mdot organization and strategic framework...c. j. kjolhede student assistant jason marr student...
TRANSCRIPT
Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX AAPPENDIX A
MDOT Organization and Strategic Framework
Michigan Department of Transportation A1
CO
OLa
rry
E. T
ibbi
ts, P
.E.
Sen
ior E
xecu
tive
20
Eng
inee
rO
ffice
of R
esea
rch
and
Bes
t Pra
ctic
esC
alvi
n R
ober
ts, P
.E.
Sta
te O
ffice
Adm
inis
trato
r 17
Libr
aria
nSt
atew
ide
Libr
ary
Ale
xand
ra B
risen
oLi
brar
ian
(A) -
12
Adm
inis
trativ
e E
ngin
eer
Bes
t Pra
ctic
es &
Leg
isla
tive
Initi
ativ
esA
ndré
Clo
ver,
P.E
.Li
cens
ed E
ngin
eer M
gr 1
6
Uni
vers
ity R
esea
rch
Adm
inis
trato
rTr
ansp
orta
tion
Res
earc
h Pr
ogra
mS
udha
ker K
ulka
rni,
P.E
.Li
cens
ed E
ngin
eer M
gr 1
6
C. J
. Kjo
lhed
eS
tude
nt A
ssis
tant
Jaso
n M
arr
Stu
dent
Ass
ista
nt
Kim
berly
San
ford
Stu
dent
Ass
ista
ntW
en-h
ou K
uoS
tatis
ticia
n 14
Nan
cy C
rider
Dep
artm
ent A
naly
st P
11
Hom
er S
prag
ueS
tatis
ticia
n 12
Ann
ette
Nea
ley
Sec
reta
ry E
9
Exe
cutiv
e S
ecre
tary
Ang
ela
Nel
son
Exe
cutiv
e S
ecre
tary
E10
Aub
rey
Mar
ron
Dep
artm
ent A
naly
st -P
11
Mar
ch 2
008
APPENDIX A: MDOT Organization and Strategic Framework
Jenn
ifer
M. G
ranh
olm
Gov
erno
r
Mic
higa
n D
epar
tmen
t of T
rans
port
atio
n(J
uly
2008
)
Mic
higa
n A
eron
autic
sC
omm
issi
onSt
ate
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Com
mis
sion
Stat
e T
rans
port
atio
n D
irec
tor
Kir
k T
. Ste
udle
, P.E
.
Com
mis
sion
Adv
isor
Fran
k E.
Kel
ley
Off
ice
of
Com
mis
sion
Aud
itsJe
rry
J. Jo
nes,
CPA
Com
mis
sion
Aud
itor
Mac
kina
c B
ridg
eA
utho
rity
Rob
ert J
. Sw
eene
y, P
.E.
Exec
utiv
e Se
cret
ary
Chi
ef D
eput
y D
irec
tor
Jacq
uelin
e G
. Shi
nnC
hief
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Off
icer
Leon
E. H
ank,
CPA
Chi
ef O
pera
tions
Off
icer
Larr
y E.
Tib
bits
, P.E
.
Off
ice
ofH
uman
Res
ourc
esTa
mar
a K
irsch
enba
uer
Adm
inis
trato
r
Inte
rnat
iona
l Bri
dge
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Phill
ip M
. Bec
ker,
P.E.
Gen
eral
Man
ager
DIT
Age
ncy
Serv
ices
C. D
ougl
ass C
outo
Info
rmat
ion
Off
icer A
eron
autic
s &
Frei
ght S
ervi
ces
Rob
Abe
ntB
urea
u D
irect
or
Fina
nce
&
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Myr
on G
.Frie
rson
, CPA
Bur
eau
Dire
ctor
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Plan
ning
Susa
n P.
