Research Article

Transportation Research Record

2024, Vol. 2678(1) 12–21
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
People, Process, and Technology Maturity Transportation Research Board 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
Levels for Successful Technology sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/03611981231170002

Implementation by State Departments journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

of Transportation

Amit Tripathi1 , Hala Nassereddine2, Roy E Sturgill1 ,

Gabriel B Dadi2, Makram Bou Hatoum2 ,
and Ashtarout Ammar2

Abstract
The demand for safe, reliable, and higher-quality infrastructure systems often increases the complexity of transportation con-
struction projects and necessitates more comprehensive evaluation methods. This often leads to the incorporation of tech-
nologies for oversight and management. With a focus on effective technology implementation, this research stretches beyond
simply evaluating technologies to consider integrating the technology with personnel and procedures at departments of
transportation (DOTs). Drawing from literature and a survey of state DOT personnel, this study applies and evaluates matu-
rity models for people, process, and technology with regard to technology implementation at DOTs. The findings support
the need for understanding technology implementation in the aspects of people, process, and technology maturity to improve
the probability of implementation success. The framework allows DOTs to move toward higher maturity levels and improve
the likelihood of implementation success. The study’s objective is to assess the importance of people, process, and technol-
ogy as implementation dimensions that state DOTs need to focus on for successfully implementing technologies. The idea
and scope of the paper can be extended to any new technology implementation efforts at DOTs, including Automatic
Identification and Data Capture technologies, emerging sensing and wireless technologies, safety technologies, and others.
The maturity models presented enable organizations to audit and benchmark their status for technology implementation, and
the relative levels allow these organizations to advance from basic to advanced stages. This paper introduces three maturity
models for people, process, and technology, their adaptation to DOT operations, and their possible future use, as presented
through preliminary survey results. The final result of this study provides a maturity model methodology for successful tech-
nology implementation and a self-assessment tool for state DOTs to gauge and improve their current maturity levels.
Preliminary validation of these products was conducted via a workshop of subject matter experts, and the results indicate
that state DOTs can use these products to self-assess their organization’s maturity and devise a plan as required for improved
technology implementation.

Keyword
technology maturity, people, process, technology, technology implementation, maturity models

The complexity of modern transportation construction effectively manage construction and assets that are key to
and asset management systems is driving for more timely,
accurate, reliable, and robust information. Evidence-
1
based research has demonstrated that a range of sensing Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa
technologies, including barcodes, radio frequency identi- State University, Ames, IA
2
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
fication (RFID), ultra-wideband tracking systems, global
positioning, and at times a combination of these and Corresponding Author:
other advanced technologies, improve the ability to more Amit Tripathi, amittri@iastate.edu
Tripathi et al
highway project execution. Other non-sensing technolo-
gies such as augmented reality, building information
modeling, e-ticketing, e-construction, and digital twins
are equally useful in highway construction and asset
management.
At a time where more lane miles are being managed
by fewer transportation agency staff, the opportunities
for technology to be leveraged are vast (1). However, the
success of technology implementation efforts is often not
guaranteed. The variability in success is attributable to
many factors, including regulations, funding, personnel
resistance, management support, and others. Within this
research, it is proposed that these factors may be cate-
gorized within areas concerning people, process, or tech-
nology itself. The focus on these three areas as
considerations for technology implementation success
presents an opportunity to provide guidance and support
for state departments of transportation (DOTs) when
implementing technologies. This study attempts to high-
light the necessary maturity levels of people, process, and
technology for successful technology implementation at
state DOTs. The motivation for this study comes from
the increasing digital transformation in the construction
industry and the need for successful technology imple-
mentation to complement and supplement the work-
force. It is very important to have successful technology
implementations to achieve higher efficiency and digitize
the industry. The main objective of the study is to use
maturity models to assess technology implementation at
state DOTs and provide guidelines to DOTs to improve
the prospects of technology implementation success.
Through literature review, surveys, interviews, and
validation of metrics, the research team was able to
assemble a framework for assessing maturity levels in
people, process, and technology, as well as establishing
baselines for indicating probable success and failure in
technology implementation efforts at state DOTs. This
research identifies the required maturity levels of people,
process, and technology that state DOTs need for prob-
able success in technology implementation. This research
also sets levels for the probable failure of technology
implementation that state DOTs must overcome. The
study’s findings allow state DOTs to self-assess their cur-
rent maturity levels, identify areas needing improvement,
and devise a plan to reach the levels needed for probable
success in technology implementation. Although this
paper presents results of ongoing research, the findings
relay the importance of maturity in people, process, and
technology for probable success in technology
implementation.
