BACKGROUND

State departments of transportation (DOTs) face a variety of challenges across business units that require research programs to identify solutions to address those challenges. While the demand to promptly address these challenges is increasing, existing processes to execute research projects and traditional research methods may be too time consuming to inform state DOTs with timely and reliable research results. 

Acceleration opportunities in the research process need to be explored. For example, knowing when, where, and how to apply new methods to improve the timeliness and reliability of research results will help research program managers strategically target improvements to their projects. Additionally, opportunities may include new frameworks for initiating, administering, and closing out transportation research projects. Taken together, the application of these acceleration opportunities will help research program managers and partners (including universities and consultants) provide timely and reliable solutions for their stakeholders.

Conversely, it is important to recognize that accelerating the research process may also pose risks not outweighed by the benefit of obtaining results sooner. An example may include a highly technical project with safety implications. Using traditional research methods may still be the best option for certain topics. Additionally, implementing one-size-fits-all solutions is not possible since every state DOT research program has its own requirements to respond to state-specific laws, regulations, policies, practices, and agency organizational structures. Research is needed to comprehensively understand when, where, and how opportunities for acceleration can be applied across the stages of the research project life cycle. 

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to identify and evaluate a suite of acceleration opportunities for transportation research programs to achieve timely and reliable research results. Opportunities will be considered and evaluated throughout the research project life cycle.

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

TASKS

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective.

This project will be executed on an accelerated schedule to align with the project objective. Tasks shall be sequenced in a manner to provide insights to the NCHRP with task completion summaries included in quarterly progress reports. The proposer shall plan for a quarterly 1-hour virtual meeting with the project panel. Formal work product review shall be reserved for the interim report and draft final deliverables. The overall research plan shall be organized into two phases. 

The first phase shall not exceed 12 months and be dedicated to exploring two focus areas: (1) opportunities for research administration to start and complete projects sooner and (2) opportunities to incorporate new research methods that will deliver projects sooner with timely and reliable results. A traditional literature review should not be proposed but rather a scan of practice for both focus areas. The preponderance of time and budget shall be dedicated to exploring the second focus area. At the end of the first phase, the research team shall deliver an interim report and an updated research plan for the next phase. One month shall be reserved for review of the interim report, followed by an in-person meeting. NCHRP approval is required to advance to the next phase. 

The proposer shall plan to engage the state DOT research community throughout the research plan. The two focus areas shall be informed by soliciting input from the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Research Advisory Committee (RAC). Opportunities to engage the RAC include its summer meeting typically held in July and regional RAC meetings held periodically. An engagement plan shall be presented in the proposal. The research outcomes shall be presented to the RAC before final deliverables are submitted to the NCHRP.

Note: For this project, NCHRP will limit the use of survey questionnaires. Only the AASHTO RAC may be approached to complete a survey. Other methods shall be employed to engage research partners and minimize the impact on the project schedule and budget.

Acceleration opportunities should be looked at through the lens of “impact versus influence” along the spectrum of the research project life cycle. Specifically, when engaging the RAC community, conversations and subsequent outcomes should focus on when state DOT research programs and their research partners can directly affect the acceleration of their research projects. Opportunities outside the direct control of state DOT research programs should constitute the minority of the recommendations, with greater focus on the opportunities research programs have direct control over.

The second phase shall be reserved for preparing the final deliverables. The primary deliverable shall be a conduct of research report documenting the entire research effort. Desired components include but are not limited to:

• A suite of acceleration opportunities for state DOT research programs and partners to consider applying throughout their research project life cycles;
  
  
• A decision matrix to help decide when acceleration methods are appropriate for research projects; and
  
  
• A modular framework for potential research program process improvements for initiating, administering, and closing out research projects.

Supplemental deliverables shall include:

• A PowerPoint presentation, including speaker notes, summarizing the project and illustrating for a broader audience how the research can be applied, and
  
  
•  An implementation plan (see the fourth item in the Important section).

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables.

SPECIAL NOTES 

A. The research team must have a team member who possesses knowledge of state DOT research program administration and understands the differing dynamics among the state DOTs that will not allow one-size-fits-all solutions. The research team should also include someone with demonstrated expertise in systems thinking, process improvements, or change management.

< < < IMPORTANT > > >

I.   The brochure Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs includes extensive guidance on the preparation of proposals for submission to CRP. Revisions to these instructions are highlighted in yellow within that document.

II.  Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/7247. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

III. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Subawardees Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

IV. The required technical memorandum (no more than 10 pages) titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should address the following implementation frameworks: (1) Effective Products; (2) Implementation Stages; (3) Implementation Drivers; (4) Implementation Teams; and (5) Product Feedback. For more information on the frameworks, read the TR News article “Active Implementation at the National Cooperative Highway Research Program: Frameworks for Moving Research into Practice,” available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/osdocs/NCHRP20-44_ActiveImplementation-TRNews.pdf.

V.  The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in their reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.