The Business Case for Knowledge Management: A Guide (2026)
Chapter: Front Matter
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2025 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
OFFICERS
Chair: Leslie S. Richards, Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Vice Chair: Joel M. Jundt, Secretary of Transportation, South Dakota Department of Transportation, Pierre
Executive Director: Victoria Sheehan, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
MEMBERS
James F. Albaugh,President and CEO, The Boeing Company (retired), Scottsdale, AZ
Carlos M. Braceras,Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City
Douglas C. Ceva,Vice President, Customer Lead Solutions, Prologis, Inc., Jupiter, FL
Nancy Daubenberger,Commissioner of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul
Marie Therese Dominguez,Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany
Garrett Eucalitto,Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington
Andrew Fremier,Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, CA
Martha Grabowski,Professor Emerita, Information Systems, Le Moyne College, Madden College of Business and Economics, Cazenovia, NY
Randell Iwasaki,President and CEO, Iwasaki Consulting Services, Walnut Creek, CA
Carol A. Lewis,Professor, Transportation Studies, Texas Southern University, Houston
Scott C. Marler,Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames
Ricardo Martinez,Adjunct Professor of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Decatur, GA
Russell McMurry,Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta
Craig E. Philip,Research Professor and Director, VECTOR, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Steward T.A. Pickett,Distinguished Senior Scientist, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY
Susan A. Shaheen,Professor and Co-Director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley
Marc Williams,Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Derek Barrs,Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Bryan Bedford,Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC
Michael R. Berube,Deputy Assistant Secretary for Sustainable Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Steven G. Bradbury,Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Steven Cliff,Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Drew Feeley,Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC
David Fink,Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC
LeRoy Gishi,Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Germantown, MD
Firas Ibrahim,Director, Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Washington, DC
Jason Kelly,Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Sandra Knight,President, WaterWonks, LLC, Washington, DC
Sean McMaster,Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC
Marcus J. Molinaro,Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC
Jonathan Morrison,Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Niloo Parvinashtiani,Engineer, Mobility Consultant Solutions, Iteris Inc., Fairfax, VA, and Chair, TRB Young Participants Council
Paul Roberti,Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Washington, DC
Karl Simon,Director, Transportation and Climate Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Paul P. Skoutelas,President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Jim Tymon,Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Sang Yi,Acting Administrator, U.S. Maritime Administration, Washington, DC
___________________________
* Membership as of November 2025.
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1164
The Business Case for Knowledge Management
A GUIDE
Bernard L. Palowitch, Jr.
Scott M. Leeb
Jacques Simard
Sheryl Gross-Glaser
Iknow LLC
High Point, NC
Subscriber Categories
Administration and Management • Data and Information Technology • Policy
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2026
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state department of transportation (DOT) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRBʼs recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; TRBʼs relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&Iʼs recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors, the FHWA, and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and oversight of research contracts are the responsibilities of NCHRP.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs.
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1164
Project 23-17
ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
ISBN 978-0-309-60068-2
Library of Congress Control Number 2026930198
© 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the originality and accuracy of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) grants permission to reproduce written material in this publication for classroom and non-commercial purposes subject to the rights of any third parties and appropriate attribution. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply NAS, TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. For other uses of the written material, users must request permission from the National Academies Press.
NOTICE
The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
This material is based upon work supported by the FHWA under Agreement No. 693JJ32350025. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications.
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersʼ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
are available from
National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(800) 624-6242
and can be ordered through the internet by going to
nationalacademies.org/publications
Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of four centers of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Boardʼs varied activities annually engage more than 5,500 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 departments of transportation, federal agencies including component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1164
Monique R. Evans,Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab,Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
David Jared,Senior Program Officer
Dajaih Bias-Johnson,Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes,Director of Publications
Brian Haefs,Associate Director of Publications
Alison Shapiro,Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 23-17 PANEL
Field of Administration—Area of Agency Administration
Benjamin C. Anyacho,Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX (Chair)
Roger Lee Boothe, Jr.,WSP, Falling Waters, WV
Maggie Doll,Burns & McDonnell, Topeka, KS
Clare Fullerton,Jacobs, Jacksonville, FL
Don Johnson,Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA
EunSu Lee,New Jersey City University, Jersey City, NJ
Michael Molina,University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Paula Nash,New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Concord, NH
Leni Oman,Spy Pond Partners, LLC, Olympia, WA
Elizabeth Hoffman,FHWA Liaison, Juneau, AK
King W. Gee,AASHTO Liaison, Washington, DC
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report would not have been possible without the guidance, support, and contributions of several individuals and organizations.