The research methodology for this study relied on the
use of well-established maturity models. These existing
models, which were developed for other disciplines, were
adapted under the guidance of a panel of experts
13
experienced in technology implementation in construc-
tion and asset management at DOTs. These adaptions
were further influenced and validated by a survey of state
DOT professionals and an in-person workshop with a
second group of experts. It can be concluded that matu-
rity levels of at least 3 or more are required for successful
technology implementation, and any maturity levels of 2
or below 2 will likely result in unsuccessful technology
implementation. State DOTs need to focus on all people,
process, and technology if they want to increase the likeli-
hood of their implementation success, as the combination
of people, process, and technology results in successful
technology implementation efforts.
Literature Review
State DOTs continually implement technology to
improve construction and asset management, among
other areas. Studies have shown that the level of success
of these efforts varies (2), indicating the need to under-
stand what is needed for successful technology imple-
mentation. Any technology implementation effort that
only focuses on technology has the potential for failure
in the construction industry; therefore, combining peo-
ple, process, and technology was a core idea for building
the holistic framework (3). A review of technology imple-
mentation in other fields revealed widespread use of
maturity models as assessment tools in gauging prepa-
redness for these implementations, yet there was a void
of models specific to state DOT use. However, from
these studies and others, it is thus theorized that maturity
in people, process, and technology are predicting factors
in determining the success of technology implementation
and were applicable to state DOT use (2–4).
The People, Process, and Technology (PPT) frame-
work has been around since the early 1960s. The business
management specialist and expert Harold Leavitt coined
the original model, which consisted of four elements:
people, structure, tasks, and technology (5). The PPT
framework first received attention in the Information
and Technology field when computer security and pri-
vacy specialist Bruce Schneier built on the Leavitt frame-
work and introduced people, process, and technology as
the three dimensions needed for successful organizational
management (5). The PPT framework maps the entire
value streams of people, process, and technology and
highlights their interaction: the people do the work; pro-
cesses make this work more efficient; and the technology
enables people to do their tasks efficiently and automate
the process. This framework achieves harmony within an
organization and is mostly used when implementing new
technologies (5). Thus, for a technology implementation
to be successful, the three dimensions of people, process,
and technology must be mature to achieve success. These
14
concepts led to the development of maturity models to
assess the three dimensions.
State DOTs can benefit from already established
maturity models to assess each of the three dimensions
of maturity needed to implement technologies success-
fully. Adopting existing models and modifying them to
meet certain needs and requirements is a common prac-
tice in highway construction. The research uses the simi-
lar approach of using established maturity models and
modifying them to meet the research objectives in DOT
context. The maturity models for people, process, and
technology are helpful to understand what levels are
required, and their relevance in highway construction
and asset management. These models provide framework
to systematically study people, process, and technology.
For instance, in the NCHRP: Web-Only Document 214
‘‘Transportation Agency Self-Assessment of Data to
Support Business Needs: Final Research Report,’’ the
research team modified the original Capability Maturity
Model to meet the study objectives of testing the feasibil-
ity of the data program self-assessment process and pro-
ducing a guide for transportation agencies to implement
data self-assessment methods (6). In NCHRP Project 08-
36, Task 100, the authors used the Capability Maturity
Model to create a tool to help transportation agencies
assess their data programs (7). The State of Michigan
created the State Unified Information Technology
Environment (SUITE), built on the concepts of the
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and
project management methodologies. SUITE was origi-
nally used by the DOT and later became the statewide
standard. The statewide implementation was possible as
SUITE has matured the process for all technology proj-
ects (8).
The study presented here adopts a similar approach
where three common maturity models for people, pro-
cess, and technology are reviewed and adapted for con-
struction and asset management for state DOTs uses.
The three models considered for this study for people,
process, and technology, are further detailed in their orig-
inal form below:
People Capability Maturity Model (PCMM): The
PCMM is a maturity framework that focuses on con-
tinuously improving the management and development
of an organization’s human assets. It describes an evolu-
tionary improvement path from ad hoc, inconsistently
performed practices to a mature, disciplined, and con-
tinuously improving the development of the workforce’s
knowledge, skills, and motivation that enhances strategic
business performance (9).
