National Academies Press: OpenBook

Managing State Transportation Research Programs (2019)

Chapter: Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses

« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Respondents
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Individual Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Managing State Transportation Research Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25436.
×
Page 164

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.

111 A P P E N D I X C Individual Survey Responses Questions 7 and 8: Where is your research program (administrative unit) located within your agency? (e.g., Planning Division, Materials Division, Chief Engineer’s Office, Innovation Office) and to whom does your research program report? (e.g., Chief Engineer, Director of Planning) Responses: 44 State Agency Affiliation Location of Research Program Research Program Reports to Alabama Department of Transportation Chief Engineer’s Office Assistant Chief Engineer Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Chief Engineer’s Office Chief Engineer Policy/Planning 45% Chief Engineer 19% Materials 12% Strategy 7% Other 17%

112 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Affiliation Location of Research Program Research Program Reports to Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy and Planning Director of Planning District Department of Transportation Planning and Sustainability Division Associate Director for Planning and Sustainability Mid-Manager: Research and Highway Safety Office Manager Florida Department of Transportation Strategic Development Assistant Secretary, Strategic Development Georgia Department of Transportation Commissioner’s Special Staff Director of Policy and Government Affairs Hawaii Department of Transportation Highway Materials Testing Lab and Research Branch Highways Administrator/Deputy Director of Highways Idaho Transportation Department Contracting Services Section, Division of Engineering Services Contracting Services Engineer Illinois Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Programming Director of Planning and Programming Arizona Department of Transportation Multimodal Planning Division Multimodal Planning Division Director Arkansas Department of Transportation System Information and Research Division Planning Branch Assistant Chief Engineer of Planning Branch California Department of Transportation Planning and Modal Program Deputy for Planning and Modal Programs

Individual Survey Responses 113 Maryland Department of Transportation Office of Policy and Research Director of Policy and Research State Agency Affiliation Location of Research Program Research Program Reports to Massachusetts Department of Transportation Planning Division Deputy Director of Planning Michigan Department of Transportation Bureau of Field Services Bureau of Field Services Director Minnesota Department of Transportation Modal Planning and Project Management Office Director, Transportation System Management Mississippi Department of Transportation Office of Highways, Chief Engineer’s Office Assistant Chief Engineer— Operations Missouri Department of Transportation Construction and Materials Division State Construction and Materials Engineer Montana Department of Transportation Engineering Division, Management Information and Support Bureau Management Information and Support Bureau Chief Nebraska Department of Transportation Materials and Research Division Materials and Research Division Engineer Indiana Department of Transportation Capital Program Capital Program Deputy Commissioner Iowa Department of Transportation Strategic Performance Division Strategic Performance Division Director Kansas Department of Transportation Division of Operations Research Program Council Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Chief Engineer’s Office Chief Engineer Maine Department of Transportation Chief Engineer’s Office Chief Engineer

114 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Planning and Research Oregon Department of Transportation Transportation Development Division (Planning, Data, STIP/Finance, Research) Transportation Development Division Administrator Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Planning Division Director of Planning and Research South Carolina Department of Transportation Office of Materials and Research Director of Construction South Dakota Department of Transportation Secretariat Division Deputy Secretary Tennessee Department of Transportation Long Range Planning Division Director of Long Range Planning Texas Department of Transportation Strategy and Innovation Office Director of Strategy and Innovation Utah Department of Transportation Technology and Innovation Group Director of Technology and Innovation Ohio Department of Transportation Planning Division Administrator, Statewide State Agency Affiliation Location of Research Program Research Program Reports to Nevada Department of Transportation Planning Division Assistant Director, Planning New Hampshire Department of Transportation Bureau of Materials and Research Bureau Administrator New Mexico Department of Transportation Own Division Deputy Secretary New York State Department of Transportation Majority in Planning, SPRII under Materials Director of Planning North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways, Chief Engineer’s Office Transportation Program Management Director

Individual Survey Responses 115 Question 9: What is the role of your research program? Please check all that apply: Responses: 43 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Administer Research Funding Manage Research Projects Perform In-House Research Promote Agency Innovation Monitor Implementation Other Ag en cy C ou nt State Agency Affiliation Location of Research Program Research Program Reports to Vermont Agency of Transportation Policy, Planning, and Intermodal Development Division Policy, Planning, and Research Bureau Director Washington State Department of Transportation Project Development Division Director of Project Development Division West Virginia Department of Transportation Planning Division Director of Planning Wisconsin Department of Transportation Executive Offices—Office of Policy, Finance, and Improvement Performance, Policy, and Research Section Chief Wyoming Department of Transportation Planning State Programming Engineer

116 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Planning and administering department’s transportation engineering conference Administer the Local Road Research Board Technical assistance in solving field problems STIC oversight Investigate failures in the field Asset management Question 10: Recognizing that not all DOT-sponsored research is conducted within the research office, what is your agency’s allocation of research projects (please indicate the percentage of total projects for each choice)? Responses: 44 FHWA-related incentives (e.g., EDC, AID, SHRP, STIC) Other responsibilities: Managing LTAP Distributing research information Coordinating regional and national research efforts Technical oversight Non-technical (schedule, status monitoring) Manage new products evaluation/qualified product lists Manage research centers Solicit research proposals Crash testing Technology transfer Coordinate implementation as needed Manage and perform experimental feature research Manage Pooled Funds Coordinate research projects

Individual Survey Responses 117 “Other” responses: Internship and recruitment program Local technical assistance program SPR programs New product evaluation Experimental features System information Finance and contracting 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Asset Management Library Services Training Services Information Technology Other Ag en cy C ou nt Question 11: For which non-research functions is your research program responsible? Please check all that apply. Responses: 40

