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.
8 provided about stakeholder input into either the research programs of the various modal administrations or the departmentâs strategic plan. A short and limited appendix describes plans to request comments on the strategic plan through a notice in the Federal Register, which seems to be a bureaucratic and ineffective approach to obtaining substantive input. The plan does not develop or explain methods for ensuring relevance, quality, and performance or for creating performance-based metrics to measure research outputs. The plan also does not include financial information that is required by MAP-21 and that can provide a sense of priorities among goals and modalities. The committee would have appreciated an outcome-based assessment of the 2006 strategic plan that described how well the U.S. DOT had performed against its many goals. Such an after-the-fact analysis is a necessary part of any efficient and effective process for developing a strategic plan. To understand the value of its many and varied research programs, the U.S. DOT needs to rely on evidence-based decision making, peer reviews to ensure the production of objective research, and evaluations of program results. Research developed to support a particular advocacy position is becoming increasingly common in transportation as well as other areas; thus, federal processes to ensure objectivity are becoming increasingly important. Research program evaluation is a relatively new but growing area that other federal departments have begun implementing to provide policy makers with quantitative rather than qualitative measures of the returns on investment in research and development.5 The U.S. DOT has some internal resources in research program analysis and evaluation; for example, the department employs at least one individual who has won awards for his expertise in these areas. The modal administrations within the department apparently evaluate their programs with varying levels of rigor; those administrations with strong evaluation programs and skilled employees are well positioned to provide guidance for all the departmental administrations, and this capability is an asset the strategic plan could promote. Potential alternatives to the five-year research strategy that the Department currently pursues are roadmaps or gate systems. A roadmap system would be event-based instead of calendar-based; this type of system may be more meaningful as it is based on actual research efforts instead of fluctuating budgetary levels and an artificial timeline created by legislation. Alternatively, a gate system allows progress from one technological stage to another based on relevant factors. For example, these factors may include technical readiness levels and the Critical Decision process as currently used at the Departments of Energy and Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Finally, the opportunities to implement the contents of this strategic plan are greater than was the case with previous plans because of the increased discretion in funding given to the modal administrations, as described above. To ensure that the department invests these discretionary resources in the most effective manner, the plan would need to address how departmental research programs solicit stakeholder input, implement merit review of competitively solicited research proposals, provide peer review of completed research, and monitor and evaluate research programs. RECOMMENDATIONS The committee is providing both short- and long-term recommendations. The short-term recommendations can be implemented in the final version of the draft RD&T plan and do not require 5 NRC, Measuring the Impacts of Federal Investments in Research: A Workshop Summary (National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011).
9 significant changes in departmental strategy. The long-term recommendations should be considered over next few years and addressed in future updates of the research strategic plan. Short-Term Recommendations The following four recommendations can and should be implemented in the final draft of the strategic plan to be published later this year: 1. Explain the research context in terms of variations in available resources and in modal roles, authorities, and priorities. 2. Leverage the strength of the modal RD&T plans. 3. Get the performance measures right. 4. Create a more compelling strategic plan that will be useful for policy makers. These recommendations, which are discussed in the following sections, may require rewriting of portions of the report, but all of them take into account knowledge and information that the department already has available. Explain the Research Context The strategic plan should provide more information about the resources available for carrying out the plan, whether those resources are outlined by modal administration, by strategic goal, or by some other means. Strategic plans that are otherwise excellent but that lack information about funding sources also lack strength and significance. Section 508 of MAP-21 specifically requires a description of âthe anticipated annual funding levels for the period covered by the strategic plan.â The committee acknowledges that because future funding sources are uncertain and modal administrations are not allowed to indicate resource allocation outside of the normal budgeting process, this requirement presents a challenge. The U.S. DOT should, however, provide information about allocation of past and current RD&T funding toward the goals outlined in the plan. Providing funding levels allows both the U.S. DOT and other readers of the plan to understand where the departmentâs overall priorities lie. The strategic plan also needs to better explain the context of the research goals it outlines. Stakeholders, particularly Congress, need to be reminded about the differences between the modal administrations in terms of mission, funding, and priorities. Greater clarity about the strategic goals and the ability of each administration to work toward attainment of those goals would be helpful, as some of the departmentâs five primary goals (such as safety) seem to be more important to the current administration than do others. Leverage the Strength of the Modal RD&T Plans Some of the modal administrations have done a great deal of work in developing their own strategic research plans. The quality of these plans varies, and the U.S. DOT would be well served to build on the strongest of the plans. Some administrations are already doing thoughtful strategic planning that suits their needs and resources and that reflects serious stakeholder involvement and customer interfaces. The overall plan should take the modal efforts into account and make clear that a great deal of effort has gone into the planning process.
