Conducting Airport Peer Reviews (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Collaboration is an integral part of the airport industry. When faced with challenging circumstances, airport operators have traditionally reached out to those in similar situations for guidance and assistance. Since the mid-1990s, airport managers have embraced the peer review as a method of formalizing this collaboration for project and program improvement. They share lessons learned from past experiences, provide input about proposed alternatives, offer technical guidance, and raise the level of understanding about key issues. The goals of this synthesis were to capture the range of peer review approaches being used by airport sponsors, to identify similar efforts outside the airport industry, and to document both effective practices and challenges in conducting peer review activities. Note that “peer review” is the term widely used in the airport industry to describe the peer-to-peer information exchange explored in this synthesis. However, this term is often used outside the airport industry to refer to formal audits, evaluations, or critiques of technical work or program effectiveness. Although this synthesis will touch on a few peer review formats that have a formal evaluation component, the primary focus is on face-to-face information-sharing. To avoid this terminology confusion, the FHWA began using the term “peer exchange” when discussing the peer review process mandated for Research, Development and Technology Transfer (RD&T) programs at state departments of transportation (DOTs). Instead of requiring “an independent assessment” of a program’s effectiveness, peer exchange emphasizes information-sharing for the purposes of improving quality and per- formance. This is the spirit and nature of the airport peer reviews discussed in this report. This synthesis is the result of a literature review on peer review practices and inter- views with those who have hosted or participated in peer reviews in the past. Twenty-six individuals (of 29 solicited) were interviewed for this project, a response rate of 90%. These interviews detailed a range of peer review formats, which are described throughout the report as follows: • Conference-style exchange: A large group of peers gathers for one day to discuss pressing issues in the industry. • Host-focused review: A smaller group of peers meets with a host agency to provide input on the host’s specific project, program, or initiative. • Performance audit: A team of peers performs an on-site evaluation of the host agency’s practices in a particular area. • Executive peer advisory team: A small team of peer experts provides candid input on the host agency’s project throughout the life of the project. • Site visit: A small team from one agency visits another agency to see operations in practice first-hand, or a team of community stakeholders embarks on a tour of multiple airports to gather more extensive information. • Technical assistance: One or more peers responds to an agency’s request for technical assistance, training, or operations assistance by e-mail, phone, or in-person interactions. • Online forum: An individual requests informal feedback from a community of peers via an electronic mailing list, an online survey, or a social media website. SUMMARY CONDUCTING AIRPORT PEER REVIEWS

2 These categories are used to provide organization to the range of formats available rather than to limit the options for peer interactions. Interviewees for this project used creative measures to solicit input from their peers, modifying the formats described previously to fit available budgets, timelines, and goals. Interviewees also shared what worked well when planning and hosting peer reviews. This synthesis presents participant experiences with selecting a peer review format, determining when to hold a peer review, estimating a budget, developing an effective agenda, selecting the right participants, using a facilitator, and reporting on the outcomes. To demonstrate how airports are applying the guidance described during the interviews, the report presents five case examples that illustrate a range of peer review approaches in action. Although interviewees discussed which formats they found most effective on specific projects, key successes and challenges they reported had less to do with the peer review format selected and more to do with the quality of advance preparation by the host agency. Respondents recommended clearly defining and communicating peer review goals and taking the time to set expectations for how each participant in the review would help the host agency meet those goals. This synthesis attempts to document those planning approaches that were most effective in making a peer review a success.