118 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Through a Research Strategic Plan Through a DOT- Wide Strategic Plan No Yes Total No 16 11 27 Yes 12 5 17 Total 28 16 44 Research programs that set their vision, goals, and objectives through both a DOT-wide strategic plan and through a research strategic plan: Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and West Virginia Department of Transportation. 0 5 10 15 20 25 DOT-Wide Strategic Plan Research Strategic Plan Advisory Board Other Ag en cy C ou nt Marketing and outreach Pavement management Non-destructive testing Question 12: How are your research program’s vision, goals, and objectives set? Responses: 44

Individual Survey Responses 119 Engineer, and Research Advisory Council. State Agency Other Illinois Department of Transportation The advisory committee makes decisions and recommendations for the program to meet the strategic goals of the department. Maine Department of Transportation No formal vision and goals, but direction is outlined in personnel performance expectations. Maryland Department of Transportation Through collaborations with technical offices and discussions with leadership. Missouri Department of Transportation A research vision was developed and we are planning to develop a research strategic plan, but haven’t started that effort at this time. Montana Department of Transportation We have the research review committee (RRC) move projects forward to technical panels and approve funding for research projects. They also determine if there are any and, if so, what research focus areas in any given federal fiscal year. This is a very informal process. New York State Department of Transportation Research aligned toward department needs, tied to national priorities, with applied research to primarily meet current program needs. North Carolina Department of Transportation The research unit builds a program around departmental needs and the review and support of several committees. Tennessee Department of Transportation Research needs statements Idaho Transportation Department We don’t have a formal strategic plan. I receive direction from the Administrator for the Division of Engineering Services, Contracting Services committee (RAC). Ideas for new projects are typically generated at the customer level within the department. Research staff develop and present problem statements (that have been extensively vetted with the customer and sponsor) to the RAC for funding consideration. Other: Arizona Department of Transportation Research manager and staff establish vision, goals, and objectives, and with the planning director’s approval, convey them to the DOT’s research advisory

120 Managing State Transportation Research Programs “Other” responses: Mid-level managers make up my RAC. Also, direct input from chief engineer. Our RAC is the Technical Advisory Groups and Technical Review Panels We have the Research Review Committee (RRC) that moves projects forward to technical panels and approves funding for research projects. They also determine if there are any, and, if so, what research focus areas in any given federal fiscal year. This is a very informal process. Freight Advisory Committee Department’s Research and Development Executive Committee Research staff Research Bureau staff Research Section staff Research manager plays the largest role, with input from research staff. The Planning Director’s approval is needed for significant revisions. The DOT RAC’s input is considered, as well. Through collaborations with technical offices and discussions with leadership RAC has a Chief Engineer as an executive sponsor. Local FHWA office Research office 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Executive Leadership Mid-Level Managers Research Advisory Committee Other Ag en cy C ou nt Question 13: Who is involved in determining your research program’s vision, goals, and objectives? Please check all that apply. Responses: 44

Individual Survey Responses 121 Question 14: How would you improve the manner in which your program’s vision, goals, and objectives are set? Responses: 33 State Agency Wish for Improvement in Setting Vision, Goals, and Objectives Alabama Department of Transportation I would like more input from the regions. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities The Chief Engineer has changed 3 times in 2 years. The current one is from the first Chief Engineer. Need updated project selection criteria that relate to vision, goals and objectives. Arizona Department of Transportation Would like to see more engagement from customers and the DOT’s RAC. Nevertheless, the healthy relationship between the RAC and the research program allows research staff to largely set the course. Arkansas Department of Transportation We are consistently looking at improvement with input across our DOT; to increase this process we would like to have a more virtual presence. California Department of Transportation Get more direction from Executive Board specific to research Colorado Department of Transportation Know the goals and vision of your department Connecticut Department of Transportation Establish a research advisory group or committee District Department of Transportation Better linkage to agency leadership in the goal-setting process. Also trying to think if there is a role for the broader research community in informing those goals (e.g., university partners). Florida Department of Transportation Continue to increase sophistication of cross-functional coordination in the process of identifying, setting, and implementing vision, goals, and objectives. Georgia Department of Transportation More communication with executive management on this. Illinois Department of Transportation More understanding of and focus on research and how we can assist in meeting goals and objectives.

122 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Wish for Improvement in Setting Vision, Goals, and Objectives Indiana Department of Transportation Communications with the executive staff. Iowa Department of Transportation Increased communication from upper management in identifying desired role of research within the agency. Maine Department of Transportation We have no formal manner. The work we conduct is aligned with department strategic plan. Being a small research program I don’t see huge benefit to formally adopting vision and goals. Maryland Department of Transportation More involvement from leadership in setting program objectives. Mississippi Department of Transportation Unsure Missouri Department of Transportation Need to develop a new research strategic plan. Montana Department of Transportation I would formalize the process. I would like our department to institute a strategic plan. Based on this, I could develop a research strategic plan. Nebraska Department of Transportation It is a well-balanced and very efficient program, so I would not recommend changes at this time. Nevada Department of Transportation We hired a contractor to help us develop a strategic research plan that we are currently implementing. This has helped us improve and we’re still incorporating that. New Hampshire Department of Transportation Have Research staff included in department meetings to hear about critical issues first hand. New Mexico Department of Transportation We need to create a better relationship with specific national, regional, and state transportation challenges so strategic objectives are not abstract. New York Department of Transportation Could use a more formal, coordinated process. North Carolina Department of Transportation Would like to have the ability to come up with a balance of applied immediate needs and long-term strategic needs. Working on that.

