an evaluation of a development program …docs.trb.org/prp/16-4075.pdfselman, khwaja, machemehl,...

Selman, Khwaja, Machemehl, Motamed, LaVaye

1

AN EVALUATION OF A DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1 FOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2

3 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board 4

Submitted for Presentation and Publication 5 6

Kelly Selman, P.E. 7 District Engineer, Dallas 8 Texas Department of Transportation 9 4777 East U.S. Highway 80 10 Mesquite, TX 75150 11 Phone: (214) 320-6100 12 Email: [email protected] 13 14 Nabeel Khwaja, MS, P.E. 15 Research Engineer 16 Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin 17 1616 Guadalupe Street, Suite 4.202 D9300, Austin, TX 78701 18 Phone: (512) 471-4541 19 Email: [email protected] 20

Dr. Randy B. Machemehl, P.E. 21 Nasser Al-Rashid Centennial Professor in Transportation Engineering 22 Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin 23 301 East Dean Keaton Street Stop C1761, Austin, TX 78712 24 Phone: (512) 471-4541 25 Email: [email protected] 26

Moggan Motamed (Corresponding Author) 27 Graduate Research Assistant 28 Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin 29 301 East Dean Keaton Street Stop C1761, Austin, TX 78712 30 Phone: (512) 471-4541 31 Email: [email protected] 32 33 Clair LaVaye 34 Editor 35 Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin 36 301 East Dean Keaton Street Stop C1761, Austin, TX 78712 37 Phone: (512) 471-4541 38 Email: [email protected] 39 40 Submitted August 31, 2015 41 Revised November 13, 2015 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

50

Text% % 5744%current%count%Table% 3×250% 750%Figure% 4%x%2508% 1000%Total! 8% 7,493!


2

ABSTRACT 51 There is a growing shortage of trained, prepared transportation engineers for leadership positions 52 in state Departments of Transportation (DOT). This shortage is influenced by four factors. 53 Insufficient numbers of engineering graduates choose work at DOTs. Those who do, enter with 54 deficits in transportation-related engineering knowledge. The DOTs have difficulty retaining the 55 new engineers. Finally, increased levels of experienced staff are retiring, increasing the expertise 56 and leadership deficit. DOTs are reaching out to students at college and high-school levels to 57 encourage careers in transportation engineering; this outreach includes diversity programs and 58 summer internships. Some DOTs work with colleges through cooperative research programs. To 59 maintain expertise in engineering staff, DOTs are increasingly providing agency-provided 60 training for young unlicensed engineers, which can include mentoring, functional area rotations, 61 instructional training, and support for staff preparing to take the professional engineer (PE) exam. 62 This study examines what DOTs are doing nationally to train unlicensed engineers and focuses 63 on a training program at the Dallas District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 64 The research team performed a literature review and collected data about DOT training programs. 65 Two surveys were conducted comparing programs at various DOTs and assessing the 66 effectiveness of the TxDOT Dallas District training program to improve staff performance (i.e., 67 increase staff attainment of Professional Engineer (PE) licenses, rapid promotion within the 68 agency, leadership, improved retention rates). Survey feedback was analyzed, including 69 recommendations for improving existing training programs. Training programs appear to 70 improve retention, improve expertise, and are positive investments. 71 72 73 Keywords: Engineering Assistants, unlicensed engineers, DOT training, engineer training, 74 engineer job rotation, engineering leadership programs, mentoring engineers. 75 76 77 78


3

1. INTRODUCTION 79 Four factors are contributing to a growing shortage of trained, experienced transportation 80 engineers for leadership positions in state Departments of Transportation (DOT): 81

1. Insufficient numbers of engineering graduates are available for hire at DOTs. 82 2. Colleges and universities, due to internal and external pressures on costs and required 83

courses outside of students specialized majors, are challenged to provide full programs 84 that provide a thorough grounding in transportation-related engineering knowledge. 85

3. DOTs have difficulty retaining engineers. 86 4. Increase in retirement of experienced leaders . 87

DOTs are responding to this expertise and leadership deficit in a variety of ways. Some agencies 88 reach out to students at the high-school level to encourage them to consider a career in 89 transportation engineering. Some DOTs offer summer internships at the college level to bring 90 them into association with transportation professionals. Some universities partner in cooperative 91 research programs with DOTs, offering opportunities for graduate engineering students to study 92 in partnership with agency professionals. 93

Increasingly, DOT’s provide training to newly hired unlicensed engineers, which can include 94 these elements: mentoring, functional area rotations, instructional training, support for staff 95 preparing to obtain a professional engineer (PE) license, and leadership training. 96

The purpose of this study was to examine what DOTs are doing to recruit, train, retain, and build 97 leadership skills in engineering staff; to analyze a specific program, the Dallas District’s 98 Engineering Assistant (EA) Training Program at the Texas Department of Transportation 99 (TxDOT); and to offer recommendations for successful training programs. 100

The research team conducted two online surveys: a national survey of DOTs, and a survey on the 101 TxDOT Dallas District training program. Survey results were analyzed to determine if training 102 participants were more successful in passing the Professional Engineer (PE) exam, if they moved 103 more rapidly into positions of responsibility, and if DOT investment in staff training resulted in 104 increased retention. Surveys also assessed trainees’ perception of job success, job satisfaction, 105 obtained feedback on the program. 106

