CCTF Meeting Notes: July 25, 2011

DRAFT

MINUTES

Collaboration & Coordination Task Force

July 25, 2011

Salt Lake City, UT

DRAFT

Attendees

RAC Members

Sue Sillick, Montana DOT (Chair)

Jeff Brown, ALDOT

David Jared, Georgia DOT

Michael Townley, Michigan DOT

Leni Oman, Wash. State DOT

Sandra Larson, Iowa DOT

TRB Conduct of Research Members

Jason Bittner, Univ. of Wisconsin

Hau Hagedorn, Oregon

Barbara Harder, B.T. Harder & Assoc.

Matt Klein, RITA

Associate Members

Steve Albert, WTI

Friends

Ron Curb, Oklahoma DOT

Kim Linsenmeyer, CTC & Associates

Jim McDonnell, AASHTO

Ned Parrish, Idaho TD

Martin Pietrucha, Penn State

Larry Sutter, Michigan Tech

Guests

Eli Cuelho, WTI

Karen Glitman, University of Vermont

Jack Jernigan, FHWA-TFHRC

Cameron Kergaye, UDOT

David Kuehn, FHWA

Natassja Linzau, TRB

Richard Long, Univ. of Florida

John Moulden, FHWA-TFHRC

Mary Moulton, NTL

Shashi Nambisan, Iowa State University

Tommy Nantung, INDOT

James Watkins, Miss. DOT

DRAFT

1. Introductions/Housekeeping

· Chair Sue Sillick welcomed members, friends, and guests to the Coordination and Collaboration Task Force (CCTF) meeting. Total attendance was 29.

· Sue explained to attendees that CCTF is not just an AASHTO-RAC committee, but it is actually a partnership between AASHTO-RAC and TRB’s Conduct of Research Committee.

· The 5/25 CCTF meeting notes were approved with no changes.

2. RiP Database

· This database is valuable for C&C activities. It helps us all understand the research that various organizations are conducting so that we don’t reinvent the wheel and to find partners working on the same types of research.

· State DOT’s and UTCs are required to enter projects into RiP. USDOT agencies are scheduled to add their projects to RiP by 2014 through a separate database. Prototype is at Volpe (Next Generation). Phase I coming this fall. When research complete, NTL will get copy.

· Two questions arise related to the RiP database: 1) How do we ensure 100% data entry by those who are required to enter projects into RiP and 2) What organizations should be entering data into RiP who aren’t?

· Various options were discussed to address the first issue: FHWA/ RITA oversight role, self-policing, and an automated process that notifies organizations to update their records.

· A gap analysis needs to be done to answer the second question. Some possible organizations include: non-USDOT federal, private, non-profit Volunteers are needed for this effort.

3. Funding Guidebook

· The FG is located at TRB.org (Resources & Databases).

· It is a living document that tries to connect researchers with funding sources. Problem statement writing instructions found in appendix.

· It includes transportation programs that widely solicit for research problem statements and is to be expanded to include programs that solicit for proposals. State programs that solicit for proposals have already been added to the FG. Also, some USDOT programs were recently updated.

· Marketing for the FG is needed. A survey showed that TRB committee members are less familiar with it than others. It has not been widely marketed. Also, there is not good general recognition that there are numerous programs for funding research.

· A TRB webinar on transportation research collaboration tools is being discussed. Other thoughts on marketing include: RAC and TRB meetings and listservs, TRB e-newsletter, TRB Committee Research Coordinators, and TRB Annual Meeting Committee Cheat Sheet. Periodic reminders about the FG could be sent.

· The FG was mentioned at the TRB Joint Summer meeting and also could be shared at TRB annual meeting to a meta-committee or appropriate subcommittees.

· CUTC might be another area that could be marketed: meetings and listserv. At Penn State, e.g., new faculty members are given the URL. Martin Pietrucha to pursue further marketing within CUTC.

· A canned presentation on the FG might also be helpful.

· Visibility may be a problem. It can be found on the COR and RPPM sites, but it may need an alias.

· Volunteers are needed to identify other research programs that need to be in the FG, which may include: non-USDOT federal agencies, industry, non-profits, and international programs.

· A calendar of deadlines is also pending; volunteers are welcome.

4. Research Program and Project Management (RPPM) Website Update

· The RPPM website is open at http://www.transportationresearch.gov. Focus is on program and project management.

· The site organization follows the research project cycle.

· Formal release is close. Initial release will be to RAC, CUTC, and TRB Committees and listservs.

· Anyone can view the site, but those who want to add content need to request a log in.

· USDOT (i.e. RITA) is a good agency to promote this site. RITA had a poster at the 2011 TRB Annual Meeting on RPPM and the Research Clusters (RC). They also created RPPM and RC brochures. Also, RITA staff has the poster at this meeting.

· Marketing ideas include: webinar on research tools (in progress), TRB e-newsletter

· Some problems with access have been encountered (e.g. OTREC). Matt Klein (RITA) can help with this.

