project shrp 2 l36 regional operations forums for ...€¦ · project shrp 2 l36 . regional...

SHRP 2

Project SHRP 2 L36

Regional Operations Forums for Advancing Systems Operations,

Management, and Reliability

Amplified Work Plan

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NAS-NRC

LIMITED USE DOCUMENT

This proposal is for use of recipient in selection of a research agency to conduct work under the Strategic Highway Research Program. If the proposal is unsuccessful, it is to be returned to SHRP 2.

Proposals are regarded as fully privileged, and dissemination of the information included therein must be approved by SHRP 2.

SHRP 2 Project L36 - Regional Operations Forums for Advancing Systems Operations, Management, and Reliability

SUMMARY PAGE

SHRP 2 Project L36

“Regional Operations Forums for Advancing Systems Operations, Management, and Reliability”

Proposing Agency: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Transportation Technology (CATT) 5000 College Ave Building 806 / Suite 2213 College Park, MD 20742

Person Submitting Proposal: Thomas Jacobs, Director

Proposal Written by: Kathleen M. Frankle, Program Manager Phone: 410.414.2925 | Email: [email protected]

Proposal Date: May 1, 2012

Principal Investigators: Kathleen M. Frankle, Program Manager Phone: 410.414.2925 | Email: [email protected]

Administrative Officer: Jill A. Frankenfield, Contract Manager Phone: 301.405.4577 | Email: [email protected]

Proposed Contract Period: 24 months

Total Contract Amount: $1,000,000

Fixed-Fee Portion at 100%: N/A

mailto:[email protected]

SHRP 2 Project L36 - Regional Operations Forums for Advancing Systems Operations, Management, and Reliability

i

Table of Contents

Summary of Changes ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

Research Plan

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3

Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 1-5

Task 1: Literature Review of the SO&M State of the Art ........................................................ 1-5

Task 2: Regional Operations Forum Agenda ......................................................................... 1-12

Task 3: Regional Operations Forum Venues for Pilot Deliveries......................................... 1-18

Task 4: Develop the Regional Operations Forum Curriculum ............................................ 1-19

Task 5: Scheduling and Outreach ............................................................................................ 1-22

Task 6: Regional Operations Forum Pilot Program Delivery ............................................... 1-23

Task 7: Final Report ................................................................................................................... 1-25

Anticipated Research Results ....................................................................................................... 1-26

Applicability of Results to SHRP 2 Objectives ........................................................................... 1-27

SHRP 2 Project L36 - Regional Operations Forums for

Advancing Systems Operations, Management, and Reliability

Research Plan 1-1

Summary of Changes

Task 1 – Literature Review of the SO&M State of the Art The approach to Task 1 was modified to take advantage of the literature that already exists in the SHRP2 L17 Knowledge Transfer System (KTS), including many SHRP2 references. Rather than prepare new summaries of key literature for which summaries already exist within the L17 KTS, the modified approach to Task 1 will produce an enhanced L17 KTS containing summaries of up to 20 additional key references. By using this approach, the results of the Task 1 literature review will also:

1. Facilitate enhancing the L17 KTS data base through addition of important new material to it. 2. Offer ROF curriculum developers the advantage of the on-line search feature of the L17 KTS

data base. In addition to the enhanced L17 KTS data base, the second deliverable will be a separate memo that will discuss the implications of each document for the ROF agenda and instructional techniques.

Task 2 – Regional Operations Forum Agenda Instead of developing 3 and 5 day forum agendas, the project team is going to develop an agenda for a 4 day ROF. It would begin at Noon on Monday and end at Noon or 1 PM on Friday. When the project team proposed on the project, they had a hard time distinguishing between the attendees of the 3 day vs 5 day ROFs. The 3 day version was supposed to be for senior managers and the 5 day version was supposed to be for program leaders. Since this project will only be offering a limited number of ROFs, the states are going to be eager to have both levels participate in an ROF. The TETG agreed to the development of 4 day versions during a TETG conference call on December 20, 2012.

Task 3 – Regional Operations Forum Venues for Pilot Deliveries The UMD Team recommends that the TETG provide their input on potential locations prior to the completion of the full working paper (subtask 2).

Based on rough estimates of the cost to conduct the four-day ROFs, it is estimated that five four-day programs and a one-day follow up can probably be conducted for this project. It should be noted that the costs for the development of the curriculum and actual costs of the ROFs are estimates. If the project team feels that any point during the project that it cannot deliver the five four day ROFs and one follow up session, the TETG will be alerted immediately.

Task 4 – Develop the Regional Operations Forum Curriculum This Task has been modified to eliminate the ROF walk-throughs. Instead, the curriculum for the sessions that are developed by the team will be posted on the web and TETG members will be able to download and review them. Feedback will be provided either by conference call or via e-mail, whichever works best for the TETG. Funding saved from the walk-through will be used for curriculum development and ROF delivery. As stated under Task 3, based on rough estimates of the cost to conduct the four-day ROFs, it is estimated that five four-day programs and a one-day follow up can



Research Plan 1-2

probably be conducted for this project. ROF curriculum development and delivery costs will be carefully monitored and reported.

Task 5 – Scheduling and Outreach This task was modified to undertake the scheduling parts of Task 5 at the same time as Task 3. Venue costs are completely dependent on the time of year that the event occurs and many locations require reservations 9-12 months in advance.



Research Plan 1-3

Research Plan

Introduction The UMD Team’s research plan for project L36 “Regional Operations Forums for Advancing Systems Operations, Management, and Reliability” is designed to significantly advance transportation system operations and management (SO&M) and facilitate mainstreaming SHRP 2 Reliability research through development and delivery of a SO&M curriculum through Regional Operations Forums (ROFs).

The challenges presented by this assignment require an unusual combination of capabilities including SO&M substantive knowledge, familiarity with SHRP 2 Reliability and other relevant research and state of the practice materials, experience with professional training and curriculum development and meeting logistics. The UMD Team represents a unique group of firms and individuals that, collectively, bring the complete range of experience that is essential to the efficient and cost effective achievement of project L36 objectives including:

• Involvement in SHRP 2 Reliability research, related NCHRP research, and the AASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management;

• Research and methods development for state Departments of Transportation (DOTS) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs);

• Experience in a wide range of SO&M contexts including both urban and rural operations; • Exceptional background in best practices, guidance and research regarding technical, process,

institutional and policy issues; • Experience supporting FHWA and RITA technical product development; • Development and Leadership of the Operations Academy™; • Wide regional representation; • Significant expertise in training, workshop development and presentation; • Extensive background in meeting and training support logistics; • Specialized expertise in training methods and evaluation; and • Relevant program management background.

As a foundation for the development and implementation of relevant ROFs, the UMD Team can build on its broad background in SO&M practice – as it occurs in the real world of state DOTs and their partner agencies. This breadth of experience covers both the range of variation in state DOTs (large/small, centralized/decentralized, advanced/start-up), but also in their settings (urban, rural, snow belt, sunbelt). UMD Team members include consultants, veterans of agencies, and support institutions to state DOTs and other transportation agencies. As described in the Qualifications of the Research Team section of this proposal, the UMD Team has been assembled to include individuals that represent well-tested and well-known experts.