The PCMM guides organizations in improving orga-
nizational processes for managing and developing work-
forces. The PCMM comprises five development levels
that set up progressive establishments for consistently
Transportation Research Record 2678(1)
improving individual abilities, creating compelling
groups, propelling improved execution, and forming the
labor force the association needs to achieve its future
field-tested strategies. The PCMM can be applied as a
standard for assessing workforce practices and as a guide
in planning and implementing improvement activities.
The PCMM is an integrated set of best practices that
improves performance and key capabilities for organiza-
tions that want to improve their critical people manage-
ment process (10).
The research team used the PCMM to determine and
assess people maturity for this research project. The five
levels of the PCMM are:
 Level 1: Initial; Inconsistent Management
 Level 2: Managed; People Management
 Level 3: Defined; Competency Management
 Level 4: Predictable; Capability Management
 Level 5: Optimizing; Change Management
Project Management Process Maturity Model (PM)2:
The (PM)2 is developed by integrating previous maturity
models that measure the Project Management (PM) lev-
els of different companies and industries. The model
evaluates the position of an organization’s current PM
maturity level. It illustrates a series of steps to help an
organization incrementally improve its overall PM effec-
tiveness (11).
The (PM)2 model integrates previous PM practices,
processes, and maturity models to improve PM effective-
ness in the organization. The (PM)2 model motivates the
organization and related people to accomplish higher
and more sophisticated PM maturity through a systema-
tic and incremental approach. It is well suited to assess
an organizational PM level.
The following five levels present the maturity model
for (PM)2 as mentioned in the article Project
Management Process Maturity Model written by Kwak
and Ibbs (11).
 Level 1: Initial; Basic PM Process
 Level 2: Planned; Individual Project Planning
 Level 3: Managed at Project Level; Systematic
Project Planning and Control
 Level 4: Managed at Corporate Level; Integrated
Multi-Project Planning and Control
 Level 5: Continuous Learning; Continuous PM
Process Improvement
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI): The
CMMI is a process and behavioral model that helps
organizations streamline process improvement and
encourage productivity (11). The Software Engineering
Institute at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)
Tripathi et al
Table 1. Summary of the Assessment of the Three Dimensions of People, Process, and Technology
Maturity dimension
Level People
1 Initial
2 Managed
3 Defined
4 Predictable
5 Optimizing
developed the CMMI model with support from the
Department of Defense and the U.S. Government.
Currently, the CMMI Institute is controlled by the
CMMI Institute, which was bought by the Information
Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) in
2016. CMU holds the patent for CMMI in the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (12).
The CMMI framework for defining technology matu-
rity within the context of DOT construction and asset
management applications is adapted through this
research project. The following are the five maturity lev-
els defined by the CMMI:
 Level 1: Initial; Processes unpredictable, poorly
controlled, and reactive
 Level 2: Managed; Processes characterized for
projects and is often reactive
 Level 3: Defined; Projects tailor their processes to
the organization’s standards
 Level 4: Quantitatively Managed; Processes mea-
sured and controlled
 Level 5: Optimizing; Focus on process
improvement.
These three models were adapted for this research for
two reasons: (1) they have been extensively used in prior
studies (NCHRP Project 08-92, NCHRP Project 8-36/
Task 100, State of Michigan), and (2) they all are mea-
sured along a five-level scale, which brings uniformity
across the models of people, process, and technology.
In the NCHRP Synthesis 582, the authors asked
DOTs about current technology evaluation methods in
different state DOTs. There are different drivers for
selecting technologies: improve efficiency, promote e-
construction, and enhance inspectors’ safety and staffing.
DOTs use wide arrays of technologies: geospatial tech-
nologies, remote sensing and monitoring technologies,
mobile devices and software applications, and nondes-
tructive evaluation methods. Out of forty-two respon-
dents, only 14% responded that DOTs have some system
and policies for effectively reviewing technologies. Some
86% of the respondents do not have systems and policies
to review the effectiveness of implementing technologies
15
Process Technology
Initial Initial
Planned Managed
Managed at project level Defined
Managed at corporate Level Quantitatively managed
Continuous learning Optimizing
(13). Obsolete evaluation tools will not help DOTs evalu-
ate and implement technology successfully. There is a
need for a better approach and procedure to holistically
review technology implementation, as there is a growing
interest in technology nationally.
