Communicating the Value of Research: Contractor's Final Report (2009)

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.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 6 CHAPTER 1: AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION AND RESEARCH-RELATED INFORMATION NEEDS AND COMMUNICATION PRACTICES Introduction This chapter addresses the objectives of Tasks 1 and 2 of this research effort. First, we identified the audiences of transportation research communication and those who need a better understanding of the value of transportation research (e.g., legislators, state departments of transportation, and the media). The focus was on identifying the wide range of potential audiences included in the framework of transportation research, including those who decide upon funding for a project to those who ultimately receive the benefits of a research effort. For each audience, we describe the information needs and preferred communication modalities. Task 2 involved interviewing people responsible for justifying and explaining transportation research programs (both national and state) to determine the communication approaches and messaging strategies that have been used. Interviews on these topics with a wide range of individuals focused on assessing the successes of their approaches and strategies to communication and were used to fulfill both of Task 1 and 2 objectives. The information derived from these interviews is synthesized in the two tables that form the core of this section. The list of interviewees is provided at the end of this chapter. The objective of the first task was to identify the wide range of potential audiences that might be included in the framework. This task asks and answers the research questions: Who sets the transportation research investment agenda? Who makes the investment decisions? Who are the beneficiaries of research? What are the relevant connections among them? How and when do the groups overlap? These are the groups/individuals who need a better understanding of the value of transportation research. These persons are basically the “receivers” of communications on the value of research. But answering these research questions is not straightforward. It is not always the actual decision maker (i.e., the elected or appointed official) who needs a better understanding of the value of research. Sometimes a key advisor really has most influence, sometimes it is the media, and other times it is the general public. The identification of audiences must consider the focus and process of decision making. The private sector might be an influential constituency. In other words, there is no such thing as a “general audience” for this communication. Each of these audience segments sees a different value proposition from transportation research; therefore, each audience requires a separate message and message channel (i.e., communication medium) under the umbrella of a systematic and logical messaging strategy. We had to consider:  Who are these individuals or groups?  What do they care about?  How do we best communicate with them?  What influences decisions about implementing the results of the research?  What are the value propositions of interest that connect research beneficiaries to desired outcomes?  How does the outcomes and value propositions relate back to decisions about investments in transportation research?