This broad UMD Team background will be brought to bear in several important ways to ensure success in achieving project L36 objectives:

• Curriculum design

Curriculum design for the ROFs will be based on a comprehensive review of available and anticipated research results of the SHRP 2 Reliability program combined with existing SO&M educational and outreach efforts including the highly successful Operations Academy™. The UMD Team has been directly responsible for the development and implementation of the Operations Academy™. The lessons learned in building, delivering, and maintaining this extremely successful SO&M curriculum targeted towards senior managers, has influenced this research plan as have the results of SHRP 2 Reliability and NCHRP research including LO6



Research Plan 1-4

(Institutional Architecture for Improved Systems Operations and Management) and related state DOT workshops on Institutional Architectures to Advance Operational Strategies, L17 (A Framework for Improving Travel Time Reliability), L01 (Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel Time Reliability) and the Operations Training Framework developed under the NCHRP 20-77 project. The UMD Team is also aware of related activities that will be considered for coordination including the evolution of a web-based portal for operations knowledge (part of SHRP 2 L17), the development of an Operations Center of Excellence (NCHRP 20-7, Task 298) and the professional capacity building and peer exchange activities of RITA and FHWA, the objective of which is to facilitate implementation of operational best practices and promote collaboration in developing best practices including both technical and non-technical activities. In addition to the knowledge transfer and training efforts noted above, UMD Team members have been extensively involved in the development of the technical state of the practice in such emerging areas as Active Traffic Management (ATM) and Active Traffic Demand Management (ATDM), Integrated Corridor Management, Managed Lanes, Rural ITS Applications and Traveler Information Systems and are well positioned to include emerging SO&M subject matter in the curriculum.

• Pilot Testing and Evaluation

The UMD Team’s research plan recognizes the importance of performance-based knowledge transfer. Therefore, our proposal emphasizes pilot testing and evaluation of the ROF curriculum design in at least five ROFs and one follow up session around the country. Particular attention will be paid to the incorporation of existing and anticipated SHRP 2 research results in the piloted ROFs and adjustments to curriculum subject matter will be made as research results become available. The UMD Team will coordinate these activities with those in AASHTO responsible for the SHRP 2 implementation program. Because the UMD Team has been involved in SHRP 2 research that is directly applicable to this project, this research plan has already been significantly influenced by existing and anticipated SHRP 2 results. For example, the departure point proposed for developing a subject listing under Task 1 is based on the analysis of SO&M knowledge, skills and abilities analysis conducted as part of the SHRP 2 L17 project . The Task 2 ROF agenda development builds on L17 and integrates it with principles of the capability maturity model as developed under L06 and the Operations Academy™ subject matter.

The UMD Team also includes specific expertise in evaluating curriculum effectiveness which is specifically identified in Tasks 4 and 6. This includes experience in course evaluation and in designing, managing, and conducting public program evaluation using performance measures with a variety of assessment techniques and tools, including questionnaires, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and observation.

• Sustainable Business Model

Throughout the process of carrying out the tasks under this project, attention will be paid by the UMD Team to development of a sustainable business model for continued delivery of ROFs beyond this SHRP 2 L36 initiative. Ultimately, a business plan for supporting ROFs on a continuing and sustainable basis will be a critical output of this project and is a specific deliverable required under Task 7. As illustrated under the Task 2 description, UMD Team members – including Kathleen Frankle, the proposed Principal Investigator, have considerable experience in the development of courses, workshops, forums and other forms of training and interactions and their level of effort and cost implications. In addition, the work of team members at both the state and federal level provides a strong background in both the limitations and opportunities for funding in the current financial environment.



Research Plan 1-5

Technical Approach

Task 1: Literature Review of the SO&M State of the Art This task focuses on identifying the material of greatest relevance to curriculum development for the intended audiences of the ROFs. This material must cover a broad scope responsive to the potential wide range of variations in the context of ROF attendees with regard to urban and rural settings, regional context (weather, network), level of experience and resources.

Three activities comprise this task:

1. Topics for Literature Review

Exhibit 1 below presents a list of curriculum subject areas (in the left column) selected to ensure comprehensive consideration of all aspects of the TSM&O field. For the purposes of the literature review, these general subject areas have been further broken down into more specific topics (in the right column) that identify more detailed aspects of each subject area. This breakdown reflects the subject/topic structure developed in SHRP2 LO6, utilized in the FHWA Capability Maturity Model (CMM) workshops and currently structured into the searchable data base of the SHRP2 L17 Knowledge Transfer System (KTS).

By using this same structure, the results of the literature review conducted in this task can:

1. Take best advantage of material already in the L17 KTS data base, 2. Facilitate enhancing the L17 KTS data base through addition of important new material to it,

and 3. Offer ROF curriculum developers the advantage of the on-line search feature of the L17 KTS

data base.

L-17 Data Base Coverage -- In Exhibit 1, the italicized items in the left hand column indicate a few subject areas (4 of 18) that are not explicitly called out in the current L17 KTS data base – but which are likely to be considered as ROF subjects. Since each topic within a given subject area may also be a discrete target for literature search, the italicized items in the right hand column of Exhibit 2 indicate those topics that are not covered in the existing L17 KTS data base.

Focus Areas for Literature Search -- For the purposes of the ROFs, it is assumed that not all the subject areas or topics will be covered in the initial round. A preliminary set of topics that we consider to be relevant to the ROF agenda/curriculum is shown in Exhibit 1 in bold (whether or not italicized). Thus, the focus of the literature search will be on those subject areas and topics that are both italicized (not currently covered in the current L17 KTS data base) and bolded (considered to be relevant to the ROF agenda/curriculum).

Exhibit 1. Identification of Key Subject Areas/Topics

Subject Areas Topics

Managerial Issues

1. Business Processes

• Planning • Programming/budget • Performance measurement • Procurement mechanisms and processes • Project development



Research Plan 1-6

• Integration with safety, maintenance and new capacity projects

2. Performance Measurement

• Measures definition • Data collection • Analytics • Utilization

3. Funding

• Federal • State • Tolling and pricing • Innovative

4. Policy/Program/Regulations Development

• Federal SO&M • Regional SO&M • Corridor SO&M

5. Outreach/Marketing

• Business cases • Branding • Communicating with media • Social networks

Institutional Issues

6. Culture

• Leadership • Policy/decision maker support • Customer service • Program hierarchy • Program formality

7. Organization/Workforce

• Organizational structures • Reporting relationships • Staff training/certification • Conditions of employment • Career paths • Recruitment/retention • Blended contractor and agency staff

8. Education • Communicating reliability information • Course curricula • Training programs

9. Collaboration • State/MPO/local • DOT/Public Safety Agencies • Public-private

Technical Issues and State of Practice Examples

10. Systems and Technology

• System architecture • Systems engineering • Verification & validation (V&V) • ITS technology (monitor, control, disseminate) • Standards



Research Plan 1-7

11. Active Traffic Management

• Lane and speed control • Queue warning • Shoulder use/hard shoulder running • Adaptive ramp metering • Junction control

