INTRODUCTION
 

          The purpose of this paper is to describe a new framework for coordinating highway research and technology (R&T) activities among research sponsors, practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders in highway transportation. The framework does not replace existing mechanisms for managing research, providing opportunities for collaboration between researchers and practitioners, or disseminating research findings. Instead, its main intent is to better coordinate investments among highway R&T programs and to do so in a manner that involves the diverse array of stakeholders in highway transportation. More specifically, the framework has four goals as follows:
 

1. To make R&T investments more effective and efficient through broadbased stakeholder involvement and greater interaction among different research programs and program sponsors.

 
2. To foster a better awareness and appreciation of existing research programs - a sense of ownership that extends beyond the research sponsors.

 
3. To stimulate the formation of productive R&T partnerships, which could include jointly funded projects, closely coordinated projects funded by different sponsors, research consortia, and joint public and private initiatives.

 
4. To help demonstrate needs/opportunities for research and the potential payoff from research investments, and to thereby help expand the constituencies for highway R&T.

          Before discussing the framework and next steps in its development, the paper identifies the activities that may comprise "coordination" and briefly reviews existing coordination activities.

WHAT DOES COORDINATION MEAN?

Types of Coordination Activities

          As the framework is developed, participants will need to know what is expected -- what they are supposed to do. Listed below are activities and functions that might be considered to be part of coordination. The list, as clarified and amended by discussion, can be used to define overall expectations for the framework and the duties of particular components.
 

• Convening researchers, practitioners, program sponsors, and other stakeholders to discuss R&T activities and needs within specific topic areas.

 
• Screening and disseminating research findings.

 
• Systematically collecting and sharing programmatic information about R&T activities.

 
• Analyzing programs and identifying unmet needs and promising opportunities in specific topic areas.

 
• Providing opportunities for research managers, program sponsors, and others, as appropriate, to negotiate partnership agreements for specific projects or programs.

 
• Recommending projects, priorities, and research road maps, either informally through discussion and the actions of individual participants or more formally through consensus-based reports.

 
• Facilitating decision-maker forums to set priorities and allocate resources.

          In addition to the types of activities and functions to be performed, framework participants will need to know, or define for themselves, the scope of their work. The most obvious question of scope concerns topic areas (e.g., infrastructure vs. pavement vs. asphalt pavements), and the paper will come to that issue later. But scope has other dimensions that must be acknowledged and addressed as well. Three come to mind, and readers may have others to add.
 

• Types of R&T Activities - Will coordination cover all R&T activities including research, various forms of technology transfer, demonstrations, etc.? Should it initially place higher priority on particular activities such as research?

 
• Target Application Level - Most everyone would agree that coordination should include R&T activities that address "national" problems. But should initiatives aimed at local and/or regional problems also be included?

 
• R&T Programs - Which R&T programs should be explicitly "coordinated"? Should the coordination activities focus on the major public-sector research programs - FHWA's program and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)? To what extent should individual state and university programs (not included elsewhere) be included? Private-sector programs? International? What about non-highway transportation R&T programs; should they be involved; if so, how?

          It is easy to imagine that in the 1920s TRB standing technical committees, which then numbered about ten, could collectively handle all the coordination of highway research that was needed, or at least desired. But today the coordination of research is a far more challenging task. The scale of the highway system, the central role it plays in the nation's transportation, and ever-changing expectations for its performance all create continuing needs for new technologies and methods. These needs have led, in turn, to a large, complicated set of research programs. Arguably, R&T is more decentralized today than it was in the 1920s.

          A larger, more diverse, more decentralized research program is harder to coordinate; and accordingly, a number of coordination mechanisms have been introduced over the years. Listed below are some of the groups that have been performing coordination activities in recent years (since ISTEA).
 

• AASHTO's Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) - SCOR, with support of its Research Advisory Committee (RAQ oversees NCHRP and programs NCHRP funds annually, and is now charged with the responsibility of developing a comprehensive research plan for AASHTO.

 
• AASHTO's SHRP Implementation Task Force-Since 1991 this task force has worked to introduce technology, initially developed as part of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), into state practice.

 
• Other AASHTO Standing Committees-Some of these committees, such as the Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, are quite active in identifying research needs and proposing specific projects.