Individual Survey Responses 123 State Agency Wish for Improvement in Setting Vision, Goals, and Objectives Pennsylvania Department of Transportation In the fall we plan to conduct a research symposium with PennDOT staff, universities and associations to identify priority research needs for PA. We hope to develop a research roadmap for PennDOT. South Carolina Department of Transportation Would not. Tennessee Department of Transportation Updating of our LRP plan; polling other TDOT stakeholders (MPOs, TDOT staff, etc.) Texas Department of Transportation Developing specifically for the Research Division. Utah Department of Transportation We would develop recommendations for these to present to the Utah Transportation Research Advisory Council (UTRAC), or UDOT Senior Leaders, for approval. Washington State Department of Transportation Better information on emerging national research opportunities and requirements. West Virginia Department of Transportation Nationwide exposure and peer exchanges. Wisconsin Department of Transportation We would like to break down barriers (communication, “silos,” etc.) to align research more closely with department-wide goals and strategies. Question 15: What stakeholders comprise your State Transportation Innovation Council? Please check all that apply. Responses: 44

124 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Other: State Agency Other Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Small and large municipalities, not just MPOs. Tribal liaison. Arizona Department of Transportation Others: Representatives of counties, cities. The research program was formally included in STIC activities until (literally) TODAY. I have been working to establish a relationship with the STIC for sometime, but have just received an invitation to join. Colorado Department of Transportation FHWA and one from the city Idaho Transportation Department FHWA, Local Highway Technical Assistance Council, local highway district, Army Corps of Engineers Illinois Department of Transportation FHWA, other state agencies (IDNR, Tollway) and federal agencies (U.S. EPA and USACE) Indiana Department of Transportation Counties and other state departments Iowa Department of Transportation City and county government staff 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Universities Industry Partners Consultants Research Program Staff Non-Research Program Staff LTAP Staff MPOs/RPOs Unknown Other Ag en cy C ou nt

Individual Survey Responses 125 State Agency Other Minnesota Department of Transportation Office directors and district engineers, State Aid Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation American Council of Engineering Companies, city and county staff New Hampshire Department of Transportation Representation from contractors, USACE, ACEC [American Council of Engineering Companies], FHWA, bike and transit associations New Mexico Department of Transportation NMDOT Research is not affiliated with the STIC (although we should be), so I am not sure of the answer. Ohio Department of Transportation City and county staff, USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio History Connection Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Other state agencies, Turnpike Tennessee Department of Transportation FHWA–Tennessee Division, local public agency Texas Department of Transportation Other state agencies including FHWA Vermont Agency of Transportation FHWA Division Office; there’s a small STIC Executive Team. We meet annually with STIC stakeholders—the folks listed Washington State Department of Transportation City/county association representatives Wisconsin Department of Transportation County highway association, FHWA Division, towns association, Department of Natural Resources, tribal government Wyoming Department of Transportation We do not have a STIC Question 16: Who manages research projects in your state DOT? Please check all that apply. Responses: 43

126 Managing State Transportation Research Programs The nine state agencies that use contracted research project managers also manage research projects in the following ways: Count Method 8 of 9 Research project managers (employed by your DOT) 7 of 9 Technical panels 3 of 9 Other DOT staff members 2 of 9 Research project managers employed by your research program Other: State Agency Other Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Depends on the project, but mostly, research staff. California Department of Transportation Mostly research program staff. Others case by case. Idaho Transportation Department I am the only staff person in our research program. I manage some projects (less now than in the past). We rely on staff in the sections requesting projects to manage projects. We also set up a technical advisory committee for each project. Minnesota Department of Transportation Research project management is primarily done by staff within the research program. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Research Project Managers (employed by your DOT) Research Project Managers (contracted by your DOT) Other Research staff employed by your research program Other DOT staff members Technical Panels Other Ag en cy C ou nt

Individual Survey Responses 127 Montana Department of Research staff or contracted services serve as the research project managers, but State Agency Other Transportation all research projects are overseen by technical panel. Panels almost always have an FHWA member and frequently include other non-MDT members. Wisconsin Department of Transportation UW-Madison College of Engineering is contracted to provide technical support services on our Wisconsin Highway Research Program Wyoming Department of Transportation The research manager Question 17: How does your agency gain needed expertise to support research management for the following categories? Responses: 42 Question 18: What type of professional experience does your organization look for in staff with responsibilities for managing research projects? Please rate from 1 to 5 (1: not at all, 5: very much so). Responses: 43 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 IT Administration Library Services Finance Accounting Contracting / Procurement Ag en cy C ou nt N/A Hire into the Research Program Obtain Expertise from Other Divisions of the DOT Use Specialized Contractors

128 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Comment Alabama Department of Transportation We hire from state register. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Ability to facilitate and bring together one direction. Arizona Department of Transportation With only three PMs and a plethora of research topics, we hire for expertise in critical thinking/analysis, problem solving, writing, and (if we’re lucky) knowledge of research process/methods. These skills have proven to be more valuable than DOT or transportation experience. Idaho Transportation Department We generally rely on staff in the sections requesting projects to oversee research projects. Project sponsors (section manager level) are involved and serve as project managers or designate staff to play this role. Minnesota Department of Transportation Research advisors are senior engineer with PE and background in civil engineering; project coordinators are management analysts. Montana Department of Transportation Experiences in specialized areas is gained by adding members to technical panels. The first and the last are bonus experiences when hiring staff. For our experimental features project

Individual Survey Responses 129 State Agency Comment manager, we do like to see some materials, pavements, structures, or other specialized experiences. For the rest, we plan on conducting on-the-job training. Mostly we look for abilities and skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, decision making, ability to work independently, etc. New Hampshire Department of Transportation No research management experience is required. North Carolina Department of Transportation Project management experience regardless of background is a plus. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation We manage the project from an administrative standpoint; rely on technical advisors within PennDOT to oversee technical aspect. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Subject matter experts in research/conduct of research. Question 19: In which ways do non-university contractors make your agency’s research programs more effective? Please rate the following choices from 1 to 5 (1: not important, 5: most important) Responses: 43