12. Managed Lanes • HOV • Managed lanes/HOT • Enforcement

13. Travel Demand Management

• Pricing • VMT charging • Dynamic ride matching • Active parking management • Transit signal priority

14. Planned and Unplanned Events

• ATDM • Integrated corridor management • Traffic incident management • Work zone management • Road weather management • Traffic control device operation • Emergency transportation operations • Transit management operations • Freight management operations

15. Vehicle Technologies • Connected Vehicle • Portable devices

16. Goods Movement

• Importance of reliability • Truck freight information systems • Preferential treatment • Truck parking systems

17. Traveler Information

• Mobile applications • Pre-trip • In-vehicle information systems • Roadside information systems • Freight information systems

18. Data and Analytic Tools

• Traveler behavior • Traffic dynamics • Reliability predictive methods • Evaluation of operations strategies • Data collection and management • Performance measurement • Economic analysis of reliability • Costs and benefits • Capability Maturity Model (CMM)



Research Plan 1-8

2. Literature Availability

The challenge in identifying key sources is that in some cases there is not “stand alone” literature associated with a specific topic – more than one topic is often addressed within a single document. In other cases, there may be more than one key document that addresses a specific topic.

The challenge of numbers is somewhat alleviated by the fact that the L17 KTS data base already provides the required information on the existing 23 SHRP2 Reliability products (see list below) and an additional 36 non-SHRP2 key TSM&O documents. Current documents that are in the L-17 data base include:

1. SHRP2 C01 - Transportation Collaborative Decision Making Framework 2. SHRP2 C02 Performance Measurement Framework for Transportation Decision Making 3. SHRP2 C02 RR – Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making 4. SHRP2 C04 - Improving Our Understanding of How Highway Congestion and Pricing Affect

Travel Demand 5. SHRP2 C05 - Understanding the Contributions of Operations, Technology, and Design to Meeting

Highway Capacity Needs 6. SHRP2 C10 - Partnership to Develop an Integrated Advanced Travel Demand Model with Mode

Choice Capability 7. SHRP2 L01 - Integrating Business Processes to Improve Travel Time Reliability 8. SHRP2 L02 - Establishing Monitoring Programs for Mobility and Travel Time Reliability 9. SHRP2 L03 - Analytic Procedures for Determining the Impacts of Reliability Mitigation Strategies 10. SHRP2 L03 Developing and Predicting Travel Time Reliability 11. SHRP2 L04 - Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures in Operations and Planning Modeling

Tools 12. SHRP2 L05 - Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and

Programming Processes 13. SHRP2 L06 - Institutional Architectures to Support Operational Strategies 14. SHRP2 L07 – Identification and Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of Highway Design Features to

Reduce NRC 15. SHRP2 L10 – Feasibility Of Using In-Vehicle Video Data To Explore How To Modify Driver

Behavior That Causes NRC 16. SHRP2 L11 - Evaluating Alternative operations Strategies to Improve Travel Time Reliability 17. SHRP2 L12 – Training And Certification Of Traffic Incident Responders 18. SHRP2 L13 - Requirements and Feasibility of a System for Archiving and Disseminating Data from

SHRP 2 19. SHRP2 L14 - Traveler Information and Travel Time Reliability 20. SHRP2 L17 Gap Filling Project 5: Guidebook for Placing a Value on Travel-Time Reliability 21. SHRP2 R10 - Project Management Strategies for Complex Projects 22. SHRP2 R11 – Strategic Approaches at the Corridor and Network Level to Minimize Disruption

from the Renewal Process 23. SHRP2 S03 – Roadway Measurement System Evaluation 24. 2011 Urban Mobility Report 25. A Primer on Performance-Based Highway Program Management – Examples from Selected States 26. Active Transportation Management: The Next Step in Congestion Management 27. Advancing Metropolitan Planning for Operations: The Building Blocks of a Model Transportation

Plan



Research Plan 1-9

28. Best Practices in Traffic Incident Management 29. Best Practices of Rural and Statewide ITS Strategic Planning 30. Chart Non-Constrained Deployment Plan 31. Congestion Management Process: A Guidebook 32. Cost-Effective Performance Measures for Travel Time Delay, Variation and Reliability 33. Field Operations Guide for Safety/Service Patrols 34. Freeway Management and Operations Handbook 35. Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement: Final Report and Guidebook 36. Improving Traffic Signal Management and Operations: A Basic Service Model 37. Improving Traffic Signal Operations: A Primer 38. Integrated Corridor Management 39. ITS Benefits, Costs and Lessons Learned Databases 40. Metropolitan Transportation Management Center Concepts of Operation 41. National Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC) Performance Measurement Initiative 42. NCHRP 03-94: Transportation Systems Operations and Management Guide 43. NCHRP 20-86: Attracting, Recruiting, and Retaining Skilled Staff for TSM&O 44. Optimizing the System: Saving Time, Saving Lives 45. Real-time Traveler Information Services Business Models: State of the Practice Review 46. Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination: A Primer 47. Road Weather Management Brochure 48. Seasons of Achievement – Accomplishments of the Road weather Management Program 49. Statewide Opportunities for Integrating Planning, Operations, and Safety: A Reference Manual 50. Statewide Opportunities For Linking Planning and Operations 51. Traffic Analysis Tools Program 52. Traffic Analysis Tools Program 53. Traffic Bottlenecks: A Primer Focus on Low Cost Operational Improvements 54. Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation 55. Traffic Incident Management Handbook 56. Travel Time Reliability: Making It There On Time, All The Time 57. VDOT Nova Smart Travel Program Plan: Executive Summary 58. VDOT Statewide Systems Operations Program 59. Work Zone Operations Best Practices Guidebook

Key sources to be reviewed will include:

1. SHRP 2 research products 2. Other key non-SHRP 2 SO&M documents synthesized by SHRP 2 L17. 3. Impacts of Technology Advancements on Transportation Management Center Operations,

Management Center Pooled Fund Study. 4. Operations Academy List serve material 5. USDOT websites, primarily the Office of Operations and the RITA Joint Program Office

knowledge resource site. 6. FHWA workshop/training materials 7. RITA Professional Capacity Building program 8. NHI course lists 9. CITE courses. 10. Review of websites of state Departments of Transportation. 11. Discussions with key FHWA personnel regarding the topics that are the focus of their current

technical support program for state DOTs.



Research Plan 1-10

3. Deliverables

The literature review task will produce two deliverables.

The first deliverable will be an enhanced L17 KTS searchable data base containing all of the key literature. A summary page for each source (existing and new) will contain the following information:

• Topic areas as related to the knowledge category • Title of project/activity • Sponsoring organization • Brief summary, including results or anticipated results • Status (including expected completion dates) • List of available (or anticipated) products

Exhibit 2 below presents the summary page format used in the KTS that we will continue to use.

The enhanced L17 KTS data base will be easily accessible, searchable, updatable and expandable. It is estimated that approximately 20 additional entries (including existing training course and workshop materials) will provide the needed source information for the relevant subject areas/topics not currently covered in the L17 KTS.