Methods
After reviewing the existing maturity models for people,
process, and technology, the description of each maturity
level for the PCMM, (PM)2, and CMMI was adjusted to
fit the objective of this research by matching the require-
ments of technology implementation for state DOTs
with regard to construction and asset management. The
three maturity models are referred to hereafter as matu-
rity dimensions. Table 1 lists the five levels used for each
dimension. A description of each level is provided below.
The five levels for people maturity using the PCMM
were defined and modified under the supervision of
research team members, subject matter experts, and with
relevant DOT technology implementation experiences as
follows:
 Level 1: Initial—DOTs do not have enough
talented human resources required to handle proj-
ects and cannot retain qualified employees.
 Level 2: Managed—DOTs provide a good work-
ing environment and training to empower staff
and provide a clear line of communication within
units.
 Level 3: Defined—DOTs onboard the proper peo-
ple in the proper position based on competency,
experiences, and roles and responsibilities, which
are well defined and developed across an
organization-wide infrastructure.
 Level 4: Predictable—DOTs have confidence in
their employees and delegate tasks to empowered
groups. The managers operate at higher levels with
the ability to focus on more strategic issues.
 Level 5: Optimizing—The entire DOTs are focused
on continual improvement and improvement,
including the improvement of individuals and the
improvement of units for the betterment of the
16
overall organization while focusing on central
organizational objectives.
Similarly, the five levels of process were defined and
modified for this research project using the (PM)2 as
follows:
 Level 1: Initial—DOTs understand and establish a
basic PM process.
 Level 2: Planned—DOTs plan the projects on the
individual process and are not team oriented.
 Level 3: Managed at project level—DOTs provide
informal PM training and manage projects based
on available systems with few team members.
 Level 4: Managed at corporate level—DOTs pro-
vide formal PM training, and multiple projects are
integrated and planned with maximum team
participation.
 Level 5: Continuous learning—DOTs fully under-
stand and implement PM procedures to create
dynamic and energetic organizations able to man-
age complex projects into the future.
Finally, the five levels of maturity for technology were
defined and modified to fit the DOT setting for this
research project using the CMMI model as follows:
 Level 1: Initial—DOTs have access to technolo-
gies, but the technologies are not managed
properly.
 Level 2: Managed—DOT staff are using technolo-
gies but only on a handful of projects.
 Level 3: Defined—DOTs use and implement tech-
nologies in many projects.
 Level 4: Quantitatively managed—DOTs fully use
technologies in all possible projects throughout
the state organization, in appropriate applications,
and are managed properly.
 Level 5: Optimizing—DOTs fully implement tech-
nologies and find ways to implement them in
other projects and areas, technologies collaborate,
and the DOT updates its implementation plan as
required (14).
Each level is representative of a stage of preparedness
of a state DOT for implementing a specific technology
for a specific purpose. The levels are self-assigned based
on these considerations and point to areas of potential
improvement for technology implementation success.
The levels are generalized in that specific assessment or
improvement criteria would drastically limit the func-
tionality and applicability of the model framework. This
research proposes that implementation success can be
more likely to succeed once the appropriate maturity
Transportation Research Record 2678(1)
levels are achieved for people, process, and technology.
With the definitions of the models above, there was a
need to match the requirements for DOT technology
implementation to these metrics. A survey was developed
under the guidance of subject matter experts with DOT
experience and reviewed for institutional compliance.
The intent of the survey was to have potential end-users
evaluate the maturity models and their levels for assess-
ments of technology implementation at state DOTs. This
research used an electronic survey developed in Qualtrics
to seek feedback on the factors and perceptions of suc-
cessful and unsuccessful technology implementations
along the defined model maturity levels. The survey
request was sent to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Committee on Construction, the AASHTO Committee
on Maintenance, the AASHTO Committee on Data
Management & Analytics, the AASHTO Committee on
Innovation Initiative, the AASHTO Committee on
Knowledge Management, and the AASHTO
Subcommittee on Asset Management. AASHTO is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing highway
and transportation departments in the fifty states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These committee
members are middle-to-late career state DOT experts
who often are involved in piloted approaches and tech-
nology implementation. Its primary goal is to foster the
development, operation, and maintenance of an inte-
grated national transportation system. A definition of
each maturity level was provided in the survey to ensure
all participants had the same understanding of the five
levels for each model.