130 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Provide capacity—DOT lacks sufficient internal labor resources to conduct the full research program. Offer specialized skill set—Contractors provide a specialized skill set that the DOT may not have internally. Provide external perspective—Contractors provide a needed external perspective to how research is conducted. Implementation—Contractors help with implementation and deployment of research results. Agency does not use outside contractors Question 20: In which ways do universities support DOT research activities? Please check all that apply. Responses: 44 Comments: Illinois Department of Transportation: Our RAC is the Technical Advisory Group. Montana Department of Transportation: Our RAC, known as the Research Review Committee, also selects projects. The university representative is non-voting. Wisconsin Department of Transportation: Wisconsin has had a UTC in the past but none currently, outside of a small project being done as “Tier 2.” Michigan Department of Transportation: Submittal of possible research ideas. Question 21: What other main external partners does your DOT rely on, and in what ways? 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Research Advisory Committee Participation Project Selection Committee Participation State Transportation Innovation Council Participation University Transportation Center University Faculty as Research Contractors University Faculty as Peer Reviewers / Quality Control Other Ag en cy C ou nt Details:

Individual Survey Responses 131 Partner Responses Comment AASHTO 34 Technical program support including national-level issues, knowledge/awareness, training, publications, RAC surveys and feedback, research needs statements with other states, Technical Services Program participation, national connections, technology transfer, expertise, best practices, peer exchanges, informing administrative approaches, pooled funds, identification of ongoing research, professional development. Other: Starting to rely on AASHTO but it looks to leadership positions that change sometimes every 2 years. TRB 33 Annual meetings, committee participation, state visits, peer exchanges, program development, cooperative research, publications, state-of-practice updates, webinars, technical expertise, completed research and research in progress, research panels, sharing research results, national connections, technology transfer, software, new technologies, NCHRP projects supplement the research project portfolio, Conduct of Research committees, identification of ongoing research. Other: We are starting to use TRB more. Value the TRB rep meetings, RAC meeting, and other support services. Local Associations 18 This is on an ad hoc basis for research projects as appropriate, technical panel members, rely on pilot projects through materials suppliers/contractors, research ideas and needs, local industry organizations and contractors for input on their issues and concerns that relate to the department, and how we can partner to address these issues while improving the transportation system, local connections, quarterly meetings with local associations to share ideas and specification/process changes, peer exchanges, private sector for advice on potential project implementation, support on STIC and other innovative initiatives, local associations and agencies are important panel members for some specific projects. Local Research Programs: Provide board members for the Ohio Research Initiative for Locals and propose research ideas to ORIL, LRRB program administration (city and county representatives).

132 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Partner Responses Comment Vendors construction practices, new products for research comparisons, software support, data hosting, work with vendors to use innovation to facilitate improvements, research and deployment ideas, partnering on test installations, assistance with experimental features, videos, assistance with DOT websites/videos/database support, marketing materials (At-A-Glance, technical summaries, professional publication articles, etc.), support STIC and other innovative initiatives, technology transfer and development on some specific projects. Other 11 FHWA Division Office staff. We coordinate closely with the designated research and planning staff and include FHWA specialists on the technical advisory committees for all projects. We have also included staff from other agencies, professional associations, and the private sector on project oversight committees. Northeast Illinois also utilizes local transportation agencies such as CTA, METRA, and PACE; industry and association partners; and freight advisory committees. State agency performing environmental research; U.S. EPA, state universities in other states. Question 22: What was your agency’s total research budget for the last fiscal year? Responses: 41 Technology 15 Emerging technology studies, technologies to improve DOT processes and

Individual Survey Responses 133 Question 23: Please provide an approximate breakdown of where your agency OBTAINS its research budget, on a percentage basis, for the last full fiscal year if possible. Responses: 42 Question 24: Please provide an approximate breakdown of where your agency SPENDS your research budget on a percentage basis, for the last full fiscal year if possible. Responses: 42

134 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Question 25: What provisions are in place for meeting compliance and reporting requirements for your funding sources? Please check all that apply. If all funding sources use the same support functions, please fill out JUST the top row. Responses: 42 For states with variance between different funding sources: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 All funding sources use the same support functions Ag en cy C ou nt N/A Accounting Systems Procurement Procedures Legal Support Dedicated DOT Staff for Managing Specific Funds

Individual Survey Responses 135 Question 26: How easy is it for your research program to fulfill funding compliance requirements as a whole? Please rate from 1 to 5 (1: very easy, 5: very difficult). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 State Planning and Research Other Federal Funds Multi-State Pooled Funds State Funds Ag en cy C ou nt N/A Accounting Systems Procurement Procedures Legal Support Dedicated DOT Staff for Managing Specific Funds For example: State Planning and Research fund compliance requirements include preparing an annual FHWA SPR Part B Work Program listing all research projects that use federal funding, what the project activities consist of, to conduct peer exchanges every 5 years, review state management processes for research, development, and technology programs every 5 years, and so on. Responses: 42 Overall Average: 2.77 (Moderate Difficulty) 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 Ag en cy C ou nt

136 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Comments: State Agency Score Comment Alabama Department of Transportation 4 Scheduling peer exchange has been a problem Idaho Transportation Department 4 Our research program has just 1 FTE. While ours is a relatively small program, it is very much a challenge to keep up with everything that needs to be done in the research area. We do obtain assistance from staff in other parts of the department to oversee projects, to help with processing payments and tracking expenditures, make pooled fund transfers, perform legal review of agreements, etc. Mississippi Department of Transportation 4 We have great communication with upper management and local FHWA, which makes this easy. We also have a tracking database. Question 27: Does your organization maintain reserve/discretionary funds for immediate research needs? Responses: 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Yes No Other Ag en cy C ou nt