Mor
tel
Bur
eau
Dire
ctor
Frei
ght S
ervi
ces
Mel
vin
Will
iam
sA
dmin
istra
tor
Fina
ncia
l Ope
ratio
nsEd
war
d A
. Tim
pf, C
PAA
dmin
istra
tor
Stat
ewid
e Pl
anni
ngD
enis
e Ja
ckso
nA
dmin
istra
tor
Air
port
sR
icha
rd H
amm
ond
Adm
inis
trato
r
Con
trac
t Ser
vice
sW
ayne
E. R
oe, J
r.A
dmin
istra
tor
Ass
et M
anag
emen
tW
illia
m T
ansi
lA
dmin
istra
tor
Avi
atio
n Se
rvic
esPa
ulin
e M
isja
kA
dmin
istra
tor
Dep
artm
ent S
ervi
ces
Rob
erta
Tis
dale
Adm
inis
trato
r
Proj
ect P
lann
ing
Dav
id W
resi
nski
Adm
inis
trato
r
Perf
orm
ance
Exc
elle
nce
Col
een
Hin
esA
dmin
istra
tor
Inte
rmod
al P
olic
yTi
mot
hy H
oeff
ner,
P.E.
Adm
inis
trato
r
Off
ice
ofC
omm
unic
atio
nsB
illSh
reck
Dire
ctor
Off
ice
ofE
cono
mic
Dev
elop
men
tM
icha
el B
.Kap
pA
dmin
istra
tor
Pass
enge
rT
rans
port
atio
nB
urea
u(v
acan
t)D
irect
or
Hig
hway
Dev
elop
men
tJo
hn S
.Pol
asek
, P.E
.B
urea
u D
irect
or
Des
ign
Mar
k V
anPo
rtFle
et, P
.E.
Engi
neer
Con
stru
ctio
n &
Tec
hnol
ogy
Bre
nda
O'B
rien,
P.E.
Engi
neer
Hig
hway
Del
iver
yJo
hnC
. Frie
nd, P
.E.
Bur
eau
Dire
ctor
Rea
l Est
ate
Mat
thew
DeL
ong
Adm
inis
trato
rM
aint
enan
ce Jo
n R
einc
ke, P
.E.
Engi
neer
Inte
llige
nt T
rans
.Sy
stem
sG
rego
ry K
rueg
er,P
.E.
Stat
ewid
e M
gr.
Tra
ffic
& S
afet
yJa
mes
D. C
ulp,
P.E
.En
gine
er
Bay
Reg
ion
Tony
Kra
tofil
, P.E
.R
egio
n En
gine
er
Gra
nd R
egio
nR
oger
Saf
ford
, P.E
.R
egio
n En
gine
er
Met
ro R
egio
nG
reg
John
son,
P.E.
Reg
ion
Engi
neer
Nor
th R
egio
nB
rian
Nes
s, P.
E.R
egio
n En
gine
er
Sout
hwes
t Reg
ion
Rob
erta
Wel
ke,P
.E.
Reg
ion
Engi
neer
Supe
rior
Reg
ion
Ran
del V
an P
ortfl
iet,
P.E.
Reg
ion
Engi
neer
Uni
vers
ity R
egio
nM
ark
Cha
put,
P.E.
Reg
ion
Engi
neer
Off
ice
ofB
usin
ess
Dev
elop
men
tTe
rren
ce M
. Hic
ksD
irect
or
Off
ice
of
Gov
ernm
enta
l Aff
airs
Ron
ald
DeC
ook
Dire
ctor
Bus
ines
s Dev
elop
men
tD
ivis
ion
Patri
cia
A. C
ollin
sA
dmin
istra
tor
Pass
enge
rT
rans
port
atio
nA
dmin
istr
atio
nSh
aron
Edg
arA
dmin
istra
tor
Safe
ty &
Sec
urity
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Eile
en P
hife
rA
dmin
istra
tor
Off
ice
ofO
pera
tions
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Serv
ices
Sonj
a Sc
heur
erA
dmin
istra
tor
Off
ice
of R
esea
rch
&B
est P
ract
ices
Cal
vin
Rob
erts
, P.E
.En
gine
er
Equ
al E
mpl
oym
ent
Opp
ortu
nity
Che
ryl J
. Stra
yhor
nEE
O O
ffic
er
Michigan Department of Transportation A3
APPENDIX A: MDOT Organization and Strategic Framework
NAM
ETI
TLE
PHO
NECE
LLE-
MAI
LFA
XM
AIL
Rob
erts
, Cal
vin
Engi
neer
of O
RBP
517-
241-
2780
517-
204-
9842
robe
rtsc
517-
335-
2785
B450
Nel
son,
Ang
ela
Exec
utiv
e Se
cret
ary
517-
241-
2780
nels
onan
517-
335-
2785
B450
Mar
ron,
Aub
rey
Dep
artm
ent A
naly
st51
7-37
3-39
69m
arro
na51
7-24
1-31
94B1
55
MDO
T ST
ATEW
IDE
LIBR
ARY
Bris
eno,
Ale
xand
raLi
brar
ian
517-
373-
8548
bris
enoa
l51
7-24
1-31
94B1
55Kj
olhe
de, C
.J.
