TCAPP and Integrated Ecological Framework Pilot Projects: Synthesis of Lessons Learned (2013)

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.

21 C h a p t e r 4 Numerous suggestions and comments were offered to the TCAPP and the IEF development teams in an iterative pro- cess during the course of these pilot projects. Face-to-face meetings and conference calls facilitated this interaction. As suggestions and comments were received, the contractors in charge of TCAPP and the IEF responded immediately, either by factoring refinements into ongoing upgrade work or by further discussing the recommendations with SHRP 2 staff and Technical Expert Task Groups. All comments have been and will be considered as future enhancements are made. tCapp Conclusions The stratified structure of TCAPP provided easy and quick access to the information needed at different stages of plan- ning and project development for the pilot studies. TCAPP helped in generating the right information at the right time by showing a sequence of key decisions and the information needed for each step. Every key decision in TCAPP provides a comprehensive list of policy issues and questions. These policy issues and questions help researchers think about and prepare data to address these issues. Key decisions in TCAPP also were helpful in developing project and meeting schedules. For some pilot studies (Minnesota DOT), using the TCAPP Decision Guide is helping develop a new and replicable plan- ning process that will benefit other, similarly situated com- munities in Minnesota and across the country. The TCAPP tool provides step-by-step guidance on reaching decisions collaboratively. This process requires the commitment of both stakeholders and professionals to stay engaged and con- sider the interests of all participants. TCAPP tools provided valuable guidance on effective collaboration techniques with the community. For others (Washington State DOT), the stakeholder collabo- ration techniques provided under the Collaboration Assess- ment tab of the initial TCAPP website were found to be very helpful. Specifically, the information in the Decision Guide, located in each key decision of TCAPP, helps users understand who needs what information at what point to provide appro- priate support for making collaborative decisions. Furthermore, TCAPP provides guidance on how to form a well-represented stakeholders committee for effective and collaborative decision making throughout the planning process. The TCAPP tool comes with a list of survey questions that helps save time since many questions are already there to pick from while developing stakeholders’ opinion surveys. The ques- tions included in the current collaboration assessment survey in TCAPP are quite useful for monitoring the effectiveness of the project team. The survey questionnaire in TCAPP provides insights into how to refine, address, and include various issues in the study process. The results help identify areas that represent the greatest challenge to collaboration. In addition, the TCAPP tool pro- vides recommendations that a project team may use to iden- tify changes resulting in potentially greater collaboration. Case study examples provided in TCAPP are helpful to understand various issues and how those issues were applied or addressed in successful studies around the nation. This under- standing helps in identifying potential problems and issues that might hinder the project decisions later in the process and in taking the necessary steps to avoid those problems. Overall, the SHRP 2 C18 pilot studies concluded that the TCAPP modules were helpful in supporting collaborative decision making. Team members stated that the tool was an effective resource for helping transportation planners to “get the right people at the table, at the right time, with the right information” to lead to decisions that stick. IeF Conclusions The IEF proved itself to be a useful process guide for agencies working through multiagency, ecology-oriented endeavors in their states or regions. The diverse scope of the four agencies’ pilot projects indicates the IEF’s range of utility across an array Conclusions