Exhibit 2. Sample Document Summary Page from L17 KTS Searchable Data Base



Research Plan 1-11

In addition to the enhanced L17 KTS data base, the second deliverable will be a separate memo that will discuss the implications of each document for the ROF agenda and instructional techniques. Exhibit 3 illustrates the approach we will use to characterize the literature items (existing and new) relative to these issues.

Exhibit 3 Literature Use in Forum

Literature/Document Use in Forum Preparation/Delivery

Document Title

Subject/ Topic

Coverage/ Level of Detail

How Used in Forum Relevant Instructional Technique

Level of Editing Needed if Used for Attendees

To prepare curriculum materials

As a direct resource for attendees



Research Plan 1-15

be eager to both level participate in an ROF. On December 20, 2012, the TETG for this project held a conference call and it was decided that the project would develop four day ROFs. In addition, given the importance of combining agenda, faculty and learning methods, a systematic performance evaluation process will be developed.

2. Develop Agenda Framework -- The agenda will provide for flexibility. Exhibit 3 below presents the agenda framework that includes the “menu” of subject sessions from which specific ROF agendas and curricula will be developed. The agenda sessions will reflect the approved list of subject areas from Task 1. The framework illustrates how the UMD Team will ensure that, at a strategic level, an appropriate mix of managerial, institutional and technical subjects are covered in the agendas. The managerial, institutional, and technical organization scheme corresponds to the Task 1 subject area list groupings.

Exhibit 3. Agenda Development Framework Subject Area

Groups Subject Areas Three-Day Program Five-Day Workshop

Managerial • Business processes • Performance measurement • Funding • Policy/Program/Regulations • Outreach/Marketing

Critical for senior managers

Included, but lower/different level of detail

Institutional • Culture • Organization/Work Force • Education • Collaboration

Full operations capability workshop with abbreviated breakout exercise

Full operations capability workshop with teams/breakout exercise

Technical • Systems and technology • Active traffic management • Managed lanes • Travel demand management • Planned and Unplanned

Events • Vehicle Technologies • Goods Movement • Traveler Information

Briefer treatment of selected topics included, with focus on recent research results, benefits and innovative deployments

Fuller coverage of a broader range of selected technical topics relevant to the participants with lessons learned and best practices overview

Field Trip Visit to local transportation management center or project site with presentation by local staff

Potential evening activity or optional session prior to start of 3 day program

Included and tailored to participants

Workshop with case studies/ break out sessions

Not included. Included



Research Plan 1-16

Certain subjects will be designated as “core subjects” and will be offered at all ROFs. Examples include sessions on leadership and management, institutional capability (Capability Maturity Model) and performance measurement. In addition, the agenda will also include a range of specific “optional” topics - sessions that each region will select from to tailor its ROF to its specific needs and audience that will vary by geographic setting (urban/rural), relevant SO&M strategies (basic and advanced) and current levels of capability (mature, developing). Thus, the total number of agenda sessions identified (core plus optional) will exceed the times available for any given ROF with the understanding that not all optional sessions would be included in any given workshop/program (or, perhaps shortened versions of some sessions could be presented to accommodate more optional sessions).

In addition, it is important to note that the ROF program is understood to be a multiyear sequential activity which, in subsequent years, as additional funding resources are identified, will not only serve new participants, but will also bring back a selection of “graduates” for possible progress review and introduction of new or follow-on topics.

As required by the RFP, the annotated outline for the four day ROF that is submitted for review will:

• Identify the subjects to be covered (both core and optional), including a bulleted list of items to be covered under each subject

• Identify the time to be devoted to each subject • Identify the recommended sequence of sessions • Describe the instructional techniques to be used (see discussion under Task 4) • Identify a set of potential instructors for each session

The UMD Team proposes that a one-day follow-up ROF be conducted at the location of the first ROF at least six months afterwards. This one-day session would bring back the original attendees to achieve the following activities:

• Facilitate a discussion where the original ROF attendees share lessons learned and how they have been able to implement (or are trying to implement) what they gleaned from the ROF they attended,

• Present to the group any SHRP 2 reliability research activity that has been published since their original ROF that would be beneficial to them, and

• Collect valuable evaluation information regarding participants’ retention of information, ability to implement what was learned, and thoughts on the course after time to reflect.

3. Identify Faculty and Facilitators - The UMD Team will identify a set of potential instructors for both core and optional sessions. The “pool” of potential instructors would include:

• SO&M practitioners – public or private – that represent the state of the practice in specific technical areas and/or who can provide instructive case histories including state DOT staff, consultants, research and support entities or associations and academic based institutions.

• SO&M-related researchers – university, research organization or consultants who can provide appropriate perspectives and research based insights.

• Selected individuals with policy-making and managerial background relevant to policy, institutional and management expertise.

In addition to the above, certain sessions will be designed to focus on specific issues that are characteristic of the contexts or organizations participating in each regional ROF. For these “local” sessions, it will be the Team’s intent to identify someone in the region where the ROF is being presented that can speak knowledgeably on subjects where local knowledge is critical.



Research Plan 1-17

Examples are weather management, heavy vehicle incident management, major special events and working with the media.

A key to the success of each ROF will be the identification of a knowledgeable facilitator who can:

• “Keep things moving,” • Generate lively discussion, broad participation and interaction among participants and with

instructors, • Provide a neutral perspective, • Tie together all the ROF sessions, and • Answer questions on a variety of ROF topics.

A facilitator will be assigned to each ROF session and the UMD Team will seek approval for a set of qualified facilitators who could serve in this role depending on such factors as the location of the ROF, the topics to be covered, the availability of the facilitators and the preference of sponsoring organizations.

The potential instructor and facilitator pools will include team members who have had considerable relevant experience in course training and workshop development & execution. It will also include TETG members, as well as federal and state experts. Currently our Team’s list of potential candidates consists of: Steve Albert, Gary Euler, Tom Jacobs, Les Jacobson, Chris Poe and Pierre Pretorius. Ms. Frankle will work with the SHRP 2 staff contact to establish this list.

4. Develop Performance Measurement System - The UMD Team will identify proper performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the program. This activity will be performed by Westat as the independent expert review group that we will establish in conformance with the Task 6 requirement. Westat is currently performing in a similar capacity providing impartial expert evaluation of AARP’s national Driver Safety program, as part of a review and subsequent update. The review included classroom materials, instructional approaches and feedback, online delivery, and overall program structure and efficiency. Westat has also recently served an almost identical role as the current one in an independent reviewer capacity evaluating products and deployments from FHWA’s pedestrian safety program. The evaluation findings and recommendations were incorporated into FHWA’s Pedestrian Safety Strategic Plan. In addition, Westat regularly serves as an independent evaluator of federal, state, and local programs in numerous fields including transportation, education, health and nutrition.

A cross walk of the performance measures with their associated data elements, data sources, and analysis plans will be developed to identify strengths and weaknesses in the ROF activities. There will be an emphasis on early discovery of potential weaknesses that can be corrected as the program continues to develop in later tasks. It will also be essential for criterion-related validity of performance measures—that is, the extent to which they are measuring the appropriate ROF objectives and identifying potential gaps. This process will include development of a logic model which helps to sharpen an evaluation design by clarifying the assumed linkages among product/program resources and inputs, target population, activities, outputs, and short-term and long-term outcomes and impacts. The model should be able to inform development of evaluation questions and performance measures for two areas: a) utilization (who will use the ROF and how), b) outcomes -- both short-term and long-term.