Respondents were asked to assess the maturity levels
of each dimension (i.e., people, process, and technology)
for two scenarios: successful technology implementation
and unsuccessful technology implementation. A defini-
tion of each level was provided in the survey to ensure all
participants had the same understanding across the five
levels of each model. Respondents were also asked to ela-
borate on their state DOT experience relating to success-
ful and unsuccessful technology implementation efforts.
The maturity assessment results were aggregated for each
model, leading to the establishment of maturity bound-
aries for successful and unsuccessful technology imple-
mentation at state DOTs.
The survey results were also validated during an in-
person workshop that hosted eighteen state DOT
middle-to-late career professionals with significant tech-
nology experience. There was an opportunity for the
NCHRP 03-140 research team to host the workshop for
their projects. Considering the experienced and diversi-
fied participants from different DOTs, the authors
decided to take opportunity of the workshop to validate
the research finding in-person and compare them with
Tripathi et al
the online survey responses. These workshop attendees
were selected for their experience in implementing tech-
nologies at their respective DOT. The workshop feed-
back was collected through a questionnaire mirroring
the digital survey. The research results were then incor-
porated into a tool that state DOTs can use to self-assess
their maturity levels across people, process, and technol-
ogy metrics when planning a technology implementation.
Notably, this study highlights the importance of people,
process, and technology for successful technology imple-
mentation for construction and asset management at
state DOTs. It presents professionally determined and
validated maturity limits for successful and unsuccessful
technology implementation. An example of how a state
DOT can use the tool to evaluate its implementation
maturity is also presented here.
Results
A total of eighty-nine responses representing all fifty state
DOTs (at least one response from each of the fifty state
DOTs) was collected from the online survey distributed
to the AASHTO members described above. The collected
data were checked for reliability and validity before the
analysis was done. The power analysis was done to find
the smallest sample size requirements to test the hypoth-
esis, and it was found that a minimum sample size of
twelve was required. The sample is considered appropri-
ate as each state DOT is represented, professionals were
focused on construction and asset management imple-
mentation, and responses indicated repetition. The results
were further corroborated by the secondary group of
experts during the validation workshop. Each respondent
was asked to identify (1) the people, process, and technol-
ogy maturity levels that lead to successful technology
implementation, and (2) the people, process, and technol-
ogy maturity levels that result in unsuccessful technology
implementation. The average maturity level was com-
puted for each dimension (people, process, and technol-
ogy) for each scenario (successful and unsuccessful
technology implementation). Figure 1 illustrates the
results for both scenarios by displaying (1) the maturity
level required for each dimension to achieve a successful
technology implementation (solid line) and (2) the matu-
rity level for each dimension that, below which, results in
an unsuccessful technology implementation (dashed line).
From the results and validation, state DOTs should
have at least level 3, ‘‘Defined’’ (average value of 3.25)
maturity level for people, at least level 3, ‘‘Defined’’
(average value of 3.34) maturity level for process, and at
least level 3, ‘‘Defined’’ (average value of 3.31) maturity
level for technology to lead to probable success in tech-
nology implementation. The findings also present that
unsuccessful technology implementation can be expected
17
Figure 1. Levels of people, process, and technology for both
successful and unsuccessful technology implementation.
when a state DOT has a level 2 ‘‘Managed’’ (average value
of 1.92) maturity level or less for people, a level 2,
‘‘Managed’’ (average value of 2.20) maturity level or less
for process, and level 2 ‘‘Managed’’ (average value of 2.21)
maturity level or less for technology. The two lines in
Figure 1 define the boundaries for successful and unsuc-
cessful technology implementation, informing state DOTs
that the maturity levels of people, process, and technology
below or at the dashed line is expected to yield an unsuc-
cessful technology implementation effort, whereas matu-
rity levels at or above the solid line support the successful
implementation of technology. Furthermore, if assessed
levels are between the defined bands or if one metric is
below the desired level, the state DOT understands where
effort needs to be expended to improve the likelihood of
technology implementation success.
After the maturity levels of each scenario were
obtained from the survey, the levels were assembled and
validated during an in-person workshop that hosted
eighteen transportation professionals. The workshop
participants have significant technology-related experi-
ences and expertise in state DOTs. They were asked if
they agreed with the survey results or not. If they did not
agree with the results, they were asked to provide new
responses to questionnaires. The aggregate results from
the in-person workshop were calculated similarly to the
survey results. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the average matu-
rity levels from the survey (online survey) and workshop
validation (in-person workshop) for successful and
unsuccessful technology implementation, respectively.