The next section of the paper summarizes a literature review conducted by the team, including 107 two published surveys by the WisDOT and Arizona DOT, published papers, recent surveys, and 108 online descriptions of training programs published on DOT websites. Section 3 summarizes what 109 other DOTs are doing and includes an analysis of the research team’s survey of the DOTs, which 110 was combined with other survey data. Section 4 introduces TxDOT’s training protocol and the 111 Dallas District EA Training Program. Section 5 presents results from our survey of engineers in 112 the Dallas District, which includes feedback on TxDOT’s training program and its perceived 113 impact on participants’ careers plus suggestions for improvements. Section 6 summarizes 114 findings and recommendations for implementing in-house research, with conclusions based upon 115 analysis of the TxDOT Dallas District engineer survey. 116


4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 117 This section presents a summary of the challenges facing DOTs, as documented in published 118 studies. 119

The challenges 120 State transportation agencies face shortages of experienced leaders and technical staff, as 121 employees retire and incoming graduate engineers lack diversified training and skills needed to 122 take over the responsibilities of transportation system operations and management (SOM). DOTs 123 are using agency-provided training to supplement engineering staff’s education and introduce 124 them to SOM disciplines, including traffic engineering, intelligent transportation systems, 125 maintenance, emergency response and incident management, performance measurement, and 126 system planning (NCHRP, 2013). 127

Industry findings show greater than average numbers of staff retiring as the “baby boomer” 128 generation ages out of the workforce, a trend predicted to continue through 2020 (Wittwer, 2011). 129 The retirement trend leaves experience gaps, while the numbers of university graduates with 130 specialized training in transportation have decreased. To address this shortage of trained 131 transportation engineers (Agrawal, 2008), DOTs must take steps to interest more students in the 132 transportation field, using outreach to students entering college (Jasek, 2010), and then provide 133 training, improve retention, and create leadership opportunities once graduating students enter 134 the DOTs (Agrawal, 2008). 135

Difficulties with recruitment and retention of engineers (Agrawal, 2008) mirror a national hiring 136 trend for all specialized fields; high quality trained and competent staff are considering multiple 137 employment options outside the public sector (Mason, 1993), while college students have 138 competitive options when choosing specialized training for future careers (Whittwer, 2011). 139

Engineering education deficits 140 Educational institutions struggle with competing demands, which has led to reductions in 141 transportation engineering courses. DOTs, when surveyed, identified highway capacity and 142 geometric design as two topics critical to hiring needs (Thomas, 2007). Also, many 143 undergraduate civil engineering programs are not providing students with management courses 144 in the context of a managing engineer (Long, 1997); courses primarily focus on applied technical 145 knowledge, such as highway geometric design, transportation planning, traffic control devices, 146 highway capacity studies, and traffic flow (Witter, 2011). 147

3. DOT ENGINEERING OUTREACH AND TRAINING 148

Internship programs 149 Many DOTs and other transportation agencies employ strategic outreach by offering summer 150 internships to students. San Francisco County Transportation Authority began to employ 151 internship programs as early as 1992 as a recruitment tool (Yee, 2009); the current program is 152 described on its website. Prior internships are common among new hires to DOTs, including 153 TxDOT. 154


5

Partnerships with colleges 155 DOT’s have long partnered with universities, providing opportunities for students to study real-156 world engineering problems and engage with professional civil engineers. TxDOT partners with 157 Texas colleges and transportation research groups, such as UT Austin’s Center for 158 Transportation Research and Texas A&M’s Texas Transportation Institute, sponsoring research 159 studies that partners graduate engineering students with transportation professionals. Benefits 160 include networking with professionals outside of the university and insights gained about 161 professional fieldwork (Wilson, 1995). 162

Agency-provided training 163 One effective strategy employed by DOTs is workforce training and development. The Alaska 164 DOT and Public Facilities has a Workforce Excellence Program that includes training, skill 165 development, retention strategies, mentorship, and leadership programs (Holland, 2013). 166 Pennsylvania DOT, training began job rotation, re-training, and other continuing education in the 167 80s (Larson, 1985) and the current mentoring program is described on DOT’s website. 168 Increasingly, DOTs are seeing the need for a system of knowledge management (Wittwer, 2011). 169 While programs vary from state to state, at least 21 of the U.S. DOTs offer or require training, 170

Survey of DOTs 171 Potential survey participants were identified through contacts participating in prior surveys and 172 through the web. The total number contacted was 112. Multiple contacts were made with states 173 having large DOTs (i.e., Florida, California). Survey responses from 21 of survey participants 174 were combined with responses from two surveys (WisDOT, 2011, ADOT, 2014), making a total 175 of 28 combined DOT responses. Survey results are in Table 1. 176

Survey Responses 177 In Table 1, of the respondents reporting, 70% (14 out of 20) said they provided training. Of 178 DOTs reporting, 61% (14 out of 23) said that they provide mentoring. Job rotation is considered 179 the essential element of a training program: 100% of those reporting state that trainees are 180 rotated through functional areas. However, only 2 agencies responding out of those polled said 181 that training was required. Others reported that training was only offered to selected hires. As 182 expected, the larger state DOTs have extensive training programs, while smaller state DOTs 183 either have no program or did not respond. 184

Selman, Khwaja, Machemehl, Motamed, LaVaye 6

TABLE 1. Survey of U.S. DOTs on Engineer Training 185 States Name Training Mentorship Is Training

Mandatory? Do you have Rotation?