The research team would like to thank the various state departments of transportation (DOTs) knowledge management (KM) specialists who took time out of their busy schedules to be interviewed. These included representatives from Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Arizona DOT, Arkansas DOT, California DOT, Florida DOT, Georgia DOT, Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Louisiana DOT, Maine DOT, Maryland DOT, Michigan DOT, Mississippi DOT, Missouri DOT, Nevada DOT, New Hampshire DOT, New Jersey DOT, New York State DOT, North Carolina DOT, North Dakota DOT, Ohio DOT, Pennsylvania DOT, Texas DOT, Utah DOT, Vermont DOT, Virginia DOT, and District of Columbia (District DOT).
The input and guidance provided helped the research team understand unique perspectives on the current state KM practices and future state KM aspirations of state DOTs.
FOREWORD
By David M. Jared
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
NCHRP Research Report 1164: The Business Case for Knowledge Management: A Guide presents a guide to help state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other transportation agencies assess and measure the effect of knowledge management (KM) activities on their business practices. The guide includes methodologies for agencies to build a business case for KM, inventory knowledge assets, evaluate KM activities, and foster KM implementation. The guide is of value to agencies seeking to develop their KM programs, and to those working on the optimal placement of KM programs within these agencies.
As senior staff continue to retire from state DOTs, there is a concurrent loss of institutional knowledge. Collaboration and interdisciplinary work within these agencies are also increasing the need for effective, efficient, and timely knowledge transfer. State DOTs and other transportation agencies can benefit from KM techniques and practices to help identify, capture, and transfer institutional knowledge and support continuous learning. Many state DOTs implement elements of KM using strategies such as workforce and succession planning, learning communities, networking, knowledge sharing, and information technology. Federal agencies and the private sector have experience with KM, and many have established methods and metrics for managing their KM programs. While state DOTs are making progress integrating KM practices into many of their business practices, they generally lack experience measuring the effects of these new activities and understanding what obstacles exist to successful deployment, such as cultural factors and unfamiliarity with KM benefits. Research was needed to identify useful quantitative and qualitative approaches for assessing and measuring KM.
Under NCHRP Project 23-17, “Assessing and Measuring the Business Value of Knowledge Management,” Iknow LLC was asked to create a guide that would help state DOTs (1) develop KM assessment and measurement methods relevant to their business practices, (2) improve agency leadershipʼs understanding of KM connections to other organizational practices, (3) identify options for placement of KM programs within organizational structures, and (4) foster internal partnerships that support knowledge retention, sharing, and development in state DOTs. The research included extensive outreach to state DOTs and consideration of successful KM practices from other sectors as well.
In addition to NCHRP Research Report 1164, the following deliverables can be found on the National Academies Press website (nationalacademies.org/publications) by searching for NCHRP Research Report 1164: The Business Case for Knowledge Management: A Guide and looking under “Additional materials”:
- A plan that identifies mechanisms and channels for communicating and implementing the research.
- Six research briefs highlighting the project findings and deliverables.
- A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the research effort.
An associated publication detailing the research effort is also available as NCHRP Web-Only Document 437. It can be found on the National Academies Press website (nationalacademies.org/publications) by searching for NCHRP Web-Only Document 437: Assessing and Measuring the Business Value of Knowledge Management.
CONTENTS
1.2 Understanding Knowledge Assets in DOTs
1.3 Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
1.6 Process for Converting Knowledge into a Knowledge Asset
1.8 Conclusion: A Call to Action for DOT Executives
2.2 What Does a Maturity Model Tell Us?
2.3 How to Use the KM Self-Assessment Tool
Chapter 3 Business Case for Investing in KM
3.3 Steps for Creating a Business Case
3.6 Tools and Templates to Support Business Case Development
Chapter 4 Technology for KM Solutions
4.2 Software Vendor Pricing and Deployment Options
4.4 Technical Requirements for KM Solutions
4.5 KM and Artificial Intelligence
4.6 Requesting a Vendorʼs Help with Pricing
4.7 Getting Help from Your IT Staff
Chapter 5 Four Research Objectives
5.1 KM Assessment and Measurement Methods
5.2 KM Connections to Other Organizational Practices