Individual Survey Responses 137 Comment: State Agency Comment Idaho Transportation Department We have not dedicated a portion of funds to respond to immediate research needs. However, we often have been able to find ways to respond to needs like these. In some years we allocate all funds to selected projects. In some years we start with a small contingency for research projects. We often have had a contingency budgeted for pooled fund requests that arise during the year. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Sometimes Ohio Department of Transportation We have two on-call master contracts for immediate needs. $300,000/year Wisconsin Department of Transportation We reserve some funds as “placeholder” so that we can take advantage of new opportunities as they arise through the FFY, such as new pooled funds. We amend our work program twice during the FFY in order to expend our reserve funding. Question 28: What were your research program’s main research areas for your last full fiscal year by funding percentage? Please use the table or textbox below, with your best approximation. Response: 38 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0-10% 30-40% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % Pavements

138 Managing State Transportation Research Programs 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0-10% 20-30% 40-50% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % Bridges and Structures 0 5 10 15 20 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % Planning 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % Safety 0 5 10 15 20 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % Traffic Operations

Individual Survey Responses 139 0 5 10 15 20 25 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % Geotechnical 0 5 10 15 20 25 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Fu nd in g % Asset Management Agency Count Environment 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Agency Count Fu nd in g % Finance

140 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Other forms of classification: Public involvement Aviation/aeronautics Hydraulics Stormwater Construction equipment Executive Maintenance Maintenance operations Security Multimodal Modal Federal programs Policy and planning Rural Preconstruction/design Public transportation Project bike, ped, and transit Materials Asphalt IT Communications Strategy and innovation LTAP Performance measures Library services Other comment: Unknown, very challenging to determine with our current process.

Individual Survey Responses 141 Question 29: How does your agency prioritize research areas/topics? Please check all that apply. Responses: 41 State Agency Other Arizona Department of Transportation DOT staff (customers) bring us information needs; research staff consider whether research can address those needs. If so, research staff develop and present problem statements to the RAC. Each problem statement is already supported by a sponsor at management level, so the RAC is comfortable with approving by consensus in most cases. California Department of Transportation Research Prioritization Methodology—scoring projects based on how well they address the department’s strategic goals. Connecticut Department of Transportation Internal communication, leads Florida Department of Transportation Functional Area Working Groups, which prioritize functional area submittals; subsequent agency voting and executive review follow to 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Research Advisory Committee Focus Groups Open Submission and Voting Other Ag en cy C ou nt develop the program. Illinois Department of Transportation RAC = technical advisory panel Massachusetts Department of Transportation DOT division administrators

142 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Question 30: How does your agency award projects? Please check all that apply. Responses: 42 Other: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Project Selection Committee Formula with set criteria Other Ag en cy C ou nt State Agency Other Missouri Department of Transportation Discussions with senior leadership Montana Department of Transportation Our RAC is the research review committee. New Mexico Department of Transportation We have open solicitation; however, before the proposals go to committee, our Research Engineer does significant vetting to ensure that project advocates understand Research Bureau requirements for approval. Tennessee Department of Transportation Oversight Committee State Agency Other: Alaska Department of Transportation and Development Research Advisory Board with recommendations from technical advisors California Department of Transportation Research prioritization methodology, balanced with priorities from research areas Advisory Committee after scoring against strategic plan

Individual Survey Responses 143 State Agency Other: Connecticut Department of Transportation Internal communication Florida Department of Transportation Competitive selection advertisements and direct to university Idaho Transportation Department In some instances, we put projects out to bid through an RFP or RFQ process to universities or private-sector contractors. In many cases university researchers are identified by project sponsors within the department, and we work with the universities to establish task orders under our master cooperative research agreements with the universities. Illinois Department of Transportation Tech Advisory Panel and IDOT/ICT Executive Committee Minnesota Department of Transportation TRIG governing board Mississippi Department of Transportation RAC approval, technical champions Missouri Department of Transportation Standard research agreement or university task order Montana Department of Transportation Our Research Review Committee selects projects New Hampshire Department of Transportation Research Advisory Committee Pennsylvania Department Highway Division picks projects of Transportation Tennessee Department of Transportation Research Proposal Evaluation Form Texas Department of Transportation RFP process

144 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Other: Utah Department of Transportation For problem statements selected for funding that were co-submitted by a qualified researcher, UDOT will typically award the research project to that researcher. Otherwise, a consultant or university is selected by the UDOT champion or advisory committee. Sometimes we do an RFQ or request for letter of interest to multiple firms or researchers. Wisconsin Department of Transportation RFPs are posted. Established scoring criteria are used by oversight committees. Wyoming Department of Transportation Research Advisory Committee Question 31: Who are the main recipients of your agency’s disseminated research? Please check all that apply. Response: 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Ag en cy C ou nt

Individual Survey Responses 145 Other: State Agency Other Florida Department of Transportation All apply—main users are DOT, other DOTs, other researchers, and industry Mississippi Department of Transportation TRB, National Transportation Library, etc. New Mexico Department of Transportation We are ineffective at dissemination and are making a concerted effort to remedy that problem. Tennessee Department of Transportation Principal investigators, peer publications Wyoming Department of Transportation Institutions of higher education Question 32: How much do you use these methods for disseminating research findings? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: not at all, 5: very much so). Response: 42 Question 33: Does your organization have a quality control method in place for research activities? Responses: 42

146 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Method Alabama Department of Transportation We have built-in checks and reviews in our process. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Evaluations Arizona Department of Transportation Intense critical review by research PMs and a technical editor; input from an advisory committee for each project. California Department of Transportation Mainly in-house research, Caltrans Executive Board 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Yes No Other Ag en cy C ou nt District Department of Transportation We are working on instituting peer review panels for all our research projects, partly in response to some poor research projects in the past. Florida Department of Transportation Administrative (Research Center) and Technical Project Manager oversight activities, Performance Coordinator review Georgia Department of Transportation Agency-set performance management goals Idaho Transportation Department Research deliverables are reviewed by the project technical advisory committees, which include the project sponsor, project managers, FHWA project advisors, and other TAC members. We also typically identify an independent peer reviewer to review the report and provide feedback in the review process.