The Westat evaluation team will work closely with the curriculum developers and other stakeholders (including the SHRP 2 Senior Program Manager and the TETG) to clearly identify the explicit goals of the ROF and define performance measures accordingly. This will be



Research Plan 1-18

accomplished by a focused meeting with relevant parties to ensure the goals are clearly identified so that the performance measurement team can then define the performance measures survey instruments to be developed in Task 4. The review team will also take advantage of lessons learned from earlier performance measures (both strengths and weaknesses) that were used as part of the Operations Academy™.

5. Submit Draft Annotated Outlines for Review - The UMD Team will prepare the draft agenda for the four-day ROF and submit them for discussion with SHRP 2 staff and the TETG. In the Team’s budget, we have provided for two rounds of review and comment by SHRP 2 staff and the TETG since it is critical to “get it right” and ensure that a broad range of perspectives has been considered and outstanding issues resolved before proceeding with content development – and that the criteria for faculty is appropriate.

In addition, the UMD Team proposes to send the proposed draft agenda to a select set of graduates from the Operations Academy™ conducted by the UMD CATT. As part of our proposal development, our Team communicated with many graduates throughout the country and received a number of thoughtful replies that were used as input in the formulation of this research plan. As a peer group that has experienced similar training, the Team anticipates receiving invaluable input from them on a continuing basis.

The UMD Team will submit its initial proposed agenda for review by the TETG. Staffing will not be addressed in the first draft version. Comments will be incorporated and a revised draft agenda will be presented; this version will contain staffing recommendations. Curriculum development under Task 4 will be initiated only after approval of the final version of the agenda has been received.

Task 3: Regional Operations Forum Venues for Pilot Deliveries The UMD Team plans to use the combined knowledge of its Team Members and graduates of the Operations Academy™, blended with the ten regions utilized for the Everyday Counts (ECD) program, to effectively identify where ROFs should be offered. In 2011, UMD Team member SAIC conducted a “Planning for Operations” assessment for FHWA to identify regions with existing groups focused on operations. With FHWA’s permission, this assessment could also serve as a resource for identifying ROF locations. The AASHTO SSOM members and FHWA Operations staff in Division offices may also provide valuable inputs.

The UMD Team was strategically crafted to include consultants from a variety of geographic locations around the country. In addition, team members will have been involved in state DOT capability workshops in 13 states, working with key state DOT staff. This provides the UMD Team with specific knowledge of individuals within agencies, agency activities and regional issues that will assist the UMD Team with selecting the best locations for the ROFs. The UMD Team also has strong relationships with graduates of the Operations Academy™ which provides them the unique opportunity of having committed agency contacts with the knowledge of the importance of conducting the ROFs to assist the Team with the activities shown in subtask 1 below.

Three activities comprise this task:

1. Research and Identify Venue Locations and Order of Magnitude Costs -- It is important that the ROFs are scheduled in a location where one or more agencies are willing to assist the UMD team in:

• Identifying potential participants, • Providing host functions including leveraged invitations among participating entities,



Research Plan 1-19

• Identifying and/or hosting a field trip, • Providing suggestions regarding venues, and • Leading/maintaining regional networking once the ROF is complete.

The ROFs will not be offered all at once; rather they will be scheduled a at least a month apart during the second year of the project. This will allow for changes to be made based on the evaluation results of the previous ROFs offered.

Based on rough estimates of the cost to conduct the four-day ROFs, it is estimated that five four-day programs and a one-day follow up can probably be conducted for this project. It should be noted that the costs for the development of the curriculum and actual costs of the ROFs are estimates. If the project team feels that any point during the project that it cannot deliver the five four day ROFs and one follow up session, the TETG will be alerted immediately.

2. Development of Working Paper and Any Necessary Adjustments -- Based on the research conducted under subtask 1 above, the UMD Team will develop a working paper that contains the following information:

• Recommended geographic locations • Recommended venues

o Rationale as to their selection o Costs associated with the venues

• Number of participants for each ROF • Budget for these activities

The working paper will be submitted to the TETG for review and comment. The UMD Team will make any adjustments necessary following feedback received or discussions concerning potential venues. The UMD Team recommends that the TETG provide their input on potential locations prior to the completion of the full working paper.

Task 4: Develop the Regional Operations Forum Curriculum This task, through its four related activities, focuses on converting the objectives, literature review findings, agenda and personnel assignments into specific curricula. In this activity, the substantive topics will be identified together with the related learning methods and supporting resources and performance measures.

1. Develop Course Materials - The UMD Team will prepare the course material for each session identified in the five-day and three-day ROF agendas. A flexible curriculum “strategy” will be developed that will accommodate not only regional differences and needs but also a multi-year sequence approach as well as potential relationships with the Operations Academy™ curriculum and participants.

From the list of approved potential instructors, the UMD Team will identify someone that will “own” each session. This individual will be responsible for developing the course material using the instruction technique approved for that session in the approved agenda. We anticipate that this individual will also then serve as the primary instructor for that session, since he/she will be the person most familiar with the material and session flow.



Research Plan 1-20

The session “owners” will ensure that the curricula material incorporates the results from the Task 1 literature review to reflect the results of recent SHRP 2 research, other national and state and local research, and innovative deployed practices. In our cost proposal, we have provided time to continually update material as new SHRP 2 and other research products emerge and as new deployment innovations are identified in order to keep the ROFs as up-to-date with the state-of-the-art as possible.

We anticipate being able to use certain materials already prepared for the Operations Academy™ sessions as a departure point for a number of the ROF sessions that will be developed. This material will obviously need to be revised and supplemented in order to make sure it incorporates all of the topics to be covered, reflects the instructional techniques for each session as per the approved agenda, and incorporates appropriate innovative delivery methods.

2. Apply Appropriate Learning Methods and Media -- For each Forum, both the objectives, performance criteria, learning methods, instructional techniques and learning resources will be systematically identified. The course material will include all PowerPoint presentations, videos, visualizations and animations, interactive approaches and handouts to be used during ROF presentations. Material will be developed for all core, optional and local sessions. For the latter, we will develop a presentation template that suggests topics to be covered by the local presenters.

The UMD Team has had successful experience with the delivery of training to professionals using a variety of multi-media techniques. The UMD Team will assess techniques that could be used: 1) pre-course to assist in program preparation and learning background information, or 2) during the course delivery. These would be designed to encourage more interaction among participants, participants and instructors, or participants and outside transportation experts. These interactions would also serve to establish relationships that will serve participants beyond the actual face-to-face interaction during the three-day or five-day program.

If it is determined that any pre-study is necessary, the UMD Team recommends that a portion of that material be available using on-line interactive material. Since June 2000, the UMD CATT Consortium for ITS Education (CITE) program has developed 39 interactive on-line advanced transportation short courses that provide transportation professionals the flexibility to take the courses exactly when needed and as time allows in their busy schedule. Brief courses of this type could provide useful “pre-ROF” background material to support more focused ROF curricula. For more information on the CITE program, see Appendix A.

