GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING PEER EXCHANGES
OF STATE DOT RESEARCH PROGRAMS
General
The peer exchange is a practical and effective tool to foster excellence
in R&T program management. It is extremely important to note that
peer exchanges are not compliance reviews. The intent of the peer
exchange is for both the host State and the visitors to exchange information.
Peer exchanges are intended to benefit all participants through an
open exchange of ideas, knowledge, and brainstorming. The visitors
should expect to gain as much from the experience, if not more, than
the host State.
The objective of a peer exchange program is to give State DOT's a
means to improve the quality and effectiveness of their research management
processes. A peer exchange is appropriate for agencies of any size,
mission, discipline, or responsibility.
The program is designed to send an outside team of invited top level
managers to meet with the host agency to discuss and review its RD&T
management process. Information on the host agency and team members'
RD&T policies and procedures are exchanged with the intent to
improve the overall RD&T management process. Peer exchanges provide
an opportunity for participants to share best practices and management
innovations with each other. The information gathered from the exchange
is presented to agency management.
These guidelines are intended to be used to guide discussions, meetings
with upper level management, preparation of a report, and follow-up
activities. Additional details on peer exchanges may be found in Section
4.3 of the NCHRP Report "Guide for Developing a State Transportation
Research Manual."
It is the State's responsibility to initiate its peer exchange. The
composition of the peer exchange team, the breadth of the issues covered,
the duration of the peer exchange, and other issues are at the States'
discretion.
Prior to the Visit
Host State-
- Select prospective members of the visiting team. At least two
of the members must be from among those in the RAC membership who
have participated in an earlier peer exchange. The host State is
also encouraged to include a participant from FHWA in the group.
- One of the visitors must be designated as the Team Leader.
- Personally contact each of the prospective team members by telephone
to establish availability and tentative dates.
- Send each team member a copy of the State Transportation Research
Manual for exchange at least 2 weeks prior to the visit.
- Along with the manual, the host State Research Program Manager
should identify focus areas considered desirable for discussion
during the visit.
Visitors-
- Agree to participation in the team only if you do so voluntarily
and with a desire to both offer and receive new ideas.
- Review the materials sent by the host State. Do not try to compare
the host State's documentation with either the FHWA regulations
or guidance, or the NCHRP "Guide for Developing a State Transportation
Research Manual." Remember, the purpose of the visit is not
to check for compliance with requirements; that is the responsibility
of the FHWA Division Office.
- Prepare to discuss your own program and your successes and failures
and to participate in open discussions
During the Visit
The duration of the peer exchange is at the discretion of the host
State. Generally, the visit should be scheduled to last at least 3
days, and preferably a little longer to allow for time to prepare
a team report and conduct a "close-out" discussion.
The host State should prepare an agenda for the visit. The agenda
should include:
- Opportunity for the team to look at example projects as they
have advanced (and are advancing) through the system from solicitation
to implementation. Both "good" and "bad" examples
should be shared. If appropriate, examples of in-house, university,
and consultant research should be provided.
- Discussion with both contract and staff researchers.
- Some historical perspective of staff and financial resources.
- Staff training.
- The contracting process, including RFP's, selection, monitoring,
etc.
- Technology transfer and implementation techniques.
- Discussion of the Research Manual and Work Program.
- Committee structure.
- Time for the visitors and host State to prepare a Team Report.
The content of the report is discussed later.
- A scheduled "close-out." The "close-out"
activity is described in the Report Section.
Report
If at all possible, the report should be written before the closeout
conference. As a minimum, the report should be prepared before the
visitors leave. The report is to be considered a team effort that
involves all of the visitors and the host State Research Program Manager.
The "close-out" has the potential for the greatest benefit
if it is conducted with upper management of the host State and/or
the uppermost Research Advisory Committee. The "close-out"
should highlight the most positive aspects of the host state research
program and the aspects of the host state program that the visitors
intend to incorporate into their own programs. Of course, any suggestions
agreed to by the team, should also be highlighted to the host State
upper management, with the understanding that upper management support
is necessary to make significant changes.
The report should include a brief introduction that identifies all
of the participants on the team and describes the purpose and intent
of the activity. The body of the report should briefly discuss those
aspects of the Research Program that were looked at by the team.
The conclusion section of the report should reflect the highlights
of the open discussions and written as a team using a "team consensus"
approach. It is expected that the report will reflect the aspects
of the host State's program that the visitors desire to incorporate
into their own programs as well as (1) the desirable features of the
host State's program that should be emphasized and (2) those aspects
of the host State's program that appear to warrant a new or expanded
approach.
The report is most likely to be of value if it is kept brief and
to the point. The use of "bullet" phrases and other outlining
techniques should be used to help avoid the need to "wordsmith"
the report and minimize the time needed to review the document.
The report should include an endorsement by all of the members of
the team. Since the host State is considered a member of the team,
this would preclude the need for a separate written response to the
report by the host State. A copy of the report should then be forwarded
to the FHWA Division Administrator. If the host State elects to not
endorse the report, a separate written response should then also be
forwarded to the FHWA Division Administrator.
Follow-up
One additional activity that appears to have substantial merit involves
some effort to follow-up on the consensus reached during the peer
exchange. About a year after the visit, the host State should initiate
a "Round Robin" report that identifies any changes that
have occurred and that were introduced as a result of the visit. Each
of the visitors should add to the report those activities that were
enhanced in their respective programs as a result of their participation
in the peer exchange. The report would be circulated among all members
of the team until everyone has had an opportunity to review everyone
else's comments. This is a completely optional activity. Its initiation
is dependent upon the desires of the host State.