The maturity levels from the survey entail an aggregated
average maturity level of eighty-nine responses, whereas
the maturity level from the workshop is the aggregated
average maturity level of eighteen responses. Comparing
the maturity levels from the survey and the in-person
workshop reveals nearly identical average maturity levels
for successful and unsuccessful technology
18
Table 2. Average Maturity Levels for Successful Technology
Implementation from Survey and Workshop Validation
Maturity level Maturity level
Dimension from survey from workshop
People 3.26 3.27
Process 3.34 3.35
Technology 3.37 3.32
Table 3. Average Maturity Levels for Unsuccessful Technology
Implementation from Survey and Workshop Validation
Maturity level Maturity level
Dimension from survey from workshop
People 1.94 1.89
Process 2.25 2.15
Technology 2.23 2.20
implementation. The results point to the same bands as
illustrated in Figure 1.
To assist state DOTs self-assess their current levels of
people, process, and technology maturity and compare
these with the maturity boundaries established through
this research, a Microsoft Excel tool was developed to
disseminate the research results to state DOTs. The con-
cept of the tool is illustrated here in the form of a table,
as shown in Table 4. Table 4 also illustrates an example
of how a state DOT might assess its maturity and use this
information to improve the probability of its technology
implementation success. Table 4 displays the five levels
for each dimension (people, process, and technology) of
the model and allows the state DOT to select their cur-
rent level (seventh column) using a dropdown list. The
maturity boundaries established through this research for
each dimension are available in columns 8 and 9. Once
the user has selected their state DOT’s current level of
maturity for each dimension, a chart like a Figure 2 will
be displayed, showing the maturity boundaries as well as
the current assessment of the state DOT’s maturity levels
(represented by the dotted line).
Table 4 and Figure 2 enable state DOTs to identify
where their maturity levels reside and contemplate the
probability of the success of their implementation effort.
The table and figure also allow the state DOT to discri-
minate where improvements are needed for an improved
likelihood of technology implementation success. The
levels selected in Table 4 are provided for illustrative pur-
poses only, but point to the need of the example state
DOT to consider improvements along People and
Technology to have an improved likelihood of successful
technology implementation. In this example, the state
DOT may decide to make technology, in general, more
Transportation Research Record 2678(1)
visible within their DOT and include the technology as
an aspect of the roles and responsibilities in alignment
with job function. It should be noted that the tool
involves a self-assessment, and the models are broad in
nature to provide applicability across a wide range of
technologies and modes of implementation. The study’s
novel findings include an evaluation of technology imple-
mentation using people, process, and technology matu-
rity to increase the successful technology implementation
likelihood. The study also recommended levels of matu-
rity along people, process, and technology for successful
technology implementation
Discussion
The collective maturity of people, process, and technol-
ogy is a distinguishable factor in the success or failure of
technology implementation. To gain a deeper under-
standing of the interactions between the three dimensions
of people, process, and technology, the previously men-
tioned survey respondents were asked to elaborate on
how the three dimensions (1) collectively contributed to
a successful technology implementation effort, or (2)
resulted in an unsuccessful technology implementation
effort.
The analysis of these collected data showed that the
examples of successful technology implementation
involved good coordination between people, process,
and technology. One of the respondents provided the fol-
lowing explanation of how their state DOT leveraged the
three dimensions to achieve success in an implemented
technology by stating:
The very first step is to understand the current business pro-
cesses/standards established by agency guidelines/standards/
processes. Once these are identified, the project/technology
was tailored to improve or suit the identified guidelines/
standards/processes. A core team of employees was selected
as part of the implementation team based on experiences
and capabilities. The core team manages the project at a
project level, with occasional inputs from experts or man-
agement when needed. This process allowed for flexibility at
the project level and adaptation of technology to the current
business processes/standards to avoid any unintended
interruptions.