· Incentive needs to be created within AASHTO-RAC to populate the site. A poster and exhibit on transportation research collaboration will be presented at this evening’s reception (Mary Moulton, NTL, will facilitate).

5. Lab Facilities

· Reviews of transportation research labs are underway on the federal, state, UTC, and foreign (European) levels, to examine the labs’ physical capacity, facilities, and equipment.

· The UTC effort is funded by RITA and being conducted by the Western Transportation Institute. A database has been built and needs beta testing, but major changes could be very expensive. UTC’s will populate and launch it, but RITA will host. The RPPM website would be a perfect site to host this database.

· It is felt that the only way to keep the database maintained is to keep it decentralized, rather than fully maintained by one agency. Testing may be opened up to CCTF.

· Contents of the current UTC database include details on the facilities, photos, and certifications.

· Combining these efforts, at least state, federal, and UTC, was discussed. One portal with one database would be ideal.

· A similar European project is DETRA, which is reviewing European highway research labs. To avoid duplication of equipment, a report is pending. Could this be translated into the same format for the 10 national UTC’s in the U.S? This model would allow RITA to input the lab information into a searchable database.

6. RAC/CUTC Liaison Group (covered this morning)

· This collaboration was covered in the plenary morning session on July 25.

· Shashi Nambisan is to follow up with Martin Pietrucha and Michael Bonini (PennDOT) on this.

7. International Collaboration

· RITA did a survey on this that showed that UTC’s are collaborating with international partners.

· On the federal level, FHWA signed a Memorandum of Collaboration with FEHRL for technical exchange and collaborative research (http://www.fehrl.org/?m=33&a=content&id=537).

· A federal mechanism for international pooled-fund studies is needed.

· International Scan program is under review by Booz-Allen, to examine benefits/costs and reimbursements.

· Many universities are interested in two-way partnerships. Exchange programs for SME’s in their subject areas have been done. CalTrans (Nancy Chinlund) has more information. WTI reported on visits from Chinese academics. It is a great way to foster collaboration. The challenge is to get contracts going between universities here and there, since U.S. academic services are more expensive.

· Foreign researchers can be brought on as research collaborators (non-contracted), but there are still administrative issues and risks. TFHRC has a business advantage over other labs, in that they are allowed to take foreign nationals on staff as post-doctoral fellows.

· An NCHRP problem statement on international information has been funded.

· Could a workshop dealing with the problems of international collaborations be done? A workshop on various types of collaborations was held at the 2011 TRB Annual Meeting, but a follow up may be needed.

· From the European perspective, austerity is pushing them toward collaboration. European countries are used to collaboration since they are such close neighbors. Their countries are also smaller, have less money and are encountering workforce issues (not graduating enough people from science and engineering).

· If U.S. partners spend money on European professionals’ work, they may settle in the U.S. Also, if we wish to maintain our leadership, we may need to ask international partners to do work for us.

8. Research Report Management (Distribution/Delivery)

· Protocol for distribution (not retrieval) of research reports is needed, since the reports are not consistently being entered into TRID, NTIS, WorldCat, NTL, etc.

· PM&Q, TKN, and CCTF are working together on this, which has morphed into something much larger than anticipated.

· There are many issues here, and expectations need to be defined. A Task Force may be needed to address all issues in the RRM document, and the steering committee will discuss.

· Understanding of distribution patterns is needed, e.g. why USDOT reports are not consistently distributed to state DOT’s.

· What report elements are missing, and how would you like to receive reports? For example, on the FHWA Technical Abstract Page, it would be nice to have the URL of the e-version therein. However, how individualistic do you want to get with preferences?

· TRB LIST committee is also interested in this topic. The steering committee wants to be sure that we’re bringing up the right issues.

9. TRB Working Group

· This group met once (COR with TRB Technical Activities Council), with the objectives of (1) enhancing research needs database and (2) facilitating the movement of TRB Committee Research Needs Statements from idea through research to implementation and technology transfer. This group will be discussed at the state TRB representatives meeting as part of this week’s agenda.

· The issue of research needs should be heightened, and through this group there is now a mechanism as to where it can be done.

10. Ongoing Activities

· These were already covered in foregoing discussion.

11. Updates from other Task Forces

· PM&Q will support RPPM and provide input on the Research Report Management effort.

· TKN is working with USDOT to get climate change reports into climate change website. A white paper on categorizing data resources may be forthcoming. Also, guidance on managing data portals may be forthcoming. A draft has been circulated to some TRB committee chairs.

12. Other Coordination and Collaboration Activities

· None to add at this point in the meeting.

13. Volunteers

· Volunteers are needed for essentially all of the foregoing activities. Please follow up with Sue Sillick and/or Nancy Chinlund.

14. Meetings – Next Meetings

· The next CCTF conference call will be held on September 28, 2011 (1-3 EST).