Individual Survey Responses 147 State Agency Method Illinois Department of Transportation We have a technical review panel assigned for each project, They, along with the research coordinator, are responsible for keeping the research project on track. We also have weekly calls between our Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT) and IDOT research managers to keep on top of everything. Iowa Department of Transportation Technical Advisory Committees Kansas Department of Transportation Editor and Engineer reviews every research report. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Manual of Research Procedures Michigan Department of Transportation QA/QC plans are due at time of proposal; 90-day deliverable review and revision period is built into every contract with the first 30 days for DOT review. Minnesota Department of Transportation Monitor & Track contract amendments, project evaluation, task overdue or coming due Mississippi Department of Performance evaluation, TAC review Transportation Missouri Department of Transportation Through a Project Management Software know as “CloudCoach” we monitor the deliverables and budget for each individual research project. Also, through Sharepoint, will compile all agreements and project data collection. Montana Department of Transportation In proposals, we ask researchers how they plan on ensuring quality deliverables and have frank discussions with our researchers. If deliverables are not up to snuff or late, we withhold funding until they are. If we are having problems with a researcher, we make sure their bosses and other appropriate individuals (for universities, we let the contracting office know we are having problems) know about it. We also hire outside reviewers and use our technical panels for quality control.

148 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Method Nevada Department of Transportation We rely on our project “champions” to determine acceptability. New Hampshire Department of Transportation Research projects have a technical advisory group. New Mexico Department of Transportation Because we have not made it a priority, we are trying to create a framework now. New York Department of Transportation Internal communications and peer reviews by committees established for specific research North Carolina Department of Transportation Working on a full set of QC measures Ohio Department of Transportation Research technical panel and project manager review the research report. Oregon Department of Transportation Advisory committee review, staff editing South Carolina Department of Transportation We do follow up all projects with surveys to Steering Committee members and PIs rating our services as well as theirs. South Dakota Department of Transportation Oversight by technical panel & RAC; each project must have a quality control plan by contractor. Tennessee Department of Transportation Preliminary preparation for this task Texas Department of Transportation Deliverables-based projects Utah Department of Transportation Quality of research deliverables is overseen by each research project manager, mainly involving contract/schedule management and adherence to final report guidelines, along with technical review by the UDOT project panel. Wisconsin Department of Transportation We monitor and evaluate research program deliverables and budgets.

Individual Survey Responses 149 Question 34: Who is involved in research oversight and what are their roles? Please check all that apply. Responses: 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 N/A Oversight on Strategic Direction Oversight on Project Selection Oversight on Budgeting Oversight on Project Execution Oversight on Implementation Ag en cy C ou nt Research Advisory Committee DOT Top Leadership DOT Research Program Division Director/Manager DOT Research Project Managers University Faculty Other 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 N/A Oversight on Strategic Direction Oversight on Project Selection Oversight on Budgeting Oversight on Project Execution Oversight on Implementation Agency Count Research Advisory Committee 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 N/A Oversight on Strategic Direction Oversight on Project Selection Oversight on Budgeting Oversight on Project Execution Oversight on Implementation Agency Count DOT Top Leadership

150 Managing State Transportation Research Programs 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 N/A Oversight on Strategic Direction Oversight on Project Selection Oversight on Budgeting Oversight on Project Execution Oversight on Implementation Agency Count DOT Research Program Division Director/Manager 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 N/A Oversight on Strategic Direction Oversight on Project Selection Oversight on Budgeting Oversight on Project Execution Oversight on Implementation Agency Count DOT Research Project Managers State Agency Other Arizona Department of Transportation The RAC has a key role in project selection, but I would not call it “oversight.” Florida Department of Transportation Program Development Coordinator for project execution and Performance Coordinator for implementation. Illinois Department of Transportation University staff (project management) at Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT) Mississippi Department of Transportation RAC is DOT top leadership. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 N/A Oversight on Strategic Direction Oversight on Project Selection Oversight on Budgeting Oversight on Project Execution Oversight on Implementation Agency Count University Faculty

Individual Survey Responses 151 State Agency Other Montana Department of Transportation Our RAC is the Research Review Committee (RRC), which is composed of DOT top leadership. The Research Programs Manager is on the RRC. For the Other category, we are in the process of hiring a private contractor to manage research projects. This is due to a loss of 1 FTE. Nevada Department of Transportation Project “champions” from throughout the department. Utah Department of Transportation New innovation and implementation group in our research division. Question 35: What are the main types of performance measures for maintaining research program quality at your agency? Please check all that apply. Responses: 41 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Peer assessment Alignment to state DOT's strategic initiatives No consistent method for evaluating completed research projects Other Post-project tracking for implementation Assessing potential benefits prior to beginning project Fulfillment of research objectives Completion of project on schedule Completion of project in line with the budget Agency Count

152 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Idaho Department of Transportation We are just beginning to put performance measures in place. Initially, we will focus on schedule and implementation Mississippi Department of Transportation Tracking specific benefits—this is a work in progress. Montana Department of Transportation We are in the process of formalizing research performance measures. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Tracking of project deliverables. All projects posted as not to exceed amounts must stay within budget. Researcher evaluation form is filled out by the project oversight committee at the end of the project. Question 36: How does research evaluation impact your organization’s process of conducting research? Please check all that apply. Responses: 42 Question 37: To the best of your knowledge, how much of your research conducted is peer reviewed (evaluated by another researcher working in the same field)? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: very little of research is peer reviewed, 5: most research is peer reviewed). Responses: 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 To direct funding To inform new research project selection To evaluate individual researcher performance To share lessons learned from the research program To improve research program processes and effectiveness No consistent process for evaluating research programs Ag en cy C ou nt Other: State Agency Other Arizona Department of Transportation Schedule and budget are obviously important, but not as important as fulfilling objectives and assessing benefits prior to beginning.

