Interim Guide for Developing a State Transportation Research Manual (1995)

The primary focus of the research strategic plan is research emphasis areas and the subsequent guidance that results in the development of the work program. The problem solicitation process is the first attempt at putting the needs expressed in the strategic plan into the project formation process. The development of the research program has its conceptual genesis in the strategic plan and its practical genesis in the solicitation of problem statements.

There are several benefits to the solicitation process. Field and operating staff can submit problems with the expectation of receiving an objective review. Agency contractors can air their concerns within a formal review process. The academic community can use the emphasis areas to submit potential problems within their field of expertise.

COMMENTARY:

Not all agencies have a strategic plan. The above text can be modified accordingly. In place of “the strategic plan ”, in the text, substitute either “the solicitation process” or “the agency's critical needs”. Follow through in the first paragraph with the appropriate changes. The organizational differences between the states' research units and their formal involvements with the academic community may result in several modifications to the process described below. As it is written, the basis for the procedure assumes that a state research unit controls the development of the program, while acting in consort with management. If the control is shared with another institution or if the problems are developed by a committee, this entire section must be revised.

Solicitation requests will be forwarded to the bureaus and divisions of the Agency annually. All staff of the Agency are encouraged to submit problem statements.

Solicitation requests will be sent to universities within the state with civil engineering and transportation research graduate programs, private transportation associations, public transit agencies, organizations representing contractors and suppliers associated with transportation.

COMMENTARY:

The research manager should choose those participants that are associated with and necessary to the solicitation process in the state.

The effects of the transportation system are far ranging and it is incumbent upon the agency to involve this spectrum in the process. When the entire process is considered, the problem statement receives several reviews. If this fact is made known to those solicited, the enthusiasm for participation may increase. The solicited problem is no longer viewed as a useless exercise, but one of appreciated involvement.

COMMENTARY:

Emphasis areas may be defined either with or without a strategic planning process. Section 2.2.2.A , Strategic Plan Committee, outlined the use of a committee to help with the plan development. If emphasis areas do not form the basis for the research program, two other options are available. The second, Operational/Natural Disaster Issues could be a basis, and it's suggested that it be included in the manual. The third option, Open Solicitation, offers a state the ability to allow problem submitters to cover the full range of transportation issues.

The solicitation request will list the emphasis areas within each of the major categories defining the agency's near term needs. Research problem statements that are received in response to this solicitation request are expected to conform to the stated emphasis areas, except for critical issues, which are explained below.

Agency management will decide upon the critical issues to be considered for research. Policy or legislative issues arise at times that require the attention of the Agency. Other agencies in government may develop regulations that affect the department, demanding research. Recurring natural disasters may require research. Serious operational problems may force the initiation of research.

A solicitation for problems will be issued to the participants listed above, without restriction to areas of predetermined need.

A formatted sheet, containing the information listed below, will be sent to all prospective problem submitters. All submitted problems are expected to be on this form.

The form has a checklist of the strategic plan emphasis areas. A concise title is requested. In addition, a short statement of the problem is asked for and a brief history of the background is requested.

The submitter is asked to give the study objectives and a description of the work that may be expected.

An estimate of the time and cost of the study is requested.

Research will mail the solicitation request to all potential submitters early in January. The problem statements can be submitted any time, but submitters are given the deadline for the upcoming fiscal year 's program. To allow time for research reviews prior to the Research Advisory Committee meeting, submitters are asked to return the problem statements by March 1. The form also asks for the name, organization and telephone number of the submitter.

COMMENTARY:

If time is to be saved in discussion, the explanations of the various items on the form should be definitive. The submitter has to explicitly define the problem. The back of the form can be used to give examples of each item requested, including problem background and research objectives. A sample form for a Research Problem Statement is included in the Appendix .

Under the Submission Schedule And Details, the dates that conform to the research process in the individual state should be substituted.

Upon receipt, research staff will be assigned to review the problem statements based on the emphasis area of the submissions. It will be the responsibility of the assigned staff to complete the reviews described below in time for the Research Advisory Committee meeting.

COMMENTARY:

Some states may solicit problems that are received in the form of complete work plans. In these cases, some of the screening process below, can be omitted. With all other solicitation processes, all of the options listed below should be appropriate.

Research staff may have at least two discussions with the problem submitter. The first will probe for all conditions or circumstances under which the problem exists. This information will be used in discussions with other affected units (C.2) and to conduct a literature review (C.3, below). A follow-up discussion may be held with the submitter. At this time, the statement will be refined and the time and cost estimates revised. It may be appropriate, however, to defer any action on the problem because of recently completed or ongoing work. The problem may also be deferred because the operating units affected by the potential results cannot change their current practice.

The research staff will involve the management of the units that may be affected by the suggested problem statement. Discussions will determine if the proposed study might improve the operation of the unit. If the submission came from outside the organization, the affected unit will be asked to assess its potential for implementation. Refinements to the submission or rejection of the problem will result from these discussions.

