HSIP Assessment Toolbox

Peer Review

A peer review, as defined for the purpose of conducting an HSIP Assessment, is an impartial review of a State’s HSIP by a team of experts in the same field. A peer review is a practical and effective tool to foster excellence in program management. Peer reviews are not new concepts; the Research program has had great success in using this tool to improve Research, Development, & Technology (RD&T) management practices. In fact, the approach outlined below is borrowed from the RD&T Peer Exchange program. As the HSIP Peer Review Program evolves, it is expected that these procedures will be updated to better reflect the needs of the HSIP.

The FHWA Office of Safety has initiated an HSIP Peer-to-Peer Program, of which Peer review is a major component. As part of this program, technical assistance and resources are available to States wishing to host a peer review. [For additional information, contact the HSIP P2P Hotline at (877) 473-0953 or e-mail at hsipp2p@dot.gov.]

It is extremely important to note that peer reviews are not compliance reviews. The intent of the peer review is for both the host State and the visitors to exchange information. The goal of the peer review is to share experiences. Peer reviews 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 peer review is concerned with the HSIP process, not the composition of the program.

The objective of a peer review program is to give agencies a means to improve the quality and effectiveness of their HSIP. A peer review is appropriate for agencies of any size, mission, discipline, or responsibility.

The program is designed to send an outside team of invited HSIP managers and/or technical experts to meet with the host agency to discuss and review its HSIP process. Information on the host agency and team members' HSIP policies and procedures are exchanged with the intent to improve the overall HSIP process. Peer reviews 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.

There are many benefits that can be realized from conducting a peer review. Potential benefits include solutions to specific problems; assessment of customer service; benchmarks for checking progress; inspiration for staff; and lastly they can help the HSIP gain the visibility and attention of management.

It is the host agency’s responsibility to initiate its peer review. The composition of the peer review team, the breadth of the issues covered, the duration of the peer review, and other issues are at the agency’s discretion. FHWA staff is available to help facilitate discussions and brainstorming sessions to assist States in planning a peer review.The procedures outlined below are intended to be used to guide discussions, meetings with upper level management, preparation of a report, and follow-up activities.

Prior to the Visit

There is a significant amount of planning that occurs prior to the actual peer review. The information provided below is suggested activities that both the host State and review team should undertake prior to the visit to ensure a successful peer review.

Host Agency

Select prospective members of the review team.
1. Composition of Review Team: The review team should include an appropriate balance of Federal, State and local participants. At a minimum, the review team should consist of two other State HSIP managers and the local FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer. Other prospective review team members might include representatives from the FHWA Office of Safety and/or Resource Center, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Local Government Agencies (LGA), and others as appropriate to the review topic.
2. Characteristics of Review Team members: The review team members should be diverse and have specific knowledge and expertise with the HSIP; the ability to be forthright in discussion and contribute successful ideas, methods and procedures; and excellent communications skills. Peer review team members must understand, accept, and employ the concepts of teamwork.
Designate one of the visitors as the team leader. The team leader should be a good communicator; able to synthesize and summarize material well, including being able to see the “big picture;” and be able to effectively facilitate a group, including maintaining control of agenda and time.
Personally contact each of the prospective team members to establish availability and tentative dates.
Send each team member a copy of applicable resources at least 2 weeks prior to the visit. A list of potential resources is included in the Appendix.
Identify focus areas considered desirable for discussion during the visit. Example review topics are provided in the Appendix.

Review Team

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 agency. Do not try to compare the host agency’s documentation with either the FHWA regulations or guidance. 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 review is at the discretion of the host agency. Generally, the visit should be scheduled to last at least 3 days, allowing time to prepare a team report and conduct a "close-out" discussion.

The host agency should prepare an agenda for the visit. The agenda will be largely shaped by the review topic selected. The agenda may include:

Discussion of the host and visiting State’s HSIP process, programs and projects, as related to the review topic.
Opportunity for the team to look at example projects as they have advanced (and are advancing) through the system from identification through evaluation.
Discussion with other personnel involved in the HSIP process (i.e., contractors, planning organizations, local government agencies, Local Technical Assistance Program).
Some historical perspective of staff and financial resources.
Staff training.
Open discussion on strengths, key issues, opportunities, and planned actions.
Time for the visitors and host State to prepare a Team Report. The content of the report is discussed below.
A scheduled "close-out." The "close-out" activity is described in the Report Section.

A sample agenda is included in the Appendix.

Report

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 agency HSIP Manager.

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 HSIP that were looked at by the team.

The conclusion section of the report should reflect the highlights of the open discussions and be written as a team using a "team consensus" approach. It is expected that the report will reflect the aspects of the host agency’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 agency'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. A sample report format is included in the Appendix.

The "close-out" has the potential for the greatest benefit if it is conducted with upper management of the host agency. The "close-out" should highlight the most positive aspects of the host agency’s HSIP, as well as recommended areas of improvement, and the aspects of the host agency 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.

Follow-up

One additional activity that would have substantial benefit involves some effort to follow-up on the consensus reached during the peer review. About a year after the visit, the host agency 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 review. The report would be circulated among all members of the team until everyone has had an opportunity to review everyone else's comments.

< Previous

Table of Contents

Next >