10 Get the Performance Measures Right The performance measures need to be appropriate for a strategic research plan rather than for a general departmental strategic plan. The measures should be specific to research objectives and outputs rather than to system performance and should also be specific to modes as well as to the overall system. Breaking the measures down by modal administration also creates accountability for the administrations. Clearly defined research objectives produce verifiable results and help policy makers and research managers avoid focusing on unproductive effort.6 Although all of the performance measures should be considered carefully, the committee particularly recommends strengthening the measures associated with livability. As currently written, the goal is aimed almost entirely at transit and affords little opportunity for any other modal research to affect livability. Getting the performance measures right is an important first step toward research program evaluation, which the plan should also address. The strategic plan should be responsive to both the administrationsâ goals and the goals outlined in MAP-21 and should have performance metrics that reflect the full range of administration and congressional priorities and account for estimates of economic benefit. Create a More Compelling Strategic Plan Although the RD&T strategic plan is required by congressional mandate, the U.S. DOT should use the plan as an opportunity to describe its past research successes and future prospects to Congress and the public. The U.S. DOT has had many successes in RD&T that have led to significant transportation improvements for the public and its own administrations. Too often, however, the department has not made these successes clear to its many stakeholders. Success stories should be displayed prominently throughout the document, highlighting the value that a strong RD&T plan brings to both the U.S. DOT and the nation. Incorporation of graphics and sidebars would improve the readability of the strategic plan and provide a compelling case for the importance and value of funding transportation RD&T. The strategic plan should also describe the processes being used to ensure relevance, quality, and leadership and should identify gaps in research by topic area and type. Long-Term Recommendations In the long term, the U.S. DOT has the opportunity to rethink its strategic plan and address more of the structural issues that the departmentâs RD&T plan faces. The long-term recommendations are as follows: 1. Develop a longer-range strategic plan within the U.S. DOT. 2. Partner with universities and transportation infrastructure owners to promote research and workforce development. 3. Stay attuned to national and worldwide transportation research. 4. Increase involvement with other federal departments and entities. 5. Determine important areas of future research. These recommendations are discussed in the following sections. Develop a Longer-Range Strategic Plan within the U.S. DOT Recent transportation RD&T strategic plans have looked at a 5-year time frame because of the language and authorization periods in past surface transportation legislation. Some applied research 6 NRC, Measuring the Impacts of Federal Investments in Research: A Workshop Summary.
11 will yield measurable results within this period, but 5 years is insufficient for advanced or basic research designed to address major anticipated challenges. As the primary research arm of the department, RITA should develop longer-range strategic plans that reflect the time required for the development of new knowledge and its transfer into practice. In addition, the department might consider working with UTCs to develop long-term research plans that take into account human and intellectual capital outside of the U.S. DOT. Finally, the department, and RITA in particular, should consider incorporating a systems engineering activity at the department level to define and assess the RD&T that would best address the challenges. Partner with Universities and Transportation Infrastructure Owners to Promote Research and Workforce Development The U.S. DOT provides funds to universities to carry out transportation research. Multiple programs with varying objectives fund the university systems; these programs include Centers of Excellence, which focus on Federal Aviation Administration programs, and UTCs, which focus on multimodal research. Universities are valuable assets for carrying out research but have been historically underutilized by the U.S. DOT. They are a good venue for doing multimodal work that does not fit neatly into the departmentâs existing modal research framework and for carrying out basic and advanced research. This multimodal research should support the broad spectrum of transportation research and be reflective of short and long-term goals for our transportation system. The newly competitive research environment should improve the quality of university research. Universities are also an ideal resource for promoting workforce development, particularly that which results from investments in RD&T. In addition, the U.S. DOT should partner with state DOTs and other public agencies responsible for transportation infrastructure to implement the results of these research efforts. U.S. DOT and UTC collaboration will result in only limited RD&T outcome implementation unless the owners of infrastructure are party to it as stakeholders. Stay Attuned to National and Worldwide Transportation Research Transportation-related research in the United States is conducted by many agencies other than the U.S. DOT; indeed, the federal RD&T investment outside the U.S. DOT exceeds that inside the department. U.S. DOT research focuses largely on infrastructure, performance, demand, safety, and, to a lesser extent, strategies and policies for mitigating transportationâs adverse impacts on the environment,7 yet transportation includes vehicles, fuels, emissions, and other forms of environmental impact. The U.S. Department of Defense, for example, has alternative fuels programs, and the largest federal research program on reducing transportation energy consumption is through the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funds research on controlling motor vehicle emissions and the land use consequences of transportation policies investment. For the United States to remain a world leader in transportation research, the U.S. DOT needs to stay in close connection with research centers around the world. Because of constrained and uncertain funding, the U.S. DOT may become less involved with international efforts, particularly as travel is curtailed, but international cooperation should remain a focus of the department. The RD&T strategic plan, for example, should highlight how RITA can stay informed about research programs and results 7 Special Report 295: The Federal Investment in Highway Research 2006â2009: Strengths and Weaknesses (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008).
