducted; however, responses will be merged into the final report and will be kept anonymous.

Date  
Name of Respondent  
Title  
Contact Information (E-mail or phone)  
Other Notes  

At any time during the survey, the participant may respond to a question with "not applicable" or "prefer not to answer" or some other variation.

A. General Questions about ISSES

  1. Have you used any part of the ISSES technology? If so, please list the subsystems you have used. Also note about how much you have used the subsystem and for how long.
  2. Does the ISSES equipment appear to be user-friendly?
  3. If you haven't used any part of the ISSES equipment, can you explain why you aren't using it? (e.g., time issues, staffing, training issues)
  4. What do you want from the ISSES equipment (or any technology for that matter)? And, is there information that is difficult for you to obtain that a technology would make easier?
  5. What would make you, or others you work with, use ISSES or utilize it more than you are currently using it?

B. Questions to be asked if interviewee uses any portion of the ISSES Equipment

  1. Do you recognize noticeable gaps in the data provided by the ISSES (or a particular subsystem)?
  2. Does the ISSES generate too much information for weigh station staff to appreciate and use in the time available for an inspect/bypass decision?
  3. Are there ISSES features or functions that could be changed or that future upgrades could offer?
  4. What benefits does the ISSES offer? Do these benefits make your job more convenient/easier compared to the legacy system?
  5. What aspect of the ISSES equipment enables you to perform your job function better?
  6. Comment on the system. Does the ISSES equipment perform as expected, based on the specifications or product literature? If not, elaborate on the performance of the particular subsystem.
  7. Does one subsystem add more value than another, or do all subsystems equally help you perform your job function better? (e.g., "Subsystem X helps staff perform their job functions better, but Subsystem Y is difficult and time-consuming to interpret")

C. Training Questions:

  1. Has training been provided for the use of the ISSES equipment? If so, how long did the training last? If not, how much training would be needed to become proficient in any of the ISSES subsystems?
  2. Are specifications or documentation (e.g., user's manual) on the ISSES equipment available on-site? Was it detailed enough? What details were missing? What kind of additional documentation would be useful?
  3. How do inspectors or managers deal with the potential liability for missed detections of unsafe or high-risk trucks, which might traverse the weigh station and then become involved in a crash caused, for example, by faulty brakes? Is there an ISSES operating protocol that helps inspectors detect as many unsafe trucks as possible or practical, and if so, how effective is that protocol?

D. Selection Efficiency

  1. Other than information from the ISSES, what specific data is collected from the commercial vehicle prior to making a decision on whether to inspect?
  2. How is this information collected (sensors, WIM, cameras, eyesight, etc.)?
  3. Are any external data sources (SAFER, SafeStat, Query Central) used to supplement data collected at the site?
  4. What are the main pieces of information collected from the Kentucky Clearinghouse database to help with inspection selection decisions?
  5. Based on all data collected, how are decisions related to inspections made? What methodologies play a role in the decisions (ISS algorithm, inspector judgment, etc.)? How much is based on data collected and how much is based on inspector observation and judgment?
  6. How has the inspection selection process changed with the integration of ISSES at the London site?

E. Future Deployments: (perhaps discuss these questions as a group if possible)

  1. Would the ISSES yield greater benefits if it were more fully integrated with state and national systems, such as Query Central, state inspection or licensing databases, SAFER, Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS), National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS), etc.?
  2. Does each ISSES subsystem work satisfactorily in a stand-alone mode?
  3. Would the ISSES data be useful if made available to inspectors in other jurisdictions (e.g., other parts of the state or similar roadside systems in other states)?
  4. What aspects of the ISSES data do you rely on with the greatest confidence? If there are no aspects that you rely on, what changes to the system might motivate you to use and rely on the data?
  5. Can you share any lessons learned that would perhaps be useful to other states considering the deployment of similar equipment? (e.g., working with equipment, training, location of the equipment on-site, etc.)

F. Please answer True or False to the following statements:

  1. Inspectors believe that ISSES enables roadside inspectors to perform their job functions better.
  2. Inspectors believe that ISSES should be deployed more widely.
  3. Inspectors found their training and user documentation for ISSES to be helpful to them in their normal course of duties.

Previous | Next