After discussing the problem with the submitter and the affected units, the research staff will conduct a literature search. The details of the search are discussed in section 5.2, TRIS Database. The search will provide insights to the problem area. This information can help avoid unnecessary duplication of ongoing or completed research and enhance the problem statement in subsequent discussions, particularly with the submitter and the Research Advisory Committee.

With the discussions and literature search completed, refinements will be made to the time and cost estimate for the work, if necessary. These revisions will be important in deciding the size of the research program.

COMMENTARY:

The research screening effort can be the most time-consuming part of the entire program development process. Administrative costs to the research program are hidden in this part of the process. The more exhaustive the screening process though, the smoother the committees ' review, recommendation and decision processes that follow in Section 3.2 , Project Prioritization.

The TRIS Database, Section 5.2 , is an important element to the screening process. Without a literature search, committees must rely on the limited knowledge of staff. Besides the TRIS review there are other follow up articles that staff can pursue using the references.

Consideration should be given to bolstering the screening process with a visible presence of the research management staff, particularly in discussions with non-agency submitters, where the presence of management staff may make the interaction more productive. Also there is the perception that the agency is giving appropriate attention to the problems. This is another way of showing submitters that the agency desires and wants their involvement.

The solicitation and research screening process provides the most complete and accurate information in the program development process. All the necessary participants are involved in the solicitation process, sufficient guidance is provided to the participants in defining the research problem statements and a complete screening of the problems involves literature and submitter reviews. With this effort completed, the other committees and management have assurance that their discussions toward a decision are well founded.

Setting priorities for the problems received in the solicitation process (Section 3.1) allows the research unit to develop a work program within its financial limits. Although several shared funding arrangements (Pooled Fund projects) and partially supported institutions (NCHRP, UTRC), make financial limits indeterminate, prioritizing will ensure that the most important problems will be addressed and advanced for consideration.

A work program depends upon an easily understood program development process. The prioritization portion of the development process should be comprehensive in the scope of the selected projects, and in the participatory nature of the involved disciplines, designed for review, open to all parties and involve department management.

COMMENTARY:

The process described below goes beyond a strict interpretation of project prioritization. Other aspects of the program development process ( Section 3.0 ) are included to ensure continuity to the entire process. As an example, the role of the Research Management Committee is expanded in this aspect of the program development process to allow for the contingency of management's reordering of the priorities set by the Research Advisory Committee. Although written in definitive terms, the different components of the prioritization process should be altered to conform to the unique goals and organization of the individual agency.

If the state research unit has no strategic plan, reference to the strategic plan can be either omitted or replaced with “the agency 's critical needs”.

Each problem received will be evaluated using the following criteria:

• addresses an emphasis area,

• potential for a high probability of success, (consideration will be given to a project where the potential benefits warrant a high-risk effort),

• no ongoing or projected research on this specific problem, as determined by a TRIS search (Section 5.2),

• the estimated budget and schedule are acceptable, as verified in a review with the problem submitter (Section 3.1.2.C), and

• the agency units that will be affected by the research have either proposed the problem or have positive comments on the suggested research.

COMMENTARY:

The criteria listed can be applied by whatever group the agency uses to prioritize the problems received. The criteria do not specifically note the state's current or statewide needs, but this consideration is implicit in the first criterion listed, as an emphasis area of the strategic plan. As noted in prior sections, the reference to the strategic plan should be replaced with “the agency's critical needs”, if that is appropriate. If the solicitation of problems was open to any issue, the first criterion should be omitted.

Since implementation is a primary aim of the research, the input of affected agencies is vitally important. This input should be discussed at the committee meeting by all participants. If there is no committee to set project priorities, however, the research staff will have considered them during their discussions in their screening process (Section 3.1.2.C ).

The Research Advisory Committee (Section 2.3.2.B) uses the criteria of 3.2.2.A. to judge the technical merits of the problems and recommends a priority listing of projects for management's approval. The Research Management Committee (Section 2.3.2.D) approves the content of the work program.

COMMENTARY:

Complete details of each of these committees can be found in Section 2.3.2 . If the project prioritization function of the Research Advisory Committee is performed by another group, the text should be changed accordingly. If neither committee is used, this subsection should be deleted.

COMMENTARY:

The procedures described below for the prioritization process must be selectively revised, depending on the committees used in the program development process.

The screening process by the research staff ( Section 3.1.2.C ) and the Research Advisory Committee is designed to get as much input into the early stages of the project development process as possible. Furthermore, it will provide management with the best possible technical background, which can then be weighed with other policy considerations, to develop the work program. If there are no committees for the research unit to deal with, research will do the prioritizing themselves. The text should be changed accordingly.

If no committee is used for this part of the process, Balloting ( C.2 ) can

be combined with Screening (C.1 ), as functions performed by the research staff.

The Meeting Agendas obviously apply only to those committees that are part of the process. Selective deletions should be made to that committee which isn't included in the process. In addition, only those aspects of a committee 's functions should be included as parts of the agenda. Reference should be made to the section on committees, 2.3, Research Committees Structure.