Training Duration Start Point

Texas DOT Yes Yes Yes Yes 3-6 years Before 2007 Arizona DOT Yes Yes No Yes 2 years Before 1995 Florida DOT Yes Yes No Yes 4 years Before 1974 Kansas DOT Yes Yes No Yes 1 year 2006 Minnesota DOT Yes Yes No Yes Up 2 years Before 1985 New Mexico DOT Yes Yes No Yes Up 4 years Late 1970's Oklahoma DOT Yes - - Yes 1 year - South Dakota DOT Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 year 1980's Virginia DOT Yes Yes No Yes 2 years 1970's New York DOT Yes Yes No Yes N/A No Data Georgia DOT Yes Yes Yes - - Average training program duration (years) 2.3 years Colorado DOT Yes -

North Carolina DOT Yes - Mississippi DOT Yes - Illinois DOT No - Indiana DOT - Yes Maryland DOT - Yes Pennsylvania DOT - Yes Wisconsin DOT - Yes Arkansas DOT No No Nebraska Department of Roads No

Nevada DOT No No Rhode Island DOT No No South Carolina DOT No No Wyoming DOT No No Connecticut DOT - No Idaho DOT - No Iowa DOT - No Louisiana DOT and Development - No

Montana DOT - No Total Yes 14 14 2 11 Total No 7 10 7 0 Total responses 21 24 9 11

Information from WisDOT and ADOT survey


Summary of DOT Training Programs 186 Summarized in Table 2 is detailed information about training programs provided by state DOT’s 187 that responded to our survey, to a 2011 WisDOT survey, from an NCHRP paper on leadership 188 programs (NCHRP, 2005) or from published information about training on DOT websites. 189

Training programs range in length from 19 weeks to 4 years. Some assign unlicensed engineers 190 to advisors or quality-control groups; some offer training; others partner with universities or 191 provide tuition reimbursement for outside training. 192

193


TABLE 2. Survey Response from U.S. DOTs, Including Wis-DOT 2011 Survey and Internet Published Data 194

State DOT’s description of the Program Research

Team Survey

2005 NCHRP Survey

2011 Wis-DOT Survey

Web

Arizona has an Engineering-in-Training (EIT) 24-month rotational program. EIT's spend 2-4 months in sections of design (roadway, traffic, bridge, project management, environmental planning) and construction operations. Acceptance into the program is competitive. EIT applicants must have earned a bachelor's degree or higher in civil engineering, geological engineering, civil engineering technology, construction management or a closely related field and must pass the FE exam to be accepted into the program. Has a leadership matrix with competencies at each level.

X X X

California offers a Design Curriculum Program for engineers and technicians; project development, engineering tools and techniques training specific to Caltrans; training in key specialties.

X

Colorado has training through CDOT University; developed by supervisors and self-developed by employees.

X

Florida: has an in-house, 4-year Professional Engineering Program for a select number of the newly hired entry-level graduate civil engineers, who are in job rotation for 15-18 months and then work as experienced trainees in their career track. The program is intended to support succession planning and prepare staff for management and leadership roles. A Quality Assurance Review (QAR) assesses the program outcomes in retention and percentage of program graduates hired into management positions at district and state levels. Trainers identified 4 core competencies: leading people, change, communication, results-oriented, and business judgment.

X X

Georgia: has the Professional Engineer Development Program (PEDP) for newly hired engineers. After six months of work in a specific assigned area, trainees spend six months in on-the-job rotations, visiting 15-20 offices, and work with peers for training and mentoring.

X

Idaho: has a 4-5 year Engineer-in-Training (EIT) program with hands-on training and job rotations, includes formal training, and provides mentoring and opportunities to interact with departmental leaders.

X

Illinois: trains engineers in roadway design, construction/materials inspection activities, traffic operations, safety engineering, and career development. Job rotation, cross training, and mentoring of lower-level talent pools.

X X

Iowa: has a 1-year training program focused on three core disciplines and partners with Des Moines Area Community College to teach courses using current or former DOT staff as instructors, with coursework developed by the DOT.

X

Kansas: has a 1-year Rotational Training Program offered to all newly hired engineers; trainees visit all functional areas.

X

Louisiana: has a voluntary 19-week Engineer Rotational Development Program (ERDP) for newly hired engineers.

X



Team Survey

2005 NCHRP Survey

2011 Wis-DOT Survey

Web

Maryland: has two formal Leadership Development Programs: Advanced Leadership Program (ALP) and Leadership Education and Development (LEAD). Provides many other opportunities for employees to develop the leadership skills necessary for advancement in the agency: Mentoring Program, New Supervisor Training Program, Rotational Program, Personal Development Plan. The Graduate Engineering Training Program was developed to provide new engineers with the highest level of technical and managerial enhancement available in the civil engineering field. Both aspects of the program, rotation and modules, are top-notch opportunities for the technical and managerial developments of MSHA’s engineers.

X

Minnesota: has a 2-year Graduate Engineer and Land Surveyor Trainee Program, which is a rotational program for newly hired trainee level engineers. Trainees spend 6 months in construction and 6 months in design, a rotation in a district and 6-9 months in elective rotations. Trainees, who are given other specialized training as well as interacting with advisors and mentors, must pass the PE exam within 6 years of entering the program.

X

Mississippi: offers training through conferences and on-the-job training in a variety of DOT functional areas.

X New Mexico: has a Training Academy and Engineer Licensure Program (ELP) that consists of two phases of engineer licensure training and development that may last up to 48 months or until the trainee passes the PE exam. Trainees are placed into job rotation and participate in seminars.

X

New York: Training is provided in-house or by consultants. Some regional offices offer a rotational program and the DOT utilizes mentoring. They have an in-house PDH certification program. NYSDOT is a member of The Practicing Institute of Engineering (PIE). Through PIE, they review and certify training courses for PDHs. On average, they review/approve 40 training courses/ workshops a year. Construction Office delivers Engineer-In-Charge (EIC) training every Winter. All EICs are required to attend.