The course material will reflect an emphasis on interactive discussion rather than long lectures or PowerPoint presentations. This principle has been used in the development of course material for the Operations Academy™ and the SHRP2 LO6 Capability Maturity Workshops and has proven very successful – participants learn as much from each other as they do from the instructor/facilitator and conclusions reached from group consensus in discussion tend to induce greater “ownership” of the material.

There are a wide range of other innovative delivery methods that will be considered, including:

• Use of video conferencing (e.g., web conferencing, Skype, etc.) to bring a keynote speaker or operations expert to speak remotely to the course participants,

• Use of on-line communication to allow operations experts to answer questions or provide best practices with the course participants,

• Use of social media (e.g., Twitter) to allow real-time exchange of information, and • Use of webinars to accommodate remote participation in certain sessions and to provide for

recording for future use in the host region.



Research Plan 1-21

The use of video for standard “lectures” is becoming increasingly popular in the academic community. The concept is that rather than have classroom lectures about “standard” subjects, students “attend” lectures on-line via video and then use classroom time for discussion and group projects (facilitated by an instructor) emphasizing application of what is taught in the video lectures. Students could “attend” their lectures as part of pre-ROF preparation, or as homework assignments during the ROF.

The UMD Team will identify the most effective innovative delivery methods and assess which can be included cost effectively in the pilot forums without disrupting the core delivery of material.

The UMD Team also has extensive experience and knowledge of tools and techniques available to establish and support post-ROF peer networks. These peer networks are critical to the long-term success of ROF subject matter implementation, sharing of SO&M best practices, and maintain peer communication and collaboration between successive ROFs. One of the most significant outcomes of the Operations Academy™ is the degree of networking that occurs among graduates. A list serve has been established that is reserved exclusively for interaction among the graduates from all sessions of the program and there is a constant stream of data sharing.

3. Performance Measures - Performance measures will be developed based on overall ROF goals and within the process identified in Task 2. To ensure efficiency and cost-savings, the UMD Team will build on already established ratings forms and questionnaires used in the Operations Academy™. These will be tailored based on input from the project team and stakeholders (including the SHRP 2 Senior Program Manager and the TETG). The measures will be adjusted to focus on the primary goals noted in Task 2.

Based on the definitions of performance measures mapped to outcomes identified in Task 2 and input from the project team and stakeholders, the performance measures will go through piloting and cognitive interviewing to ensure proper delivery. In addition, a brief interview script will be developed to accompany ratings forms and open-ended questions given on site to allow for guided brief discussions with participants that may yield additional insights about shortcomings and gaps in the ROF delivery/content. All measures will be revised based on piloting and feedback, with final versions being implemented in Task 6.

4. Curriculum Review and Modification – All developed curriculum will be posted to the web for download and review by the TETG. Feedback will be provided either by conference call or via e-mail, whichever works best for the TETG. The UMD Team will create a comprehensive set of action items resulting from the feedback and create a disposition matrix to indicate how each action item will be resolved. Since the course material will be continually revised throughout the life of the project, it is recommended that we maintain a current set of course materials on the SHRP 2 or L17 Knowledge Transfer System website.

Over the life of ROFs, it is expected that there will be the need and/or opportunity to modify and improve the curriculum and methods. The UMD Team has provided for time in its cost proposal to modify session material throughout the life of this project. Material will need to be revised as new products emerge from SHRP 2 or other research or deployment experience, or to reflect the need for revisions based on experience at previous ROFs.

As Principal Investigator, Ms. Frankle will be responsible for ensuring overall presentation quality and the completeness of the content for each ROF session. Templates will be provided to session developers so that all PowerPoint presentations and other materials have a common “look and feel.” She will review all developed material from the perspective of presentation



Research Plan 1-22

quality, and provide for a review process among team members from the perspective of completeness and quality of content.

Task 5: Scheduling and Outreach Once the TETG approves the locations of the ROFs, the UMD Team will begin the process of officially scheduling the ROFs. Utilizing the working paper developed under Task 3, the UMD Team will perform the four activities discussed below.

1. Coordinate with Hosts –

Gather Input on Participants -- Host agencies identified under Task 3 will be contacted and an initial list of potential participants will be identified. In order to ensure that a comprehensive list of appropriate participants is generated, the UMD Team will circulate the initial list developed with the host to UMD Project Team members, the AASHTO subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management (SSOM), the SHRP 2 TETG and Operations Academy™ graduates in the region. In order to ensure that the outcomes of the ROF are realized, it is important that the regional participants represent a variety of agencies in the region and also a variety of disciplines. A finalized draft of potential participants will then be circulated to all parties to ensure that the invitee list is complete.

Identify Field Study Location -- The UMD Team will work with the host to identify the best location for a ROF field visit. This activity will provide an opportunity to reinforce the materials that participants are learning/discussing in the classroom and offer a wider range of learning experiences. Since the field visit will be outside of the regular meeting facility, the UMD Team will also coordinate arrangements to transport participants to and from the field study location. As part of the ROF, participants will be required to review the facility that is visited. The UMD Team will coordinate with the field visit contact to ensure that they are invited to the review session if they desire to participate.

Preliminary Agenda -- The UMD Team will coordinate with the host to review and identify potential sessions they would be interested in offering during their ROF. As discussed earlier, some of the sessions presented during the ROF will be “Core” and will be given during all ROFs, but there will also be many “optional” sessions based on the needs of the region. It will be important that the UMD Team coordinate with the host(s) to ensure they are gleaning the outcomes that they desire from the ROF. Once the Team coordinates with the host on the sessions they would like presented, the Agenda Development Team will review the agenda to ensure that the sessions and activities planned will advance transportation SO&M in the region as a result of the ROF.

2. Develop ROF Summary

For each ROF that is conducted, the UMD Team will prepare an ROF summary for the TETG. The summary will include:

• Date and location of the ROF • Facilities Needed • Preliminary Agenda • Proposed assignment of facilitator, logistics coordinator (see Task 6) and session instructors • Description of Field Study location • Transportation Requirements

3. Schedule ROF and Begin Coordination Activities



Research Plan 1-23

Once the TETG approves the ROF locations, the UMD Team will officially schedule the ROFs and begin all the facilities coordination and instruction preparation. The UMD Team is using Housman & Associates to coordinate with the facilities for all ROF’s. They will handle activities such as: negotiating room rates, organizing meeting logistics (meeting room, breakout rooms, projectors, microphone, internet access, meals, breaks, etc), ROF registration by participants, hotel reservations and travel for all participants, on-site logistics during each ROF and any other coordination activities needed with the venue.

Housman & Associates has extensive experience in site selection, hotel negotiations, logistics, online registration, database management, email marketing, sponsorship solicitation, and meeting management. They have planned meetings all over the United States and Puerto Rico. Owner, June Housman, has a background in meeting planning that goes back over 30 yrs, planning and coordinating meetings as the Conference Services Manager at the Texas Transportation Institute, the Texas DOT Short Course and Meeting Consultant to AASHTO.