Individual Survey Responses 153 Weighted Average: 2.14 Most research at Indiana and Texas Departments of Transportation are peer reviewed (ranking of 5). Comments: State Agency Comments Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities University or consultant performs work requested. Not much peer review that I know of. District Department of Transportation We are working on expanding this. Illinois Department of Transportation Unknown North Carolina Department of Transportation Individual projects typically are not, but papers generated from projects may be. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 1 2 3 4 5 Ag en cy C ou nt Ranking (1-little, 5-most research) Tennessee Department of Transportation Published peer-reviewed articles Question 38: Who tracks research dissemination by your organization (i.e., do the results of research reach and impact the intended audience)? Please check all that apply. Responses: 42

154 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Other: State Agency Other Arizona Department of Transportation The research program leads this effort. ADOT leaders and staff participate by providing input. We conduct a study approximately every 5 years to assess the impact of research and extent of implementation at the DOT. District Department of Transportation In theory the research program does, but not sure how to do it right now. Georgia Department of Transportation Research implementation manager Idaho Transportation Department The Research Manager is beginning to compile information on percentage of projects completed on schedule and project 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Communications Personnel Senior DOT Leaders No Position for Tracking Research Dissemination Research Advisory Committee No Designated Position Other Research Library Research Program Itself Agency Count implementation. Illinois Department of Transportation We have an implementation engineer who is tasked with this. Montana Department of Transportation The library is a part of the research office.

Individual Survey Responses 155 State Agency Other Nevada Department of Transportation Project champions North Carolina Department of Transportation Have hired an implementation manger to oversee Tennessee Department of Transportation New-hire task responsibility Question 39: How does your state track the implementation of your research projects? Responses: 41 State Agency Other Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities We are moving into ROI District Department of Transportation Not effectively doing currently. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Maintain list of completed research that is implementable Follow progress of implemented projects for a pre-determined amount of time Assess benefits / ROI of implementation Other Ag en cy C ou nt Florida Department of Transportation Annual functional area implementation coordination/meetings; annual implementation Idaho Transportation Department We’re just getting started here. Will monitor implementation within 3 years of project completion

156 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Other Maine Department of Transportation NA Maryland Department of Transportation We try, but only here and there (i.e., when we evaluate benefits when submitting an AASHTO RAC High-Value Research project). Not on every project. Michigan Department of Transportation Maintain narrative of successfully implemented projects Mississippi Department of Transportation Tracking database; communication with champions for an undetermined period after the project ends. Missouri Department of Transportation Follow progress of implemented projects for a limited amount of time through follow-up with technical contact from the research topic area. Montana Department of Transportation The formalization of this is in the works. Nevada Department of Transportation Feedback from champions. New Hampshire Department of Transportation Do not track North Carolina Department of Transportation Have hired an implementation manger to oversee Tennessee Department of Transportation Future goal Wisconsin Department of Transportation Have done periodic check-ins with oversight committees regarding implementation Question 40: On a scale from 1 to 5, how much of research is implemented (1: very little, 5: most research is implemented)? Responses: 42

Individual Survey Responses 157 Weighted Average: 3.16 Most research is implemented at Indiana Department of Transportation (ranking of 5). Comments: State Agency Comment Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities We do a 5-year check and 80% of projects have been implemented. Some is to improve seismic design certainty and not cost savings. Arizona Department of Transportation For most studies, at least some recommendations are implemented. Massachusetts Department of Transportation A lot Wisconsin Department of Transportation Hard to estimate due to lack of info or input back to research program from engineering staff. Probably mostly a communication and capacity issue and no “formal” mechanism in place. Question 41: When in the research lifecycle does your agency select projects for implementation? Please check all that apply. 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 Ag en cy C ou nt Ranking (1-little, 5-most research)

158 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Other Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities The implementation is assessed at all stages. Arizona Department of Transportation All projects are scoped with the assumption that recommendations will be implemented. Reality checks occur throughout the research process. Idaho Transportation Department Implementation is considered in project selection. In addition, task/deliverables to facilitate implementation are often included in contracts/task orders for projects (e.g., databases, guidebooks, draft specifications, training). The project sponsor is responsible for championing implementation. Illinois Department of Transportation We use an implementation planning worksheet for most of this tracking. Mississippi Department of Transportation PI must outline an implementation plan in the proposal stage. Montana Department of Transportation We consider implementation at the beginning of every project. As much as we can, we include deliverables to facilitate implementation in the research contract. If the need for unplanned implementation activities arise during the research contract, we may amend the contract to include these activities. We will contract implementation projects separately if the need arises. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 During research project selection While research is ongoing While nearing project completion When project is completed After the project has completed and some time has elapsed Other Ag en cy C ou nt

Individual Survey Responses 159 State Agency Other Transportation asking if we provide additional funds to ensure that implementation occurs, the answer is that we do not, although we would like to do so. South Carolina Department of Transportation Implementation is required in all project submittals. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Projects selected to go to RFP must have addressed potential for implementation. Implementation is discussed at each point listed here, but there is not currently a formal process for documenting. Question 42: Who selects implementation projects? Please check all that apply. Responses: 41 State Agency Other Alabama Department of Transportation The research has to have implementation plan in proposal. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Other DOT staff if needed Arizona Department of Transportation As the primary customer, the study sponsor determines whether he will implement recommendations. 0 5 10 15 20 25 State Transportation Innovation Council Project Selection Committee Research Advisory Committee If funding allows for implementation Other Senior DOT Leaders Most research is implemented Research Program Agency Count New Mexico Department of The Research Program selects projects based on implementability. If you are California Department of Transportation The customer implements the research provided. We provide extra funding when needed or deemed important.