X

North Carolina: training courses offered in Maintenance, Construction Safety, General Highway Engineering for non-engineers, with review courses for EIT & PE exam.

X

Oklahoma: has a training program to prepare civil engineers for the PE exam and familiarize them with DOT areas. Trainees are placed in a12-month rotation through the following ODOT divisions: bridge design, construction, environmental programs, local government, maintenance, materials and research, planning, roadway design, survey, and traffic operations. An Engineer Development Council (EDC) oversees the program and reviews the progress of trainees, approves their specialization, and assigns duty stations. Annual leadership develop-ment conference for managers and supervisors.

X X X

Pennsylvania: New engineers enter a 15-month training program. Successful graduates of the program are promoted to positions of responsibility. The DOT also has a formal mentoring program called L.E.A.D. that pairs trainees with mentors and offers focused training activities on skills and career development goals.

X



Team Survey

2005 NCHRP Survey

2011 Wis-DOT Survey

Web

Texas: in most districts the DOT requires unlicensed engineers to participate in the EA Career Development Program, a program that can include agency-provided training, mentoring, job rotation, and PE exam preparation support. Division specific, on average trainees spend from 4-5 years in training and are required to pass the PE exam within 6 years in order to stay on the engineer track with the agency.

X

Utah: In UDOT’s Rotational Program, EITs work under the supervision of Professional Engineers and rotate from one UDOT department to another about every 6 months. Mandatory rotations include construction, design, maintenance and traffic and safety. Mid-management training.

X X

Virginia: has training with the goal to develop specialist and generalist skills in staff to lead residencies. Training time is based on what is appropriate for familiarization in each discipline as well as 10 months in a specific area. Rotation areas include core agency functions, residency operations, maintenance, construction, materials, location and design, traffic engineering and operations, environmental, transportation planning, and right-of-way. Scholarship program and engineer development program.

X X

Washington: offers an apprentice/intern/entry-level engineer in-house training and tuition reimbursement program.

X

195

196


4. ENGINEERING ASSISTANT (EA) TRAINING AT THE TxDOT DALLAS DISTRICT 197 TxDOT Districts are responsible for planning, designing, constructing, maintaining, and 198 operating highways within their multi-county boundaries. Metro Districts are responsible for 199 coordinating project selection, Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and 200 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) development with their respective Metropolitan Planning 201 Organizations. 202

The TxDOT Dallas District is responsible for the above in a blended seven-county region, 203 consisting of major urban areas, growing suburban areas, and rural areas. The seven counties 204 encompass more then 4 million residents and almost 10,500 lane-miles. The annual construction 205 and maintenance budget of the District exceeds $1.6 billion. The District has an FTE allocation 206 of approximately 850 staff. Ensuring the smooth operations of this complex setup requires 207 leaders knowledgeable about the diverse functional areas, who understand public concerns and 208 work with elected officials. 209

TxDOT considers its Engineering Assistant training program to be an effective recruiting tool. In 210 the 2008 TxDOT Guide to the Engineering Assistant Career Development Program, then 211 Executive Director Amadeo Saenz, Jr. states that “growing our own” transportation leaders was 212 part of the agency mission (TxDOT, 2008). One of the goals of this structured EA Program has 213 been to provide a proactively strong foundational basis for the future leaders within TxDOT. 214

The program represents a significant investment of DOT resources into each Engineering 215 Assistant. Part of their contract is to remain for least two years with the DOT, or risk having to 216 pay back the cost of training. 217

Initially, TxDOT agency-provided training consisted of functional area rotations. The program 218 was developed and expanded in the Dallas District from that initial program. In 2007-2008 the 219 program was formalized and renamed the Engineering Assistant (EA) Career Development 220 Program (TxDOT, 2009). 221

In the Dallas District before 2007, there was a substantial number of staff with Engineer 222 Assistant titles within the engineering ranks who were not preparing to become licensed. Staff 223 received merit raises, although internal statistics showed that as few as 33% were successfully 224 passing the PE exam during 2007. 225

Dallas District management determined to move to an organized, effective training system to 226 rectify the issues above and improve the rate of licensing. As the department hired new graduates, 227 new engineers were placed into an informal rotation program. To eliminate delays and resistance 228 to rotation, within a year the reporting structure was flattened so that all trainees reported to the 229 district engineer, who rotated trainees, usually in 18-24 months, and who evaluated all trainees 230 twice a year. 231

As of December 2009, the program became mandatory for new hires. According to standard 232 operating procedure (SOP) documents for the district, trainees were to be placed under the 233 supervision of the deputy district engineer. From the Dallas District SOP (TxDOT, 2012), 234 “rotation will occur based on the EA plan and the DDE discretion.” Decisions about rotation and 235 other aspects of training were also to be made by the district engineer: “EA’s supervisor will be 236


12

the Deputy District Engineer (DDE). EA’s will be trained as needed for the job they are 237 performing. The DDE will coordinate with the Engineering Supervisor to determine what 238 training is needed.” (TxDOT, 2012) 239

After 4 years in the training program, TxDOT Engineering Assistants may be eligible to take the 240 Professional Engineer (PE) exam. Trainee progress is measured through performance reviews, 241 attendance and participation in training, rotation through functional areas of the DOT, 242 engagement with mentors, and through successful obtainment of their PE License. 243

All Engineering Assistants hired in the Dallas District or staff promoted into the EA title must 244 agree to participate in the training program. To qualify, they must “have an engineering or 245 related science degree and be preparing for the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, be 246 Engineers-in-Training (EIT) who are preparing for the Professional Engineer (PE) exam…” and 247 “commit to work full-time for the Department a minimum of one year for EIT certification and a 248 minimum of two years for PE license.” (TxDOT, 2015) 249