22 of applications. Providing the specific process steps with accompanying elements for consideration allowed the agen- cies to engage more effectively throughout their processes. In each case, the project teams learned that the most successful projects were those that remained simple and regarded the IEF as a flexible tool. Three of the four pilot projects amended the IEF in some form (e.g., using more appropriate termi- nology, reordering the steps), and the fourth (West Virginia) used it as a general concept to then leverage the use of exist- ing tools for a new purpose. The pilot projects illuminated a few key areas that could be the source of future research or development: • Guidance on methods to link the IEF with existing DOT initiatives. Many agencies have current initiatives that are related to the IEF. Staff and leadership will be wary to adopt a new strategy or tool, unless the IEF can be linked and supportive of an existing program. • Flexibility to apply the IEF to smaller project efforts, or long- range project planning. Three of the four pilot agencies noted difficulties in applying the IEF under these conditions. However, they also noted that many DOTs are no longer programming many large infrastructure projects. The agen- cies also noted that when they do program projects, very long-term planning is crucial. If the IEF could be more applicable in these situations, that would enhance its utility. • Guidance on data ownership and management. Data own- ership and management will be an ongoing challenge. Offer- ing guidance on how to establish productive relationships to facilitate data sharing, followed by strategies to collab- oratively manage and maintain the data, would help agen- cies across many applications struggling with these issues. Specific Comments about tCapp and IeF Numerous suggestions and comments were offered to the TCAPP and IEF development teams during the course of these pilot projects. This feedback can be categorized into comments about functional aspects of TCAPP and the IEF and comments about their content or process, or both. All comments have been transmitted to TCAPP and IEF contractors. Recommendations made by the pilot teams for TCAPP improvement were handled in one of two ways. First, immediate needs and those recommendations that easily meshed with ongoing work were put into the schedule of reg- ular TCAPP updates. Second, those needs and recommenda- tions that were more consequential were added to the running list of identified improvements to be considered as future enhancements are made. Functional Comments Functionality issues relate to site navigation and access to the important data. Specific functional comments were often focused on easy and convenient availability of information and a need for hyperlinks to get to detailed materials quickly. Other functional comments requested a way for the user to modify the questions and save their customized format. This change would allow practitioners to customize the tool to their needs. It is also important to be able to save or down- load the responses for analysis and reporting. In addition, the web tool should be further developed to recognize input from multiple users in a group so that the joint results can be tallied and shared electronically with all. Another facet of this request to customize materials relates to flexibility. One pilot-project team requested that an MPO or DOT’s unique characteristics related to experience, exper- tise, and technical sophistication be accommodated. Specifi- cally, the team suggested that TCAPP would be more useful to a variety of users if it provided additional guidance on the TCAPP home page that clarifies (a) the range of user situa- tions for which the tool could be applied and (b) how one can “disaggregate” or refine elements of TCAPP to be applicable to their situation. Additional comments, many of which already have been addressed, related to a desire for downloadable web contents. The TCAPP website contains a large amount of information organized by subject area. However, the initial version of the TCAPP tool did not allow the downloading of directly usable forms and contents without reformatting. This was particu- larly relevant to TCAPP’s usefulness in a group setting where many participants did not have access to a computer. It was also pertinent to the usefulness of self-assessment tools. Pilot- project teams requested that all questionnaires allow for online compilation, analysis, and assessment of group results. To sup- port collaborative approaches, saving materials and having the ability to electronically share them with others are important. As a result of this interest, the assessments were made avail- able in print format to allow completion by a group outside the tool functionality. Major functional improvements were made to the TCAPP home page and to the Decision Guide during the pilot tests. Pilot teams and contractors agreed that the existing home page design was insufficient to engage and assist users in their search for support. A redesign of the home page was accom- plished to include quick access to content areas as well as an introductory video. In addition, the Decision Guide graphic was reformatted to illustrate the “file folder” aspect of each key decision as a repository of supporting information for commonly understood steps within transportation decision making.

23 Content Comments Content improvements were both general and specific, but most often related to the application of TCAPP principles and definitions to individual regions or states. The two content areas that were of primary importance were the assessments and the partner-stakeholder information in the User Portal. Some teams adjusted the assessment statements “offline” to provide a more direct relationship to the local context. Teams suggested that the assessment statements be expanded to address the risks of the lack of collaboration and the perspec- tives that participants brought into the process based on prior experience. These and many other individual changes have been added to the list of future improvements. One recommendation concerning the Decision Guide was to clarify functions of subtabs by renaming them to reflect the function of each subtab more clearly. For example, the tab “special topics” is about how a key decision relates to “other topics,” but the team concluded that there is no “list” of what those “other topics” are. So perhaps the tab should be renamed to something like “Other important factors related to this key decision” or something similar. Also, perhaps some of the materials in multiple tabs could be combined to make the materials simpler and more intuitive. For example, does the “integration” tab contain some of the same information as shown in the “special topics” tab? Perhaps a reconfiguration of the supporting tabs could be considered. Similarly, organization of information was called out as needing improvement. While the Decision Guide is organized within 44 key decisions, sometimes not all of the information contained within the links on a specific key decision seems to be directly associated with that particular key decision, but perhaps to another key decision elsewhere or to multiple key decisions. To ensure that practitioners understand TCAPP’s versatility, the team recommended that TCAPP provide a clearer, more conspicuous statement that consideration should be given to the “integration” tab and, more specifically, the “linkages to other phases” table for useful suggestions found in other modules. Each of the pilot-test projects contained a strong stakeholder component. Content issues identified include the role defini- tions and decision-making authority, particularly when being applied by an MPO. One pilot-project team suggested that TCAPP expand on the identified set of roles to explain TCAPP philosophy at the local level as well as the higher federal decision level to better support participation at the local and regional levels. Specifically, the TCAPP definitions of partner and stake- holder were considered problematic by some of the teams. Con- tent was added to the Partner Portal area to provide instruction on how to elevate a stakeholder to a partner and remain consis- tent with the Decision Guide roles. Next Steps Continued pilot tests are planned for both TCAPP and the IEF prior to full-scale implementation. Further improvement and refinement are also planned, in part to respond to com- ments and suggestions heard during the pilot studies reported on here. SHRP 2 staff and contractors will work closely with AASHTO and FHWA to prepare for implementation of all SHRP 2 Capacity products.