Other survey respondents noted that their state DOT
took a proactive approach and developed research cap-
abilities where technologies are thoroughly vetted before
actual implementation. The analysis of the responses
shared on the unsuccessful technology implementation
efforts showed that the increased emphasis on technol-
ogy while neglecting the people dimension is a common
theme among those experiencing technology
 Table 4. Maturity Assessment of People, Process, and Technology for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs)

Successful Unsuccessful
implementation implementation
Criteria Level 1: Initial Level 2: Managed Level 3: Defined Level 4: Predictable Level 5: Optimizing Your DOT level level level

People DOTs do not have DOTs provide a DOTs inboard the DOTs have The entire DOTs Level 2 3 2
enough talented good working right people in confidence in are focused on
human resources environment, the right position employees and continual
required to training to based on delegate tasks to improvement and
handle projects empower staff, competency, empowered improvement of
and cannot retain and a clear line of experiences, and groups. The individuals to the
qualified communication roles and managers at improvement of
employees. within units. responsibilities higher levels can units to the
that are well focus more on overall
defined and strategic issues. organization
develop an while focusing on
organization-wide main objectives.
infrastructure.
Process DOTs understand DOTs plan the DOTs provide DOTs provide DOTs fully Level 4 3 2
and establish projects on the informal Project formal Project understand and
basic Project individual process Management Management implement
Management and are not team training and training, and Project
Process. oriented. manage project multiple projects Management
based on available are integrated procedures to
systems with few and planned with create a dynamic,
team members. maximum team energetic
participation. organization and
be able to
manage complex
projects in the
future.
Technology DOTs have access DOTs staff using DOTs use and DOTs fully use DOTs fully Level 2 3 2
to technologies, technologies only implement technologies in all implement
and technologies in a handful of technologies in possible projects technologies and
are not managed projects. many projects. throughout the find ways to
properly. state for implement them
appropriate in other projects,
applications and technologies
are managed collaboration, and
properly. updating their
implementation
plan as required.

19
20
Figure 2. Department of Transportation (DOT) current level,
successful, and unsuccessful technology implementation levels
visualization.
implementation failures. Moreover, respondents also
noted that although the people and process dimensions
might be mature, when the technology is not compatible
with existing systems, a failure is imminent. This
emerged as a critical challenge, especially when the tech-
nology was driven from outside the organization and the
state DOT did not have the right processes to train their
employees or understand their needs. Additionally,
implementation efforts were often challenged where sta-
keholders were not engaged in the process, resulting in
little end-user input, lack of personnel training at roll-
out, no direct support and commitment from leadership,
and unaddressed concerns or no long-term support.
Ultimately, the key difference between a successful and
unsuccessful technology implementation is the presence
of the right people with the right mindset working
together. A successful implementation will improve by
increasing levels of maturity across people, process, and
technology, whereas an unsuccessful implementation will
typically have maturity below the baselines previously
described.
Conclusions
This research holistically analyzed the recommended lev-
els of maturity along people, process, and technology for
successful technology implementation. For any technol-
ogy implementation efforts to be successful, state DOTs
need to focus not only on the technology itself but also
be mindful of the needs within the metrics of people and
process. As noted by experts, success in technology
implementation is based on the adoption and emphasis
of people who drive the processes that allow for piloting
and implementing the technology in all criteria per the
requirements. This research relays the importance of
maturity in people, process, and technology for probable
Transportation Research Record 2678(1)
success in technology implementation. It presents self-
assessment metrics for state DOTs in considering tech-
nology implementations, and provides baseline limits
illustrating areas of probable success and failure. These
metrics and limits are provided and validated by a signif-
icant sampling of experts. With ongoing associated
efforts, this work is expected to significantly assist state
DOTs as they consider implementing technologies in
highway construction and asset management.
The associated research based on the preliminary
results here aims to find implementation factors for tech-
nology implementation capabilities. The ongoing
NCHRP 03-140 research project ‘‘Guidelines for
Applications of RFID and Wireless Technologies in
Highway Construction and Asset Management’’ identi-
fied five factors as the requirements for implementing the
technologies at DOTs. The panel, which includes a repre-
sentative from Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), DOTs, and other industry experts, has identi-
fied Organization Structure, IT Infrastructure, Data
Security, Information workflow, and Personnel Training
as five important factors of technology implementation.
In addition to the five factors identified in the RFP of
NCHRP 03-140, the research team identified
Stakeholder Engagement as the sixth factor important
for technology implementation at state DOTs.
Understanding these implementation factors is a criti-
cal consideration for technology implementation. The
combination of assessing maturity levels along people,
process, and technology, using weighted importance of
these levels of people, process, and technology, and asses-
sing the implementation factors for technology imple-
mentation capabilities will provide state DOTs with a
detailed framework with which to assess their proposed
technology implementations and gauge their potential
success or failure before incurring the expenses and risks
of these attempts.