TxDOT Dallas District Training Program 250 According to the TxDOT SOP, “Training will be scheduled by the Human Resource Division 251 (HRD) Training Coordinator assigned to the Dallas district. The DDE or designee is responsible 252 for ensuring that training is scheduled and that the EA is present for all scheduled training…. 253 Engineer Supervisors and the DDE may add training as needed….EA interests may be 254 considered by the DDE as well.” (TxDOT, 2012) 255

Early in the program, training records showed that some Engineering Assistants were taking 256 many formal training classes, while others were taking no classes. Training was standardized in 257 order to create a balance between time spent in training and time spent gaining work experience. 258 According to our survey, current trainees now take between 3-4 training classes per year. 259

Four elements of the TxDOT training program 260 The four cornerstones of the training program are: 261

• Functional area rotations 262 • Mentoring 263 • Formal classroom / online instruction 264 • Preparation for obtaining PE License 265

Functional Area Rotation 266 Rotation is the same for most Engineering Assistants; they begin in design and usually continue 267 to construction. After construction, trainees often rotate to traffic operations for six months. 268 Many move back into design. An exception is made for engineers with structural expertise, who 269 often start in bridge design and move into construction or bridge or retaining wall construction. 270 Rotation is implemented at DDE discretion. The HRD Training Coordinator schedules training 271 (TxDOT, 2012). 272

Mentoring Engineering Assistants 273 All trainees are assigned a mentor to provide access to high-level district managers. According to 274 the TxDOT SOP (TxDOT, 2009), “The DE will assign a mentor to each Engineering Assistant to 275 provide guidance and advice to facilitate the EA’s development.” At the present time, a mentor is 276


usually a high-level manager (Area Engineer or Director) who is not in the direct chain of 277 command for the trainee. Assistants are encouraged to meet with their mentors; mentors often sit 278 in on trainees’ performance reviews. Trainees also can meet with the district engineer for 279 mentoring. 280

Formal Classroom / Online Instruction 281 Each trainee is expected to take at least 3 classes per year, usually starting with design, then 282 taking classes relevant to each rotation phase. 283

Training classes available to Engineering Assistants include roadway design, hydraulics and 284 highway hydrology, GeoPak, construction and bridge construction administration, work zone 285 traffic control, AASHTO design concepts, freeway design and operation, watershed modeling, 286 risk management, and roadway safety design. The list of formal training classes below is from 287 the EA Training Plan SOP (TxDOT, 2015): 288

Design Rotation 289 GeoPak I 290 GeoPak II 291 GeoPak Drainage 292 PSE Packages 293 Roadway Design 294 Urban Storm Drain Design 295 Culvert Design and Analysis 296

Construction Rotation 297 Construction Contract Administration 298 Bridge Construction Inspection 299

Before License Testing – All EA’s 300 Introduction to Traffic Operations 301

Traffic Operations Personnel 302 Highway Capacity 303 Designing Workzone Traffic Control Plans 304

Professional Engineer (PE) Exam Preparation 305 After approximately 4 years in training, mentoring, and functional area rotation, engineer 306 assistants are expected to take the professional engineer (PE) exam. Six months prior to the 307 exam, engineers are provided the opportunity to study for the exam. They are allowed to prepare 308 during work hours and are provided with access to PE exam preparation classes through a prep 309 service provider. Engineering Assistants also spend time during the training period to prepare 310 their supplementary experience record (SER), a document that is used by the PE Board to assess 311 a candidate’s readiness and worthiness to obtain a PE license. After submittal of the SER, 312 trainees are permitted, by the Texas Engineers Board, four opportunities to pass the exam, which 313 is offered twice per year. Once they obtain the license, they are eligible for a transportation 314 engineer title. If they do not pass the exam, they are reclassified into non-engineer titles. 315

Engineering Assistant Progress, Evaluations, and Promotions 316 Engineering Assistant (EA) codes start at level II. Trainees can be promoted into EA III-V titles 317 while in the program. For trainees who complete the program and become licensed in Texas, 318 promotion into an Engineer title is automatic. Engineer titles start at level II; promotions in this 319 title include Engineer III, IV, and V. 320


14

If new engineering hires opt out of the training program, they are expected to pass the PE exam 321 on their own without training or mentoring; they may or may participate in rotations. Then, after 322 obtaining their PE license, they must apply for open positions such as Engineer III. 323

Training strategies in Dallas 324 Dallas District administration has identified from past experience that placing committed 325 department leaders in charge of rotation decisions and staff evaluations is key to an effective 326 training program. Committed support for the training program by management leadership is 327 considered to be as important as its individual components, so that training is implemented in a 328 uniform application for all trainees. 329

Listed below are the key success factors considered important by the Dallas District management 330 for an engineer assistant training program: 331

• Commitment to rotation into major functional areas 332 • Balance of focused formal training and on-the-job training 333 • Mentoring 334 • On-the-job time, plus training support, to prepare to become licensed. 335 • Emphasis on face-to-face access and communication with staff leaders by engineer 336

trainees 337

5. SURVEY OF DALLAS DISTRICT ENGINEERS 338 The team analyzed employment data obtained from TxDOT and data obtained from our survey. 339 Engineers and Engineering Assistants from the Dallas District were emailed requesting their 340 participation in a survey with questions including job titles, whether they participated in the EA 341 training program, rotation areas, questions about perceived job satisfaction, and requests for 342 feedback on program improvements. 343