4. Outreach to ROF Participants

The UMD Team will reach out to all potential participants. This activity will be coordinated with the assistance of the regional agencies that will be involved with the ROF. It will be imperative that the invitees understand the importance of their attendance at the ROF and that their superiors encourage their participation. Actual meeting registration will be handled by Housman & Associates, but the most important step in the registration process will be to confirm that the invitees are committed to participating.

A similar process will be followed in conjunction with the proposed follow-up workshop. The UMD Team will work with the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer and the TETG to identify the location for the follow-on workshop, and with the host(s) at the selected location to assemble as many participants from the initial ROF as possible. The UMD Team will work the host(s), NCHRP Senior Program Officer and the TETG on the agenda for the one-day follow-up session. The focus will be on assessing the impact that the original ROF had in that region, with the performance measures developed in Tasks 2 and 4 used as a guide in shaping the agenda.

Task 6: Regional Operations Forum Pilot Program Delivery At this point in the project, the UMD Team will be ready to conduct the four-day ROFs. Any necessary changes resulting from the review of the curriculum materials in Task 4 have been completed and the UMD Team is now ready to actively involve a number of regional locations around the country in the advancement of transportation SO&M and mainstream the research being conducted by the SHRP 2 Reliability program.

Each ROF will be staffed during the entire ROF by a “facilitator” and a “logistics coordinator.” As discussed under Task 2, the facilitator is the key to success of the ROF’s. That person is responsible for keeping the flow of the ROF moving, generating lively discussion and interaction among participants and with instructors, tying together all the ROF sessions, providing a neutral perspective, and answering questions on a variety of ROF topics. The logistics coordinator is equally important only in different ways. The logistics coordinator will make sure that:

• Participants receive thumb drives with presentations on day one of the ROF • The meeting room has all required equipment and is in working order • Instructors and speakers are ready and prepared for their session • The field study location is confirmed and prepared for the participants arrival • Transportation to the field study has been confirmed and will be ready as scheduled • Breaks and meals are prepared and ready as scheduled



Research Plan 1-24

• A printer and any supplies needed for workshop are available for participants use • Participants sign the daily sign in sheet to confirm their daily attendance • CEU certificates are correct and ready to be distributed on the last day of the ROF • Photographs are taken the last day of the ROF (group and individual receiving CEU certificate) • File sharing space has been set up for participant use • Etc.

As noted in the RFP, an impartial evaluation will be conducted for each ROF. The evaluation process is imperative to the success of the ROF program. First, it will ensure that the ROF deployments are attaining their goals. Second, it will allow the UMD Team to make adjustments to the ROFs based on participant feedback. For the Operations Academy™, UMD CATT has adjusted the program after every single offering of the two week program as part of a continuous quality improvement process that we will apply to the ROFs. Therefore, we anticipate that no two sessions will ever be exactly the same and each succeeding session will be better than the previous one.

Evaluating a program can be done at multiple levels, but for this project the Westat evaluation group will focus on program success as it relates to instructional content and training. Evaluation information for each RFO will be collected using the performance measures defined and developed in Tasks 2 and 4. The basic process is as follows:

• A trained observer and interviewer who is part of the Westat evaluation group will visit each ROF site on the final day to independently collect performance measures. This will take place without the instructors or other project staff to ensure participants can speak freely.

• Performance measures in rating and open-ended questionnaire form will be given to all participants.

• In addition, a brief moderated discussion will occur with participants to allow for more dynamic feedback than can usually be given in open-ended responses. Participants often have a reluctance to write detailed responses, but can elaborate more when in guided discussions.

• All performance measures, including notes from observations/discussions will be entered into an electronic format (transcribed notes and ratings entered into a database). These data will be kept separate from the rest of the project team and housed at Westat to ensure independence.

• Performance measures and notes will be summarized immediately, with recommendations provided after each ROF so as to allow for any adjustments that need to be made for future offerings.

Following each ROF, the UMD Team will prepare a technical memorandum documenting the results of the ROF. The memorandum will include:

• A description of what worked and what did not based on feedback and observations from the facilitator and logistics coordinator,

• A summary of recommended modifications for the next ROF offering based on feedback and observations from the facilitator and logistics coordinator,

• Document the results of the independent evaluation conducted by Westat, and • Document the attendees and their successful completion (or not) of the program.

Also following each ROF, the UMD Team will prepare a second technical memorandum discussing SHRP 2 Reliability research. Besides modifying ROF agendas based on evaluation results, it is important that the UMD Team continue to monitor the availability of new research being published from on-going SHRP 2 Research projects. The memorandum will discuss any new research and/or products that might be recently made available and discuss how, if possible, these can be incorporated into the curriculum for the next ROF offering.



Research Plan 1-25

Task 7: Final Report The UMD Team will prepare a draft final report documenting all of the activities that have occurred in connection with this project and deliver it within 60 calendar days after the conclusion of the last ROF. In addition to incorporation of all previous task technical memorandum deliverables, the draft final report will include:

• A summary of the performance measures that have been recorded for the forums including documentation of the costs and benefits of these activities,

• Copies of all final versions of instructional material and software used in connection with the forums,

• A summary of the number of ROFs and attendees including analysis of their backgrounds and levels of experience,

• Recommended future activities in terms of adjustments to the overall ROF program, modifications to the curriculum, and extensions of the ROFs to other geographic locations and other agencies, and

• An implementation plan for deployment of the ROFs and a recommended business plan for funding the ROFs on a continuing basis.

The last bullet in the above list will enlist the broad resources and expertise within the UMD Team. Previous efforts in supporting ongoing SO&M training and education will be analyzed for lessons learned and best practices for maintaining program sustainability. This will include, but is not limited to, the Operations Academy™, the Consortium for ITS Education (CITE), and the Local Technology Assistance Program. In developing a recommended Business Plan, the UMD Team will also coordinate closely with the NCHRP 20-7 Center of Excellence (COE) project to ensure ROF sustainability is integrated within the COE concept.

The draft final report will be submitted for review by the TETG and the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer. Comments provided to the UMD Team will be incorporated within 30 days and a final report will be developed and submitted.



Research Plan 1-26

Anticipated Research Results There are three major activities that the UMD Team will accomplish through this project.

1. The UMD Team will develop a curriculum for the regional operations forums (ROFs) based on a comprehensive review of available and anticipated research results of the SHRP 2 Reliability program and other information available from SO&M resources including federal, state, and local initiatives.

2. The UMD Team will pilot test five four-day ROFs and one follow-up session. The curriculum will be continually updated to ensure that currently available SHRP 2 research results and anticipated research outcomes are incorporated into the curriculum as they become available. Each ROF will be evaluated and agendas/curriculum adjusted based on feedback received during the evaluation process.

3. The UMD Team will develop a sustainable business model for the ROFs beyond the scope of this research project.

Task 1 Deliverable The literature review task will produce two deliverables.

The first deliverable will be an enhanced L17 KTS searchable data base containing all of the key literature. A summary page for each source (existing and new) will contain the following information:

• Topic areas as related to the knowledge category • Title of project/activity • Sponsoring organization • Brief summary, including results or anticipated results • Status (including expected completion dates) • List of available (or anticipated) products

The enhanced L17 KTS data base will be easily accessible, searchable, updatable and expandable. It is estimated that approximately 20 additional entries (including existing training course and workshop materials) will provide the needed source information for the relevant subject areas/topics not currently covered in the L17 KTS.