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 7 We conducted outreach within the transportation research community and honed our target audiences and gathered intelligence on their needs and preferred communication modalities. In this task, we were interested in casting as wide a net as possible to ensure that we had identified all important decision makers and consumers, desired outcomes, and value propositions. To achieve this, we used snowball sampling, which relies on referrals from initial subjects to generate additional subjects; thus, the sample group appears to grow like a rolling snowball. Snowball sampling can produce in-depth results and can produce these relatively quickly. From these subjects, we were able to gather information on (1) who the audiences are, (2) how to position the transportation research product, and (3) how to communicate our positioning statements to the intended audiences. Synthesis of Information Needs and Communication Approaches The following tables identify and describe the target audiences for communicating the value of transportation research; contains a framework with value propositions identified for each audience segment; and identifies preliminary communication strategies for each target audience member/group. The information was “vetted” in interviews with informants identified during the outreach noted above at conferences such as the annual or mid-year TRB conferences. In order to conduct a systematic and detailed evaluation of “current” communications approaches and messaging strategies relevant to the goals of NCHRP 20-78, we conducted interviews with those stakeholders who are responsible for justifying, explaining, and sustaining transportation research programs at the national and state levels. These persons are the potential “senders” of communications on the value of research. The individuals included directors of the University Transportation Centers (UTCs), the TRB, federal agencies, and the Cooperative Research Program. From these interviews, examples of successful and unsuccessful communication approaches and messaging strategies for research investment decision making were identified. Success is a somewhat relative term, but for executing this research task, “success” is defined as a research project or program that has been funded and/or where the innovations developed through transportation research have been implemented or applied. For each example of decisions about research investments, we started with the outcome (e.g., investment decision) and worked backwards, gathering information about communication approaches and planning. In doing this exercise, we were careful to sort out causality. Determining the effect of communications in the context of the many factors influencing the decision was an important objective of this task. In reality, the research investment decision-making process is complex; and it is hard to trace the cause-effect linkage. We discussed failures along the way as well as successes because even successful projects have had some failures or poor decisions in the life of the project. Thus we can learn from the approaches taken and strategies implemented. The survey of “current” practices focuses on a description of the methods used and evaluation of the methods, and inventive or innovative strategies applied. We prepared a comprehensive list of issues that we needed to explore in the interview and sent it in an email communication to the interviewee, together with a letter of introduction describing the NCHRP project. We then followed up by telephone to schedule a time for a telephone interview. The research team developed a set of questions that were asked of the interviewees; while the interview itself was guided by these questions, it was an opportunity for the interviewee to “tell their story.” We asked for technical information on approaches, strategies, and methods and available data, as well as their perceptions on how their approaches differ from other research program managers or directors. The information was analyzed to identify and describe particular successes, problems, shortcomings, or deficiencies.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 8 Table 1-1 presents information needs, preferred information formats, and preferred communication modalities of target audiences for research-related communications, such as Congressional members and staffers, State DOT Executives, Public Information Officers, and implementers. Table 1-2 contains the variety of communications approaches and messaging strategies that have been used by persons responsible for justifying or maintaining research programs. The information contained in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 were expanded upon as the study progressed and as the research team completed Tasks 4–8. For example, the findings related to the information needs of state DOT executives and implementers of the research were particularly limited at the onset of the research project. This information, along with insight derived from the case study research (Task 4), formed the data set analyzed in Task 5 to develop “Strategies and Tools” for communicating and selling the value of transportation research.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 9 Table 1-1: Audience Information Needs/Format and Preferred Communication Modalities Audience Information Needs Information Format Preferred Communication Modalities Congressional Members Important problem to be solved; research can contribute to solving the problem. Explain the up-front benefits to the constituency of the decision makers. What has been accomplished in the research programs—what the research spending gets them (Congress). Attractive Short (one page) Main points up front Non-technical language Written handouts or correspondence Newsletters Face-to-Face Phone (not cold calls) E-mail – once relationship is established Congressional Staffers Come with a “request.” Definition of legitimate issues that have broad consensus. Explain the up-front benefits to the constituency of the decision makers. 1–2 page leave-behind that is not quite a “white paper” In-person meetings or gatherings – testimony at hearings; events or symposiums aimed at building rapport and exchange of ideas. A “plant” that can serve as an in-house resource on technical issues. Media Data or research that confirms or denies suppositions (such as studies that prove that more time in traffic is detrimental to health or productivity, etc.). Look for new elements to or new perspectives of an issue. Results should be compelling and timely. Provide main points and tell why it matters to the audience. Source determines the value of the research (inclined to look more closely at research from federal/state governments or from universities). Executive summary Short Clear, non-jargon language Press releases E-mails (with follow-up phone calls) Wire service Phone calls Copies of studies Personal contact with ability to provide access to someone who can speak to the research—critical to television media State DOT Executive Identification of best practices International scans Research that is directly supportive of business plan (important that researchers spend the time to understand agency’s needs and priorities). Anecdotal success stories Illustrations of user benefits or cost savings Print documents PowerPoint presentations TRB Presentations (primary sources for best practices)

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 10 Audience Information Needs Information Format Preferred Communication Modalities State DOT Public Information Officer (PIO) Demonstrate how research is looking at innovative methods to save lives, conserve fuel, and increase efficiencies. Demonstrate value of research no matter who conducts the research. Explain benefits Clear, to-the-point language Important points up-front Create products that PIOs can use to educate local officials and/or develop liaison between researchers and decision makers Reports of research from other programs or transportation centers Brochures PowerPoint presentations Implementers Real need for behavioral (evaluative) research. What is important about the research Connections to legislative mandates Attractive publications