We used Bayesian analysis, a statistical procedure to estimate parameters of an underlying 344 distribution based on observed distribution, and formulas that compare related promotion rates 345 during their time of service, time required to pass the PE Exam, and reported job satisfaction of 346 those who participated in the EA training with those who did not. A regression model was used 347 to compare career progression over time. 348

Bayesian Analysis of PE Exam Passing Rate for EA Program Participants 349

One of the purposes of the EA training program is to improve the chances of Engineering 350 Assistants successfully obtaining their Professional Engineer license. A Bayesian method has 351 been adapted for inferring the probability of whether or not the PE exam would be passed by 352 TxDOT engineers who have or have not participated in the training program. 353

Three pieces of information are necessary to construct the likelihood matrix, the joint matrix, and 354 the potential posterior matrix: job codes, length of time served TxDOT, and the prior probability 355 that a person will pass the exam. Job codes and time served at TxDOT were collected in surveys 356 noted previously and the pass/fail probabilities for the Engineer’s Exam are published on the 357 Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) website. 358


The TBPE examination pass/fail rates are posted for every exam. The Transportation discipline 359 had a 48% pass rate and a 52% fail rate for the October 2014 PE exam 360 (https://engineers.texas.gov/exam_stats/ppbydis_10_14.html). With the Bayesian approach, we 361 can revise these probabilities with survey evidence to determine the true likelihood that the 362 engineers surveyed have passed the exam. 363

Revising probabilities with evidence comes from Bayes’ Theorem, which is stated as follows: 364

!!∙! ≡ ! !!"!! ≡ !! !!∙!!!

, 365

where !!∙! is the posterior probability of state s given message m, !!" is the joint probability of 366 state s and message m, !! is the overall probability of receiving message m, !! is the prior 367 probability of state s, !!∙! is the likelihood of message m given state s, and !! is the probability 368 of receiving message m. 369

For this particular case, we use two states and two messages, where the states represent job codes 370 and the messages represent how long a person has been working at TxDOT. State 1 (not passed) 371 and State 2 (passed) correspond to job codes 1-4 and job code 5 or higher, respectively; and 372 Message 1 and Message 2 indicate 5 years or less and 6 or more years working at TxDOT, 373 respectively. In this study, people with job code 5 or higher are classified as having passed the 374 PE exam because the title Transportation Engineer can only be held by employees who have a 375 PE license. 376

The likelihood matrix, L, constructed from survey data shows: 377

! =!− !!!"#$!!!"#$% !+ !"#$!!!"#$%

!"#!!"##$%!(!− !) 87.67% 13.33%!"##$%!(!+) 4.90% 95.10%

. 378

Note that the sum of the rows must equal unity in the L matrix. This matrix illustrates the 379 percentage of people surveyed with job code 1-4 and job code 5 or higher who have been at 380 TxDOT for either 0-5 years or 6 or more years. 381

Multiplying the top row and bottom row with their respective pass/fail prior probabilities, as 382 reported by TBPE, creates the joint matrix, J. The J matrix requires that the sum of the entire 383 matrix be unity. Thus, 384

! =! − !!!"#$!!!"#$% ! + !"#$!!!"#$%

!"#!!"##$%!(! − !) 87.67%!×!52% 13.33%!×!52%!"##$%!(!+) 4.90%!×!48% 95.10%!×!48%

= !".!"% !.!"%!.!!% !".!"%. 385

Finally, the potential posterior matrix, Π, gives the conditional probability of each state given 386 !!, indicated as !!∙!. For Message 1 and Message 2, !! are the sum of their respective columns. 387 Therefore, for the first column !! is 44.15% and for the second column !! is 55.85%. Bayes’ 388 Theorem gives the equation for how to calculate !!∙!, which leads us to 389


16

! =! − !!!"#$!!!"#$% ! + !"#$!!!"#$%

!"#!!"##$%!(! − !) 45.07%! ÷ !44.15% 6.93% ÷ !55.85%!"##$%!(!+) 2.35%! ÷ !44.15% 45.65% ÷ 55.85%

= !".!"% !!.!"%!.!!% !!.!"%. 390

Here we can see the revised probabilities for having not passed or passed the PE exam. For 391 example, the Π matrix shows there is an 89% chance that people with job codes 5 and higher that 392 have been working at TxDOT for 6 years or more have passed the exam. These probabilities 393 given by Π give an additional quantitative way to measure the effectiveness of the training 394 program at TxDOT. 395

The following table provides a summary of findings from the Bayesian analysis of the PE Exam 396 passing rates. Since the engineer-training program is now mandatory, the table indicates an 89% 397 chance that those who completed the program will pass the exam or, conversely, only an 11% 398 chance that they would not pass. 399

TABLE 3. PE Exam Probability 400

401

Dallas District Report on Current Engineers and Engineering Assistants 402 Data analysis began with a review of Dallas District engineer employee demographics: starting 403 job title, current job title, and service time information of engineering staff currently employed 404 with the district. From this dataset, one can estimate staff promotion rate (promotions per year): 405

Promotion!rate = current!job!title!code− first!job!title!codeservice!time!in!TxDOT

Probability*of*Passing*PE*ExamExperience)(years)

PE)Exam)Status 0"5 6+Not$Passed$(%) 94 11Passed$(%) 6 89


Looking at the mean promotion rate of current engineering staff (117 total, 49 employees with 406 training, and 68 employees without training), those that participated in the program experienced 407 a higher promotion rate than those without training. Between 2000-2007, when the program was 408 in development, participation was optional; it was during those years that 32% of the current 409 engineering staff was hired. The comparison of the promotion rate of this population (employees 410 hired from 2000-2007) shows a significant difference between employees with training or 411 without training. Figure 1 illustrates the mean promotion rate for all groups. 412