The last subsection of the Procedures is Reports. Again, if there are no committees set up, only that reference to the preparation of the work program is appropriate.

The results of the screening process, conducted by the research staff (Section 3.1.2.C), which includes commentary on the criteria in 3.2.2.A., will be given to the Research Advisory Committee before their meeting. This information will help the committee members review the submissions, which they will rank using a high, medium or low scale.

Problems are rated by each committee member, and submitted for distribution by the research staff to the other members, before the meeting. The rating of each problem is averaged by the research staff and used as a starting point for discussion at the meeting.

The Research Advisory Committee will discuss the function of the agency, the emphasis areas of the strategic plan, the technical merits of each problem, the cost estimates of each problem, and the ranking of the projects and other matters as defined in section 2.3.2.B. The Research Advisory Committee members will discuss all problems submitted. The most extreme (high or low ranked) problems will be addressed by their raters. Eventually, a consensus will be reached. The priority listing of projects will then be categorized into high, medium and low groups by categories of:

Staff research (project and technology transfer activities)

Contract research

Pooled fund proposals

University Transportation Center

NCHRP

Other shared funding proposals

The Research Management Committee will be informed of the details of the process (including the participating staff and agencies), review the emphasis areas of the strategic plan, review the budget, discuss the recommendations of the Research Advisory Committee, approve a final categorized list of projects, allocate funding, discuss the policy implications of the recommendations in arriving at a final work plan and consider other matters as defined in 2.3.2.D .

The agendas for both committee meetings will be prepared by the research staff.

COMMENTARY:

The prioritization process can take several forms. If there is time, the committee members can refine the final list in a rank order, rather than the high, medium or low groupings. The categorization of the list by staff research, contract research, etc.,(shown in 3.2.2.C.3 ), can even be completed by the research staff after the Research Advisory Committee meeting. In any event, it would be to the Research Management Committee's benefit if the listing of projects was categorized before their review. Allocating funding could be a very time-consuming process. This process of fund allocation can be much easier if there is a list to start with.

The preparation of the Research Advisory Committee requires instructional effort by the research staff. Many members of this committee are not familiar with the functioning of the agency or the research process on a state level

It is also important that committee members appreciate the elements of the strategic plan or the agency's critical needs, if either of these are used as the basis for soliciting problems. These are the agency's definition of its near term direction.

It would also save time at both of these meetings if the projects could be categorized and made available before the actual meeting.

The research staff will summarize the rankings for the Research Advisory Committee meeting, prepare the minutes of each committee and prepare the work program as approved by the Research Management Committee.

The Research Advisory Committee will meet in June. The location will be varied to accommodate the participants. The Research Management Committee will meet in July, at the central headquarters.

COMMENTARY:

The interactive nature of the problem review meetings can be enhanced by moving the meeting location around the state. In addition, each state should set the time of the meetings to coincide with the submission of the work program to the FHWA. The suggested times (June and July) would allow research to both prepare the necessary documents for the management meeting and modify and print the work program after the Research Management Committee meeting. The text should be revised to refer to the research unit, if there are no committees. A schedule is still necessary without the committees.

The prioritization process produces the best listing of projects that the agency can develop for its next year's research work program. The problems most critical to the agency will be either addressed by staff, contract research, forwarded to the university centers for selection, submitted for pooled fund and NCHRP consideration or discussed with potential partners for a shared funding arrangement.

The documents assembled by a state research organization help define and justify the expenditure of resources. The research work program is the single document that concisely describes all the activities undertaken, both on a technical and financial basis.

Commentary:

The requirements described may be terse, but they are complete as defined by the FHWA. The development of the various components of the requirements are detailed in other sections of the manual. A copy of 23 CFR, Part 420 is in the appendix . The approval and authorization procedures can be found there.

On July 23, 1994, the FHWA issued a final rulemaking on 23 CFR, Parts 420 and 511, State Planning and Research Program Administration. The R,D&T Work Program requirements were defined in section 420.209. They are as follows:

1. The State's RD&T program shall, as a minimum, consist of an annual or biennial description of activities and individual RD&T activities to be accomplished during the program period, estimated costs for each eligible activity, and a description of any cooperatively funded activities that are part of a national or regional pooled fund study including the NCHRP contribution. The State's work program shall include a list of the major items with a cost estimate for each item.

2. The State's RD&T work program shall include financial summaries showing the funding levels and share (Federal, State and other sources) for RD&T activities for the program year. States are encouraged to include any activity funded 100% with State or other funds.

3. Approval and authorization procedures in section 420.115 are applicable to the State's RD&T work program.

The final rulemaking on 23 CFR, Parts 420 and 511 also stipulates certification requirements. They are found in section 420.213 in the Appendix of the manual.

The activities of the research unit are concisely and completely described in a single document. The elements of the work program describe the technical and financial responsibilities of the research unit for the term of the plan.