160 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Other Florida Department of Transportation Functional areas, project champions Idaho Transportation Department Project sponsors who requested and oversee projects are generally expected to take the lead on implementation. Illinois Department of Transportation The Technical Advisory Group (TAG/RAC), Technical Review Panel (TRP), and IDOT/ICT Executive Committee all participate in implementation efforts to some extent, depending on project. Maine Department of Transportation No formal process. The research project champion or subject matter expert will generally make decisions on implementation. Maryland Department of Transportation Project technical champions are responsible for implementation. Michigan Department of Transportation Staff involved with managing the projects and mid-level managers Mississippi Department of Transportation Technical champions generally drive implementation. Montana Department of Transportation RAC, senior DOT leaders, Project Selection Committee, and Research Program all have representation on our high-level Research Review Committee. New Mexico Department of Transportation We have a Research Implementation Engineer at the Research Bureau but he has no counterparts in other areas of NMDOT. New York State Department of Transportation Program areas that have progressed the research Wisconsin Department of Transportation Subject matter experts within the DOT. Research project oversight committee chairs are the links to the subject matter experts.

Individual Survey Responses 161 Research programs whose funding almost always depends on successful research implementation include Colorado, Indiana, Mississippi, and Washington Departments of Transportation (ranking of 5). Other: State Agency Other New Mexico Department of Transportation We have a Research Implementation Engineer at the Research Bureau but he has no counterparts in other areas of NMDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation There is not a direct tie between research and implementation. Implementation is the responsibility of the engineering experts. Question 44: How frequently are there state DOT staff specifically dedicated to support implementation? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: almost never, 5: almost always) Responses: 41 Weighted Average: 2.45 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Ag en cy C ou nt Ranking (1-almost never, 5-almost always) Question 43: How frequently does your research funding depend on successful research implementation? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: almost never, 5: almost always) Responses: 40 Weighted Average: 1.83

162 Managing State Transportation Research Programs Programs where there are almost always state DOT staff specifically dedicated to support implementation include Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Montana, Arkansas, and Indiana Departments of Transportation. State Agency Other Illinois Department of Transportation We have a position of Research Implementation Engineer (currently vacant). Maine Department of Transportation It is a decision made by project champion. Mississippi Department of Transportation Each research project manager bears it in mind; however, we have no specific person dedicated to this (would like one though!). Montana Department of Transportation Most projects are implemented internally. This means that there is someone in the DOT dedicated to implementation for each project. If you meant to ask if there is someone solely responsible for implementation, the answer is the opposite. We do not have a staff member who only works on implementation. New Mexico Department of Transportation We have a Research Implementation Engineer at the Research Bureau but he has no counterparts in other areas of NMDOT. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Ag en cy C ou nt Ranking (1-almost never, 5-almost always)

Individual Survey Responses 163 State Agency Other Wisconsin Department of Transportation Unknown as implementation is not within the research program Question 45: What are the main reasons for non-implementation of research? Please rate the following choices on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: not important, 5: most important) Responses: 39 State Agency Comment California Department of Transportation Hard to implement software and programs due to IT issues Mississippi Department of Transportation Departure of champions is a huge reason Wisconsin Department of Transportation Unknown as implementation is not within the research program Tennessee Department of Transportation Future goal

164 Managing State Transportation Research Programs State Agency Other Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Working on more qualitative Florida Department of Transportation Project type/outcome and resource requirements for quantitative analysis only allow for a subset of the program to be subjected to this type of analysis—but we are working on increasing the size of the subset. Massachusetts Department of Transportation No formal method currently Montana Department of Transportation We are working on this. North Carolina Department of Transportation In the process of developing a performance and program tracking program 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Measurement at a project level but not program level Program-wide Quantitative Measures (cost savings, lives saved, reduction in man-hours, etc.) Program-wide Qualitative Measures (improved processes, new standards, lessons learned, etc.) Both quantitative and qualitative measures program-wide Other Ag en cy C ou nt Question 46: How does your agency assess program value and outcomes? Responses: 40

Managing State Transportation Research Programs Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 522: Managing State Transportation Research Programs identifies the current state of practice of managing state transportation research programs. The report highlights existing resources, desired individual skill sets, core competencies, and structures that are in place for departments of transportation (DOTs) to manage and conduct transportation research, especially federally funded research.

In essence, NCHRP Synthesis 522 addresses how transportation agencies organize and manage their research programs to strive for quality and positive impacts on the transportation system over time (value). The report includes a four-dimensional framework to analyze and shed light on how state DOT research programs with differences in agency needs, resources, and constraints are able to produce programs of high quality and value.

State transportation agencies conduct applied research with a goal of ultimately creating new knowledge to enhance the transportation system. Agency research as an activity requires special skills and capabilities—it convenes practitioners, scholars, and policy makers to identify and pursue the knowledge that is most needed.

These and other attributes of research make it unlike other DOT functions such as planning, programming, construction, maintenance, and operations, even though it eventually enables agencies to perform those functions. The payoffs and innovative outcomes of research can be significant and valuable, although they are rarely immediate.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!