In addition to the enhanced L17 KTS data base, the second deliverable will be a separate memo that will discuss the implications of each document for the ROF agenda and instructional techniques. Exhibit 3 illustrates the approach we will use to characterize the literature items (existing and new) relative to these issues.

Task 2 Deliverable The UMD Team will prepare a draft agenda for the four-day ROFs and submit these for discussion with SHRP 2 staff and the TETG. In the Team’s budget, we have provided for two rounds of review and comment by SHRP 2 staff and the TETG since it is critical to “get it right” and ensure that a broad range of perspectives has been considered and outstanding issues resolved before proceeding with content development. Along with the draft agendas, the UMD Team will identify and submit performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the ROF four-day programs.

Task 3 Deliverable The UMD Team will develop a working paper that contains the following information:



Research Plan 1-27

• Recommended geographic locations • Recommended venues

o Rationale as to their selection o Costs associated with the venues

• Number of participants for each ROF • Budget for these activities

The working paper will be submitted to the TETG for review and comment. The UMD Team will make any adjustments necessary following feedback received or discussions concerning potential venues. The UMD Team recommends that the TETG provide their input on potential locations prior to the completion of the full working paper.

Task 4 Deliverable During this Task, the UMD Team will develop and deliver the ROF curriculum. The developed curriculum will be posted on the web and TETG members will be able to download and review it. Feedback will be provided either by conference call or via e-mail, whichever works best for the TETG. Content will include learning objectives, PowerPoint presentations, videos, handouts, workshop materials, local session templates, quizzes, evaluation materials and any other proposed instruction material.

Task 5 Deliverable For each ROF that is conducted, the UMD Team will prepare an ROF summary for the TETG. The summary will include:

• Date and location of the ROF • Facilities Needed • Preliminary Agenda • Proposed assignment of facilitator, logistics coordinator (see Task 6) and session instructors • Description of Field Study location • Transportation Requirements

Task 6 Deliverable

During this task, the UMD Team will deliver five day-day ROFs and one follow-up session. Following each ROF, the UMD Team will prepare a technical memorandum documenting the results of the ROF. The memorandum will include:

• A description of what worked and what did not based on feedback and observations from the facilitator and logistics coordinator,

• A summary of recommended modifications for the next ROF offering based on feedback and observations from the facilitator and logistics coordinator,

• Document the results of the independent evaluation conducted by Westat, and • Document the attendees and their successful completion (or not) of the program.

Also following each ROF, the UMD Team will prepare a second technical memorandum discussing SHRP 2 Reliability research. Besides modifying ROF agendas based on evaluation results, it is important that the UMD Team continue to monitor the availability of new research being published from on-going SHRP 2 Research projects. The memorandum will discuss any new research and/or products that might be recently made available and discuss how, if possible, these can be incorporated into the curriculum for the next ROF offering.



Research Plan 1-28

Task 7 Deliverable The UMD Team will prepare a draft final report documenting all of the activities that have occurred in connection with this project and deliver it within 60 calendar days after the conclusion of the last ROF. In addition to incorporation of all previous task technical memorandum deliverables, the draft final report will include:

• A summary of the performance measures that have been recorded for the forums including documentation of the costs and benefits of these activities,

• Copies of all final versions of instructional material and software used in connection with the forums,

• A summary of the number of ROFs and attendees including analysis of their backgrounds and levels of experience,

• Recommended future activities in terms of adjustments to the overall ROF program, modifications to the curriculum, and extensions of the ROFs to other geographic locations and other agencies, and

• An implementation plan for deployment of the ROFs and a recommended business plan for funding the ROFs on a continuing basis.

The draft final report will be submitted for review by the TETG and the SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer. Comments provided to the UMD Team will be incorporated within 30 days and a final report will be developed and submitted.

Detailed Work Plan Listed separately under “Deliverables” in the RFP and not included as a task deliverable as identified above is a detailed work plan for the project including detailed time line with tasks, delivery dates, and proposed schedule for conducting the regional ROFs.



Research Plan 1-29

Applicability of Results to SHRP 2 Objectives Following is a description of how the anticipated research results from this project apply to each of the L36 project objectives.

1. SHRP 2 L36 Objective – To design a curriculum for the ROFs based on a comprehensive review of all available and anticipated research results of the SHRP 2 Reliability program and other information available from SO&M resources including federal, state, and local initiatives. The curriculum could us as a starting point the syllabus of existing SO&M educational and outreach programs including those of the Operations Academy™. Applicability of Research Results

• Under Task 1 a literature review will produce two things. First an enhanced L17 KTS searchable data base containing all of the key literature. The second deliverable will be a separate memo that will discuss the implications of each document for the ROF agenda and instructional techniques.

• The results of Task 2 will include draft agenda for the four-day ROF which will include discussion, review and input from SHRP 2 staff and the TETG. The ROF agenda will take into account subjects covered by the Operations Academy™, and related SHRP 2 Reliability, NCHRP, and AASTHO research and activities as described in the Research Plan.

• The results of Task 4, through its four related activities described in the Research Plan, will convert the objectives, literature review findings, draft agendas, and personnel assignments from previous tasks into specific curricula. This curricula will go through a review by the TETG.

2. SHRP 2 L36 Objective – To pilot test the curriculum developed in this project in such a manner that currently available SHRP2 research results and future/anticipated research outcomes are incorporated into the curriculum as they become available and the pilot test is adjusted accordingly. The piloting process will include both curriculum delivery and ongoing evaluation of its effectiveness. The modifications will be made on a continuing basis as the research outcomes are available. Applicability of Research Results

• The results of Task 4, through its four related activities described in the Research Plan, will convert the objectives, literature review findings, draft agendas, and personnel assignments from previous tasks into specific curricula.

• Task 2 will result in development of a Performance Measurement System that will be used to clearly identify the explicit goals of the ROF and define performance measures accordingly. The performance measures will go through piloting and cognitive interviewing in Task 4. All performance measures will be revised based on piloting and feedback with final versions implemented in Task 6. The performance measures will be



Research Plan 1-30

used to evaluate each ROF in Task 6 and allow for incremental adjustments for future ROF offerings.

• As described in Task 6 of the Research Plan, following each ROF, the UMD Team will prepare a memorandum documenting the results of the ROF along with a second memorandum discussing SHRP 2 Reliability research. This second memorandum will discuss any new research and/or products that might be recently made available and discuss how, if possible, these can be incorporated into the curriculum for the next ROF offering.

3. To develop a sustainable business model for the ROFs beyond SHRP 2.

Applicability of Research Results

• The UMD Team will be taking development of a sustainable business model for the ROFs throughout this project. Specifically, as part of Task 7, the UMD Team will deliver an implementation plan for deployment of the ROFs including a recommended business plan for funding the ROFs on a continuing basis. An important part of ROF sustainability will be establishment of ROF peer networks as described in Tasks 4 and 6 of the Research Plan.

project shrp 2 l36 regional operations forums for ...€¦ · project shrp 2 l36 . regional...

Documents