 
• FHWA's Management Council and Business Units-With the reorganized FHWA, a Management Council consisting of top agency directors and managers has been established. For the R&T program, the Management Council has taken on the responsibility of the former R&T Executive Board (which no longer exists) to review and set overall priorities and policies for FHWA's R&T program. Business Unit directors/managers lead the development of R&T work plans and priorities in specific business areas (infrastructure, operations, safety, planning and environment, policy, and federal lands).

 
• TRB standing technical committees-There are about 180 such committees today and about 150 of them deal directly or indirectly with highway transportation. These committees screen and disseminate research findings through publications and meetings, and occasionally issue research needs statements in their respective areas.

 
• TRB special committees-Committees such as the TRB Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) committee provide continuing, consensus based advice about specific research programs, which tend to be relatively large and highly focussed.

 
• TRB's Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) - Since 1992 this committee has provided consensus advice to FHWA about research and has issued reports on the overall health of highway research and research needs in particular areas. (For example it recently completed a congressionally requested review of the research sponsored by the Office of Motor Carriers.)

 
• ITS America (ITSA) -- ITSA maintains about 25 standing committees, subcommittees, and task forces that cover particular areas of ITS technology or issues related to the introduction of ITS technology. Their general mission is to promote the development and use of ITS technology.

 
• ITS America Board of Directors-Acting as a Federal Advisory Committee, this Board provides advice to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) about the organization and conduct of DOT's ITS research programs.

 
• Partnership for the Advancement of Infrastructure and Its Renewal Transportation (PAIR-T) - Organized by the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF), PAIR-T is a private and public sector partnership whose aim is to foster innovation in transportation.

          In many respects, groups already engaged in coordination activities have been, and continue to be, quite effective. The new framework is not intended to replace or reorganize any existing activities. Rather, it should augment these activities and, wherever possible, utilize existing groups to help meet its goals.

Steps Taken by First Forum

          At the first forum, participants generally agreed on the need to supplement existing R&T coordination mechanisms to address the goals stated in the introduction to this paper (the author acknowledges taking some liberties in restating these goals). Desirable characteristics of the framework were also identified, including: inclusivity, shared governance, openness to new participants and partnerships, building on existing relationships that work, openness to change, and ease of communication.

          Further, the forum recognized that working groups, organized for specific topic areas, would be the key organizational unit of this new framework and would be responsible for much of the actual coordination. There would be enough working groups to distinguish between major topic areas with different natural constituencies, but not so many as to become unmanageable. Five working groups were designated, which generally correspond to four of the five newly identified core business units of FHWA, plus a fifth group on cross-cutting policy and data issues:

1. safety
2. operations and mobility
3. infrastructure renewal
4. planning and environment
5. policy evaluation and system monitoring

While the first forum made substantial progress, few details about the framework were addressed. For example, what specific tasks would the working groups perform? Who would participate and who decides? What is the relationship to other coordination mechanisms and groups? Who monitors the performance of the framework and makes changes?

Proposals

          To help answer questions such as those stated above and provide added detail to the framework, a "three tier" model is proposed. The first tier would provide guidance and oversight for the entire coordination framework. The second tier would be composed of the working groups, and it would be where most of the action takes place. The third tier would consist of groups, mostly already existing, that have coordination charges for slices or subsets of the topic areas covered by the working groups.

First Tier-No single entity is likely to possess the capability for sustained oversight of the framework and to satisfy the needs for shared governance and inclusivity. Governance generally requires in-depth work by a few; inclusivity requires participation by many. Therefore, several oversight groups may be required, which would work collaboratively, each with areas of primary responsibility. Three groups are suggested as candidates.
 

• · RTCC - The RTCC is a TRB committee of about 17 members, which is appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) with specific attention to diversity of expertise and perspective. It could assume responsibility for nurturing and monitoring the framework and, in consultation with the other groups, authorizing changes in organization (e.g., number of working groups). In addition, when working groups wish to issue formal consensus-based advice to, for example, FHWA or AASHTO, RTCC can yet and issue such advice using established NRC procedures. In the past the RTCC has had liaison relationships with the now-defunct RTCGs of FHWA, and such relationships could be established with the new working groups.

 
• · Partnership Forum - The Partnership Forum could be a continuing mechanism for broad-based stakeholder involvement at a program-wide level. It could meet periodically to be briefed by working groups, the RTCC chair, and research program sponsors on the status of the framework and pending issues. Possibly its meetings could be held in concert with meetings of the RTCC and the R&T Sponsors Group described below.