413 414

FIGURE 1. Mean promotion rate for employees with/without training over time (1978-415 2015) 416

Another way to show that program participation increased staff promotion rate is to analyze the 417 promotion rate over the number of years (Service time) employees have spent working for 418 TxDOT. The square points in Figure 2 represent the promotion rate for employees with training 419 and the average value is higher. One sees more variability for employees with training, possibly 420 because the program is relatively new; the longest period of employment for graduates is no 421 greater than 15 years. The two categories do not have the same sample sizes, however, one can 422 say that the training provided opportunities to advance aster even during the period of time when 423 the program was optional. 424 425

0.755% 0.721%

0.435% 0.452%

0.0%0.1%0.2%0.3%0.4%0.5%0.6%0.7%0.8%

Progress%Mean%of%Total% Progress%Mean%200092007%

Pro

gres

s R

ate

Employee%with%Training%Employee%without%Training%


18

426

FIGURE 2. Employees promotion rate over time-of-service for groups with/without 427 training 428

The regression model showed that 20% of the variability in the promotion rate can be explained 429 by the variable “EA program” (R squared: 0.21) where 0 represents those who attended the 430 program and 1 represents those who did not attend the EA program: 431

432

This regression model is consistent with Figure 1: for employees who attend the EA program, 433 one could expect 0.78 promotion rate per year and for those who did not attend the program one 434 could expect 0.435 (0.78-0.345X1) promotion rate per year. 435

Findings from Survey Responses 436

The second data set to evaluate the program was gathered from responses to the author-designed 437 survey. We received 77 responses. The breakdowns are: 31 responses from program graduates, 438 14 responses from employees currently active in the program, and 32 responses from employees 439 did not take the program. 440

Figure 3 shows responses to selected questions measuring employee job satisfaction and 441 professional growth. All participants were required to respond to these survey questions. We 442 analyzed the differences between two groups of employees—those with and without formal 443 training. 444


FIGURE 3. Survey results on professional growth opportunity and job satisfaction 445


20

The important variables extracted from the survey related to staff perception of professional 446 growth opportunity and job satisfaction are: service time, PE license (dummy variable), time 447 between initial hire date with the DOT to the date staff passed the PE exam, participation in the 448 EA program, job satisfaction, and promotion rate. Job satisfaction was measured by answers of 449 participants to 5 questions. 450

One graduated from the EA program after passing the PE exam. Therefore, one way to evaluate 451 the program is to observe how long newly hired Engineering Assistants take to obtain PE 452 licenses. Relevant questions were asked in survey to be able to measure how long did it take for 453 an employee to pass the PE exam. As Figure 4a illustrates, on average those who participate in 454 the EA training program pass their PE exam at the end of their fourth year. However, some 455 engineers with previous experience became licensed with less than two years of participation in 456 the program. In contrast, employees who did not participate in the program take longer to 457 become professional engineers (on average 6.74 years). 458

459

4a.$Average$length$of$time$for$an$Engineering$Assistant$to$pass$PE$exam$

$


4b.$Promotions$per$year$for$employees$with/without$EA$training$(from$survey$responses)$

FIGURE 4. Comparison of promotion rates for employees with and without EA training. 460

Comparison of promotion rates (promotions per year) shows significant difference between 461 employees with and without EA training. Figure 4b illustrates that the mean for program 462 graduates is much higher. The results from these survey responses are consistent with the data 463 available from Dallas office employee data. 464

The regression model shows the effect of the EA program on employee progress. Employee job 465 satisfaction was also measured and is included in the model. The model is formulated as follows: 466

!"#$"%&& = 6.537!!"#!!"#$%&"'#$() − 0.254!!"!!"#$"%&!(!"#!!""#$%#%) 467

The job satisfaction variable is scaled from zero to one, where the higher number represents 468 higher satisfaction. As expected, job satisfaction has a positive correlation to employee progress. 469 This variable is equally important for both groups, both with and without training. This model 470 shows that program participation has a positive correlation to title promotion progress. On 471 average, those who did not have the training have a 0.254 lower promotion rate than those who 472 had the training. 473

These two variables explain approximately 75% of the promotion rate variability (R Squared: 474 0.759, Adjusted R Squared: 0.75). 475

Perceived benefits of the EA training program 476 Trainee’s report that rotation experience sometimes led to changes in career directions based on 477 positive experiences working in a new area or upon insights about how work in one area is used 478 by another area, leading to better overall understanding. For example, working in construction 479 can lead to insight into how design work is implemented. 480

Mentoring, when effectively managed, was reported as helpful to understanding agency needs 481 and develop leadership potential. 482


22

Feedback for improvement to the EA training program 483 Dallas District survey respondents had suggestions for the current training program and for 484 continued success for engineers in the DOT. 485

• Leadership Program: program graduates believe that a leadership program should be 486 implemented. “We arrive trained in engineering, but we have to learn management.” 487

• Mentoring: Those surveyed suggested these improvements to mentoring: 488 1. Formalize the mentoring process; require regular meetings to ensure that high-level 489

staff block out designated time on their calendar for mentoring. 490 2. Add a mentor group composed of recent graduates from the program. Mentors could 491

meet with trainee groups at the outset, and again when a cohort begins the PE exam 492 prep, to provide support and tips for success. 493

3. Allow trainees to pick a mentor from a pool of staff who are 2-3 years past obtaining 494 their PE license for regular meetings. Respondents stated that upper-level mentors are 495 busy and that junior-level engineers might be able to work more closely with trainees. 496