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 11 Table 1-2: Communications Approaches and Messaging Strategies of Transportation Research Program Managers Research Program Communications Approaches Messaging Strategies Cooperative Research Program Anecdotal success reports (case studies) http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/marapr98/shrp.htm Showcase research results; disseminate research impacts; process driven by customer needs with established program input channels from state DOTs (particularly chief engineers). TRB TR News bimonthly magazine, features timely articles on innovative and state-of-the-art research and practice in all modes of transportation. Research Pays Off articles are periodically included in the Transportation Research News (TR News). Research Pays Off articles are summarized on a CD that is distributed to Congressional Staffers. Anecdotal success reports (case studies). Dramatic stories are powerful. Federal Agency Website populated with benefits of research. Every research project has a report that is published, put into the public docket. Publish or present technical papers at conferences to share information so the public knows and the manufacturers get an idea of the research activities. Press releases through the Public Affairs office. Internal (to agency) briefings on research findings and conduct an annual review of research. Demonstrate first-hand to Congress members and staff new technologies in the field. Be visible, show results and success stories. Show ROI over time to show the results of research. Show research is tied directly to and adds value to the agency’s mission— build the business case for research— this research led to this product with this result. University Transportation Center Short written progress report sent in response to a request from Representatives in Congress—part of regular stream of direct and indirect communications of work of center to congress; close relationship with Congress member (Congressional members will listen to someone from their state). Submit language to be included in the House’s version of a reauthorization bill. Communicate activities and achievements via the media or the Web to political leadership. Presentations on the Hill; invitation to conferences. Use TRB to communicate. Research results on regular basis in meetings with local delegation, congressional members and staffers in DC. Newsletter and other regular updates. UTCs benefit from being a group and identifying and pushing broader policy goals instead of goals associated with a single center. This brings a bigger power sweep for national policy. Need for the research, general economic benefit to be produced. Activities and achievements in all dimensions (research, service, education), specific capabilities of center. Links problems to solutions that are understandable and practical. Success stories from the research- achievements, implementations, and impacts and present them in layman’s language. Innovative ideas; move at pace of business.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 12 Research Program Communications Approaches Messaging Strategies Industry Association Media, Website, annual meetings, networks, position papers. Face-to-face meetings with members of Congress or their staff face-to-face; provide information—there is no substitute for this. Work with university researchers to provide research- based information. Newsletter to brief board, Congress, and constituents. Have data, have examples—but nothing that takes more than a few minutes of someone’s time. Initiate and support public advocacy at the federal and state levels. Awards program at annual meeting—a way to show all the good work. Use clear picture, graphical examples, clean, simple, consumable analogies and metaphors. Lunch meetings with Capitol Hill staffers during annual meeting. Engage the media. Use technologies (like podcasting and YouTube). Deal with staffers. Future needs a compelling statement with a champion to deliver it. Talk to a communications firm to get the best ways to convey your message. Describe transportation research landscape, outline past accomplishments, what could be done, recommend funding levels. Tell a story to put the issue on the table about the problem, needs, cost, and timeframe. Success stories TCRP research; value of selected research projects—specific examples—tracks the implementation and outcomes of transit research. Focuses on the “value” mainly cost savings that have come from past research. Does not “sell” specific future projects. Keep message simple – Use language people can understand. Push for a single, unified agenda. Look at national interests and trends. How research benefits the public— saves lives, saves an hour in commute. Core messages – congestion is worsening and this impacts economy—we become less competitive, lose jobs, and eventually, industries. Diversity of voices and lots of re- iteration of the message. Show how products are made better, cost less, the number of students trained, and the jobs supported by research. We are interested in research so we can do things better, faster, cheaper. Tell Congress – I’m a constituent— don’t take too long. Make it clear what you are asking for. Do your homework, know the staffers, be conversational.

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 13 Persons Interviewed William Buechner, Vice President Economics and Research, American Road and Transportation Builders Association Nicole Burris, CTC, Deputy Director, North Carolina DOT Communications Office Pat Casey, CTC, Communications Consultant to Wisconsin DOT Rod Diridon, Executive Director, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University Richard J. Dolesh, Director of Public Policy, National Recreation and Park Association Keith Esparros, Assistant News Director, NBC 4 (Los Angeles) Michael Griffith, Director, Office of Research and Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Barbara Harsha, Executive Director, Governors Highway Safety Association Graham Hill, former Staff Director and Senior Counsel to the United States House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, currently Chief Executive Officer, ICE Miller Strategies, Inc. Patrick Jones, Executive Director, and Neil Gray, Director of Government Affairs, International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association Dennis Judycki, Associate Administrator, Research, Development and Technology, Federal Highway Administration (Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center) Tony Kane, Director of Engineering and Technical Services, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Joseph Kanianthra, Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Jennifer Kunde, Lobbyist, Director of Government Relations, Northwestern University Bruce Layton, Lobbyist, Special Assistant to the President for Government Relations, Northwestern University Dan Machalaba, Transportation Reporter, Wall Street Journal Scott Magruder, Nevada DOT Public Information Officer Mike Merle, News Operations Manager, ABC 7 (Los Angeles) William Millar, Executive Director, American Public Transit Association Lee Munnich, Senior Fellow and Director, State and Local Policy Program, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota; also Subcommittee Chair, Congestion Pricing Outreach Dan Murray, Vice President, Research, American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) Ann Overton, CTC, Public Affairs Manager, Virginia Transportation Resource Council Neil Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation's State Highway Administration Peter Peyser, Lobbyist, Blank Rome Government Relations Robert (Bob) Plymale, Director, Nick J. Rahall II Appalachian Transportation Institute, Marshall University

NCHRP 20-78: Final Report Page 14 Bill Reichmuth, Chair of American Public Works Association’s Transportation Committee and also Director, Planning, Engineering & Environmental Compliance, City of Monterey, CA Robert Reilly, Retired Director, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Shelley Row, Intelligent Transportation Systems, U.S. Department of Transportation David Schulz, founding Executive Director, Northwestern University’s Infrastructure Technology Institute Neil Schuster, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America Jonathan Upchurch, former Congressional staffer, currently, National Park Transportation Scholar, National Park Foundation Eric Weiss, Transportation Reporter, Washington Post