Noted limitations of the study include that the deter-
mination of technology implementation success is
founded on a subjective measure of the subject matter
experts having witnessed those implementations.
Further, the study was limited to the identification of six
technology implementation factors. Although these six
factors were identified by experts, there are potentially
other factors of importance in the success of technology
implementations. Future work can explore and expand
on these factors. The research is also limited by its broad
nature so as not to focus on any specific technology.
This limitation is also viewed a strength so that the mod-
els can be broadly applicable. This aligns with other
work on maturity models, that are also broad in nature
and provide opportunities for organizations to modify
them per their own requirements. Although the defini-
tions for the maturity levels may vary or be altered, the
Tripathi et al
approach and main concept of maturity and maturity
models remains the same.
Future research will include more detailed investiga-
tion in criteria for each technology implementation fac-
tor. The authors also plan to validate findings with
detailed case investigations at selected state DOTs. Cases
will be planned with state DOTs successfully implement-
ing technologies and those that require assistance with
technology implementation efforts.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank all the DOT participants in the sur-
vey, interview, and workshops for their participation and sup-
port in this study.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows:
study conception and design: Amit Tripathi, Makram Bou
Hatoum, Ashtarout Ammar, Roy Sturgill; data collection:
Amit Tripathi, analysis and interpretation of results: Amit
Tripathi, Roy Sturgill, Hala Nassereddine, Gabriel Dadi; draft
manuscript preparation: Amit Tripathi, Hala Nassereddine. All
authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of
the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Amit Tripathi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2286-0154
Roy E Sturgill https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0702-8351
Makram Bou Hatoum https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8824-
3941
Ashtarout Ammar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9656-4761
References
1. Taylor, T. R. B, and W. F. Maloney. Forecasting Highway
Construction Staffing Requirements. NCHRP Synthesis
21
450. Transportation Research Board of the National Aca-
demies Press, Washington, D.C., 2013. https://doi.org/10.
17226/22514.
2. Tripathi, A., H. Nassereddine, G. Dadi, and R.E. Sturgill
Toward a Readiness Assessment for wireless Technologies
for Highway Construction and Infrastructure Asset Man-
agement. Proc., Construction Research Congress, Arling-
ton, VA, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483961.014.
3. Love, P. E. D., C. MacSporran, and S. N. Tucker The
Application of Information Technology by Australian
Contractors: Toward Process Re-Engineering. Proc., 4th
Annual International Group for Lean Construction Confer-
ence, Birmingham, 1996.
4. The National B2B Center. Three keys to IT System Success:
People, Process, Technology. https://www.nb2bc.co.uk/
three-keys-to-it-system-success-people-process-technology/.
5. Simon, B. Complete Guide to the PPT Framework. Smart-
sheet, June 14, 2019. https://www.smartsheet.com/content/
people-process-technology. Accessed July 19, 2022.
6. NCHRP Web-Only Document 214. Transportation Agency
Self-Assessment of Data to Support Business Needs: Final
Research Report. Transportation Research Board, 2015.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w214.pdf.
7. NCHRP 08-36, Task 100 Transportation Data Self-Assess-
ment Guide. Transportation Research Board, 2011. https://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP 08-
36(100)_FR.pdf.
8. Department of Technology, Management & Budget. State
Unified Information Technology Environment (SUITE).
https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/services/suite.
9. Francis, A.People Capability Maturity Model (PCMM).
https://www.mbaknol.com/human-resource-management/
introduction-to-people-capability-maturity-model-pcmm/.
10. ISACA. CMMI Institute. https://cmmiinstitute.com/pm.
11. Kwak, Y. H., and C. W. Ibbs. Project Management Process
Maturity (PM)2 Model. Journal of Management in Engi-
neering, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2002, pp. 150–155.
12. White, S. What is CMMI? A Model for Optimizing Develop-
ment Processes. Cio.com, 2021. https://www.cio.com/article/
274530/process-improvement-capability-maturity-model-inte-
gration-cmmi-definition-and-solutions.html.
13. Tran, D., C. Harper, and R. Sturgill. Highway Infrastruc-
ture Inspection Practices for the Digital Age. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2022.
14. Tripathi, A., G. B. Dadi, H. Nassereddine, R. E. Sturgill,
and A. Mitchell. Assessing Technology Implementation
Success for Highway Construction and Asset Manage-
ment. Sensors, Vol. 23, No. 7, 2023, p. 3671. https://doi.
org/10.3390/s23073671.