• Equipment: Survey results indicated that, although there have been improvements, there 497 remains a need to improve access to materials and equipment, especially for those who 498 work in the construction area. 499

• More customization of rotation progression by trainees, based on their individual 500 strengths and potential – “one size does not fit all.” 501

• Trainees agreed that it helps to have upper-level managers responsible for rotation, as “if 502 it’s left up to the supervisor” rotation may be delayed. 503

• Trainees’ comments on rotation into construction were that it was a positive experience. 504 505 6. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS 506 The District survey identified several factors that can help train the future leaders in public sector 507 organizations. 508

• Flatten the organization structure for trainees to eliminate internal conflicts and area self-509 interests that can delay trainees from moving into different functional areas of the agency. 510

• Enforce functional-area rotation for trainees since that allows them to broaden their 511 knowledge of various core functions of agency earlier in their professional development. 512

• Customize area rotations based on potential, talents, and interests of trainees. 513 • Ensure that trainees work in core areas of the agency so that they can gain insights about 514

how the areas work together and foster experience in each core area that can lead to 515 career development. 516

• Monitor and standardize the number of classes taken each year to ensure a functional mix 517 of training time and work time for each trainee. 518

519 520 521


REFERENCES 522 523

• Agrawal, Asha Weinstein; Dill, Jennifer. To Be a Transportation Engineer or Not? How 524 Civil Engineering Students Choose a Specialization. Transportation Research Record: 525 Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Issue 2046, 2008, p 76-84, 526

• Arizona Department of Transportation Employment: Engineers in Training. 527 http://azdot.gov/about/employment/EngineersinTraining/enrollment Accessed June 2015 528

• ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) RAC Survey on Mentoring Programs, 529 January 2014, 530 http://research.transportation.org/_layouts/AASHTORAC/FileDownload.aspx?SurveyFileID=531 263 Accessed June 2015. 532

• Florida DOT Professional Engineer Training Program, 533 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/projectmanagementoffice/PETraining/ Accessed June 2015. 534

• Holland, Amanda R. Workforce Excellence Program: Comprehensive Workforce Planning 535 Model for Transportation Agencies. Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting, 536 Transportation Research Board, 2013, 17p. 537

• Idaho DOT Engineer in Training Program http://itd.idaho.gov/eit/ Accessed June 2015. 538 • Jasek, Debbie, Assessment of Programs That Encourage Students from Diverse 539 • Populations to Consider Transportation Careers, SWUTC. March 2010. 540 • Larson, Thomas D; Haack, Harvey. Educating Tomorrow’s Transportation Engineers. 541

Transportation Research Board Special Report, Transportation Research Board, Issue 210, 542 1985, p 90-99. 543

• Long, R P. Preparing Engineers For Management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 544 American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 13, Issue 6, 1997, p. 50-54. 545

• Mason, J M; Kostival, L M. Transportation Engineering Careers: Awareness, Retention, And 546 Curriculum. Compendium of Technical Papers, ITE, 63rd Annual Meeting, Institute of 547 Transportation Engineers, 1993, p. 284-288, http://trid.trb.org/view/385824 548

• NCHRP, Attracting, Recruiting, and Retaining Skilled Staff for Transportation System 549 Operations and Management, 2013. 550

• NCHRP, Developing Transportation Agency Leaders, 2005.$ 551 • Pennsylvania DOT Civil Engineer Training, 552

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBOP.nsf/infoCivilEngTrainee?OpenForm 553 Accessed June 2015. 554

• San Francisco County Transportation Authority Internships 555 http://www.sfcta.org/employment-opportunities-sfcta/internships 556

• TxDOT Guide to the Engineering Assistant Career Development Program, July 2008. 557 • Thomas, Gary B. Assessing New-Hire Expectations of Transportation Engineering Employers. 558

Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, 2007, 559 9p, http://trid.trb.org/view/801775 560

• TxDOT – Dallas District Standard Operating Procedure No. 130-12, Engineering 561 Assistant (EA) Training Plan, October 2012. 562

• TxDOT Dallas EA Career Development Program, 2015. 563 • TxDOT, Dallas District Standard Operating Procedure No. 112-07, Engineering Assistant 564

Career Development Plan, Original Date July 2007, Rev. Dec. 2009. 565 • TxDOT, Human Resources Policy Manual, Rev. Feb. 2015. 566


24

• Utah DOT New Engineers: Optimize Mobility, Preserve Infrastructure 567 http://blog.udot.utah.gov/2012/04/engineer-in-training-utah-transportation/ Accessed 568 June 2015. 569

• Washington DOT Employment: Get Your Foot in the Door 570 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Employment/GetFootInDoor.htm, Accessed June 2015. 571

• Wittwer, Ernie; Adams, Teresa. Low-Cost Knowledge Management Techniques for Use 572 in a Changing Workforce. Transportation Research Board 80th Annual Meeting January 573 2011. 574

• Wilson, J C. Professional Liaison Program In Undergraduate Civil Engineering. Journal of 575 Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, American Society of Civil 576 Engineers, Volume 121, Issue 3, 1995, p. 165-169. 577

• WisDOT Transportation Synthesis Report,: Transportation Engineering Professional 578 Development Programs at State Departments of Transportation, October 2011, Accessed June 579 2015, http://research.transportation.org/Documents/RAC%20Surveys%20of%20Practice/ 580 TEPDSurveyResults.pdf 581

• Yee, Bond M; Robbins, Gerald; Fleck, Jack Lucero. Attracting Talented Staff: San 582 Francisco’s Transportation Engineering Internship Program. Transportation Research Board 583 88th Annual Meeting. January 2009. 584