 
• · R&T Sponsors Group - Regardless of how the framework is organized, sponsors will retain the stewardship responsibility for their respective programs. Coordination activities may, and hopefully will, influence programming decisions, but bodies with the necessary administrative and fiduciary authority will still make the decisions in most cases. Formation of a R&T Sponsors Group will affirm the critical role that sponsors play, recognize their need to participate in the oversight of the coordination framework, and provide an opportunity for direct program-to-program interaction and deal making.

• number of working groups - As noted earlier, the most obvious scope issue concerns the topic areas of specific working groups. Right now, the framework has divided all highway research topics into five groups. It may prove desirable to increase this number. One possibility would be to adopt the breakdown of its core business areas used by FHWA in presenting its research program in the Research and Technology Program Status Report. All together, that report breaks down the program into ten groups (which are either called categories or subcategories): safety, pavements, structures, asset management, transportation operations and management, freight operations and management, planning, environment/real estate, policy analysis, and system monitoring.

 
• staff support - TRB is prepared to provide "secretaries" to each of the working groups to assist with organization and logistics. Wherever possible, the TRB secretaries would be the same individuals who staff TRB standing technical committees in the areas covered by their assigned working groups.

 
• membership - Until the numbers of participants dictate otherwise, the best policy is probably to let the working groups be open to all who express an interest. There would be no formal appointment process; that could come later. Chairs will be required, and TRB could designate them in consultation with the working group participants, where the groups exist already.

 
• participant costs - For the foreseeable future, participants in working groups, or the institutions they represent, will bear the costs associated with serving on the working groups. This could be problematic for some groups such as state DOTs, especially with regard to travel expenses.

 
• other scope issues-The charge to working groups would be to assist in the coordination of all R&T activities, with each group free to focus on the areas it perceives to be of greatest need/opportunity. At the outset, one would expect that most working groups would give high priority to the activities in their respective areas that are under way or planned at the existing national public-sector programs. Relevant private-sector initiatives would also be of high priority.

 
• Activities - Working group co ordination would be largely informal at first. The working groups would create opportunities for R&T managers to showcase their plans, receive feedback, and explore potential partnerships. Working group recommendations about gaps, strategic priorities, or particular projects could emerge informally or be transmitted in formal reports, which might pass through the RTCC.

 
• style and relationships with existing groups - The topic area constituencies covered by the working groups vary in how they perceive R&T challenges and how they interact. Some working groups may have opportunities for piggybacking their activities on to those of an existing group; others may not. The developers and overseers of the framework should explicitly recognize that the working style of the groups will vary.

 

 

          Third Tier-The third tier includes all existing groups that already coordinate, in some sense, R&T that falls within the domain of the working groups. Each working group should seek to establish some relationship or communication mechanism with the groups that fall within its domain, probably via overlapping memberships or liaisons. The third tier groups will include, but not be limited to, AASHTO committees, TRB standing technical committees, TRB special committees, and ITS committees.

CONCLUSION; NEXT STEPS

          The creation of a new framework for coordinating highway R&T is under way. The initial Partnership Forum meeting confirmed the need for such a framework and sketched its outlines. Working groups for five topic areas were identified, and a couple of these will have met by the time of the second Partnership Forum meeting on July 9.

          Many questions remain that must be addressed. But the immediate challenge is not to fully define the framework's organization and operating procedures. Rather, it is to define the framework in sufficient detail to keep its development process under way and making reasonable progress.

          At the next Partnership Forum, participants will work on two important organizational issues: (1) the overall framework concept and (2) the number, organization, and procedures of the working groups. The proposals included in this paper are intended to facilitate discussion of these issues and offer some practical suggestions about how the framework might be further defined by adding structure and designating responsibilities. Almost certainly the framework will not achieve its goals without becoming more structured.

          Regardless of how the framework's development proceeds, there will be a continuing need for refinement, perhaps even radical change. Successful development of the framework will take time and a willingness to make change. This is an ambitious undertaking, and it is not yet proven that the value added by the new coordination activities envisioned will be commensurate with the costs. Certainly, the best organizational scheme is not yet apparent.

         To conclude, one other requirement for success should be mentioned reasonable expectations about what the framework can do, what it cannot do, and how quickly it can be effective. Setting reasonable, achievable expectations will avoid disappointments; and, more importantly, will help keep participants focussed on issues where positive results can be achieved.