Keeping What You Paid For—Retaining Essential Consultant-Developed Knowledge Within DOTs (2017)

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.

65 A P P E N D I X B Resources CDOT Example NIMS General Message Form (Form 213)

66 Keeping What You Paid For—Retaining Essential Consultant-Developed Knowledge Within DOTs Virginia DOT Design Quality Assurance Form

Resources 67

68 Keeping What You Paid For—Retaining Essential Consultant-Developed Knowledge Within DOTs

Resources 69 Virginia DOT Lessons Learned Example

70 Keeping What You Paid For—Retaining Essential Consultant-Developed Knowledge Within DOTs Philips Innovation Services Knowledge Element Template Knowledge domain Knowledge transfer Subdomain How to create a knowledge transfer process using a Knowledge Transfer Plan Summary This knowledge drive template will show you how you can fill in the steps of a Knowledge Transfer Plan Audience All participants of the Knowledge Drive 2011 Intended use This document will help you define, plan, realize, and review actual knowledge transfer between mentor and mentee Expertise Mentor Who is the knowledge supplier: <name> Mentee Who is the knowledge receiver: <name> Explicit knowledge What Which steps make up a Knowledge Transfer Plan Why To disclose and share relevant knowledge in a planned way Who The mentor, mentee, and facilitator When June 2011 How For all the five steps mentioned in the Knowledge Transfer Plan we fill in all the relevant fields. In Step 1 – the Knowledge Audit – we (mentor together with mentee) fill in the four knowledge elements on which we will transfer knowledge. We give a concise description on the details of the knowledge element. We define whether the knowledge is tacit, explicit or a combination. We will point to locations where relevant explicit knowledge (like design specifications) can be found and prioritize the knowledge element (on a scale of 1 / highest to 3 / lowest). In Step 2 – the Knowledge Transfer Plan – we explain for each knowledge element which activities we will undertake to effectuate the knowledge transfer itself. It may be to create a wiki-page or other types of documents by the mentor and reviews of this by the mentee. The Start and Finish fields indicate actual dates between which these activities will take place. In Step 3 – the Knowledge Transfer Implementation Plan – is an outcome of the Steps 1 and 2, mentioned above. This Step 3 defines per week what transfer activities are planned in that week and when meetings are held to jointly execute these activities. The field Other may hold your remarks about what happened exactly in that week or you

Resources 71 can use this field to indicate the name of the person who is responsible for this activity (the action holder). The status field indicates for example whether you properly finished your planned activities or when there is still some activity to be done. Step 4 – Definition of success – may help you to define some sort of measurement to test whether you are on the right track. Think for example about deliverables you want to realize in the knowledge drive or metrics that describe the progress you made in transferring knowledge. For instance the number of documents you produced in the knowledge transfer process and the number of comments on that from your colleagues. The final Step 5 – Lessons Learned – is about the explicit creation of experiences and insights you encountered during the knowledge transfer process so that others can learn from that. To share knowledge about what works and what does not work in a given situation prevents reinventing the wheel. When at the end of the Knowledge Drive 2011 you look back, try to describe what went well in the process and what could be improved. Application Past What documents helped in actual transfer of knowledge within Philips Healthcare Present To use in the current Knowledge Drive 2011 Future Use in possible future Knowledge Drives throughout Philips Knowledge network Internal / colleagues <list names of internal colleagues> External experts <list names of external experts>

72 Keeping What You Paid For—Retaining Essential Consultant-Developed Knowledge Within DOTs Sources Own notes, documentation, email, intranet, systems, blogs, presentations, interview notes, FAQ’s, problem and solution reports, case descriptions, quality logs, best practices, lessons learned, success stories, forms, drawings, operation manuals, standard operating procedures, communities of practice, discussion fora, wiki, benchmarking Knowledge drive proposal, example knowledge transfer plans, interview notes of past knowledge transfer programs, website links, etc. People who should know about this All participants of the Knowledge Drive 2011 and their management Peer review Name <reviewer name> Date 21 June 2011 Remarks Rating 7 out of 10 Owner <owner name> Referral / citation no referrals yet

Resources 73 Philips Innovation Services Leaving Expert Interview Report Header information Present: typically expert, successor(s), (senior) manager Date: Location: Doc id: Introduction <Reason for the interview> Procedure Leaving Expert interview <explanation of the interview procedure – record minutes of the interview, send out for review, incorporate comments in the final version> Function and tasks <formal description of the role if available, what the leaving expert did in projects over the last years as well, which other tasks this person would do and what they did not do but delegated or otherwise> Expertise <background of the leaving expert and the kind of expertise (knowledge elements) that this person built up and was able to share and document (including location)> Way of working and knowledge network <type of typical problems addressed, how these were addressed, what the results were (any additional improvement still needed or possible), who they worked with to get this problem solved> <typical involvement in the process, e.g., front end, execution, evaluation, review> <Locations they would work with, how often, persons in these locations used as first contact> Problem solving <how the expert typically goes about solving (certain types of) problems, e.g., by doing desk research, getting people together, inquiring at other experts in/outside the company, which methodologies and/or tools are used, and how a solution is documented, including the rationale behind it> Knowledge use in daily activities <what kind of knowledge is used in which kind of situations, and what the sources are, e.g., tacit, documented, presentations, learning etc., what person does on automatic pilot, how knowledge is applied and share in the regular workday> Knowledge sharing <formal activities where expert participates to share and gain knowledge, including participants, timeframes, roles, processes used, etc.> Knowledge testament <specific knowledge that may only reside with the expert, that may or may not be relevant at this point in time but useful to document> <knowledge network/connections that expert thinks the organization should stay connected with> <advice the leaving expert would give to their successor>

74 Keeping What You Paid For—Retaining Essential Consultant-Developed Knowledge Within DOTs Collaboration and collective ambition <specific information on how collaboration efforts have been conducted so far with whom, what are key things to address in this relationship and cultural issues to address, key is to understand the mutual benefit of the collaboration> <advice for improving or strengthening collaboration> <expressions of the value of each of the collaborations> Keeping up with developments in your specialty knowledge domains <how to track what competition is doing> <patents that should be monitored or circumvented> <business intelligence information through colleagues, e.g., marketing> <conventions, seminars, expositions to go to> <general and specific training that is recommended> <other experts to turn to> <checking and documenting new insights> Recommendations of the interviewer <general observations by the interviewer that may help improve managing knowledge>

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-44669-3 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 4 6 6 9 3 9 0 0 0 0