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.
33 4 Idea Identification and Prioritization Based on this research and stakeholder discussion, the research team has identified the following key criteria to consider as we prioritize research needs for inclusion in the draft and the final ACRP Research Roadmap. The prioritization process will be iterative, reflecting input from the Project Panel and not strictly objective as we are not proposing a specific weighting methodology for the various criteria. The key criteria are listed below in no particular order. 1) Avoidance of Duplicative Efforts 2) Applicability 3) Timeliness 4) Understandable and Implementable To assist in the prioritization of ideas, the research team reviewed processes used by other research organizations to prioritize research funding, including the WHO, National Science Foundation (NSF), and the FAA. Most research organizations have not adopted a single, consolidated prioritization methodology. Instead, they apply a set (or sets) of key principles when evaluating research ideas. This allows the organizations to prioritize projects based on their unique needs or interests. The research team has adopted a similar approach for the Research Roadmap, whereby we have identified a set of key principles for evaluating ideas that mirror ACRPâs own set of criteria for evaluating submitted problem statements. Section 4.1 provides a summary of other organizationsâ practices for research prioritization criteria. The research team chose to review the ACRP, WHO, NSF, and FAA to gain insight into how some of the leading research organizations in the world (WHO) and the United States (NSF) have chosen to prioritize research. The FAAâs research methodology was reviewed to understand research prioritization practices in the aviation industry. In reviewing these three major organizations, in conjunction with ACRPâs research prioritization criteria the four criteria were selected. 1) Avoidance of Duplicative Efforts This criterion was applied to ensure that the proposed research ideas have not been, nor are currently being addressed by ACRP or other research institutions. Duplicative ideas will not be included in the roadmap unless the information in existing sources is out of date and an update is warranted. 2) Applicability This criterion refers to the approximate portion of the airport industry that could potentially benefit from the results of the research. Some ACRP research projects have been geared specifically to small airports while others have been more applicable to large airports in practice. This criterion recognizes the importance of ACRP selecting research projects that are not so narrowly tailored as to be beneficial to only small sub-sets of airports.
34 3) Timeliness This criterion addresses the timeliness of the research problem, how urgent the need is, and considering if sufficient data exists to conduct research, if additional time is necessary for impacts of the problem/challenge to be understood, or if ACRP research is required to generate the necessary data. Research ideas that address a current or urgent challenge to the industry and for which data exists rated higher in this category than research ideas, which were not as urgent or was too new of a challenge to have sufficient data available to conduct research. 4) Understandable and Implementable This criterion is based on what ACRP has in their own prioritization criteria, and refers to whether or not the research idea is understandable and logical. This criteria also addresses whether results will be implementable (i.e. the research is applied and is likely to result in information, data, or a tool that can used by the aviation industry immediately). 4.1 Research Idea Ranking Upon finalization of the 54 research ideas, the research team administered a survey to the Project Panel (which consisted of practitioners in the field of airport environmental management and sustainability) to rank the ideas in order of priority. Each Project Panel member was asked to score each research idea in each of the four prioritization categories, on a scale of 1 to 5 (lowest to highest score possible in each criteria). The scores were then totaled to provide a ranked list of research ideas from 1 to 54. The idea rank was used to determine relative placement of the idea on the Visual Roadmap. The placement of ideas on the Visual Roadmap is not meant to imply that certain ideas must be selected in specific years, but rather to show the priority in relation to one another. For research ideas that received the same total score, the individual scores in the timeliness criteria were used to differentiate between the ideas (those with higher timeliness scores ultimately placed higher in the priority rank).
