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.
22 Over the last 15 years, the airport industry has embraced the peer review process as an effective tool for improving projects and programs. The purpose of this report was to document the range of peer review approaches developed by airport managers or others, and to capture the lessons learned in applying them. Both the literature review and the interviews with past peer review participants revealed that no one approach should be considered the gold standard in conducting airport peer reviews. Airport managers use a wide range of peer review approaches, from initiating one-day site visits to other airports, to holding multi-day conferences, to assembling multi-year paid peer advisory panels. They may also customize peer reviews to meet their needs. Interviewees emphasized the following as important elements of peer reviews regardless of format: ⢠Determine the goals for the peer review before doing anything else. What are you trying to learn? How will you use the information you receive? If you know your goals, then you can develop an agenda and participant list that will help you best meet those goals. ⢠Consider the purpose of your peer review when determin- ing how influential it will be. If you want to incorporate a new direction or idea, the peer review needs to take place while there is still an opportunity to make changes based on the input received. If the goal is validation or documenting lessons learned for future projects, it may make sense to hold the event later in the process. ⢠Similarly, consider the peer review goals when selecting participants. If a decision or recommendation is desired, it may be challenging for a large group of people to reach a consensus. In addition, it is important to recognize the varying perspectives offered by potential attendees. It may be important to invite participants based solely on their experience with similar projects, or it may be valu- able to limit participation to airports that are similarly sized and structured. ⢠Effectively communicate the roles and responsibilities of all peer review participants. This includes individuals who are initiating and hosting the review, those serving as peer experts, and those assisting with planning or facilitation. ⢠Help participants prepare for the exchange by sending background information, peer review objectives, and discussion questions in advance. ⢠Consider your available budget when selecting a peer review format, but donât let potential costs deter you. There is value to any amount of peer input. ⢠Consider using a designated facilitator to help the peer review run smoothly and ensure that all participants have an opportunity to share their experiences with the host agency. Select a facilitator who is skilled in leading group discussions that involve competing ideas; in addition, a facilitator with subject area expertise may better be able to keep the discussions on topic. ⢠Documenting the peer review discussions, findings, and action items is important for supporting next steps by the host agency. Any reporting needs to be timely: com- pleted at the event or immediately following the event. This synthesis pointed up several opportunities for further research related to conducting airport peer reviews. Although peer reviews are being used widely in the industry, there is currently no guidance document or tool kit available on conducting airport peer reviews. Such a tool kit could include agenda templates, sample invitations to participants, sample report formats, and cost-estimate worksheets. There is also an opportunity to expand and formalize the use of peer reviews through partnerships with industry and government organiza- tions. This might include the development of additional train- ing programs, peer technical support networks, and extended on-site peer evaluations. Finally, although the interviewees for this synthesis expressed time and again the value of con- ducting peer reviews, research documenting impacts and cost savings may be helpful to those needing to justify their use to senior management. Professionals in the airport industry have demonstrated an exceptional willingness to help each other learn from past expe- riences and grow in their understanding of important issues. Continuing to provide innovative, low-cost ways for airport professionals to support one another will be critical for wide- spread implementation of peer reviews throughout the industry. chapter five CONCLUSIONS