Libr
ary
Stud
ent A
ssis
tant
517-
241-
1809
kjol
hede
c51
7-24
1-31
94B1
55M
arr,
Jaso
nLi
brar
y St
uden
t Ass
ista
nt51
7-24
1-18
09m
arrja
517-
241-
3194
B155
Sanf
ord,
Kim
berly
Libr
ary
Stud
ent A
ssis
tant
517-
241-
1809
sanf
ordk
151
7-24
1-31
94B1
55
BEST
PRA
CTIC
ES &
LEG
ISLA
TIVE
INIT
IATI
VES
Clo
ver,
Andr
eAd
min
istra
tive
Engi
neer
517-
322-
5683
517-
749-
9001
clov
era
517-
322-
5664
E020
TRAN
SPO
RTAT
ION
RESE
ARCH
PRO
GRA
MKu
lkar
ni, S
udha
ker
Uni
vers
ity R
esea
rch
Adm
inis
trato
r51
7-32
2-56
70ku
lkar
nis
517-
322-
5664
E020
Nea
ley,
Ann
ette
Res
earc
h Ad
min
istra
tive
Assi
stan
t51
7-32
2-16
32ne
aley
a51
7-32
2-12
62E0
20C
rider
, Nan
cyR
esea
rch
Anal
yst
517-
322-
1211
crid
ern
517-
322-
1262
E020
Kuo,
Wen
-hou
Stat
istic
ian
517-
322-
1238
kuow
517-
322-
5664
E020
Spra
gue,
Hom
erSt
atis
ticia
n51
7-32
2-15
80sp
ragu
eh51
7-32
2-56
64E0
20
MIC
HIG
AN D
EPAR
TMEN
T O
F TR
ANSP
ORT
ATIO
NO
FFIC
E O
F RE
SEAR
CH A
ND B
EST
PRAC
TICE
S
A4 Michigan Department of Transportation
Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX BAPPENDIX B
Program Developmentand Administration
Michigan Department of Transportation B1
Michigan Department Of Transportation
5302 (06/08) Office of Research and Best Practices Procedure to Request Statewide Planning and
Research, Part II, Money for Pooled Fund Projects
Revised June 2008
The following procedure is required to request State Planning and Research (SPR), Part II, Program money for Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) participation in pooled fund studies.
1) Submit a written document, followed by an electronic version in Word format, to the Engineer of Research and Best Practices with the following information:
a) What is the name and focus area(s) of this pooled fund study?
b) Location of activity?
c) Who are the other participants?
d) Explain what MDOT’s requirements will be to participate in this pooled fund study.
i) SPR, Part II, dollars.
ii) Dollars from other funds.
iii) MDOT staff participation.
iv) Duration of participation in what capacities.
v) Will out-of-state travel be required? If yes, please explain.
vi) Other considerations as applicable.
e) What is the expected result or end product?
f) Explain how this project outcome matches the strategic plan and goals of MDOT.
g) Explain how participation in this pooled fund will help meet MDOT’s goals.
h) Explain how MDOT will be able to implement or incorporate the results from this pooled fund study.
i) What specific recommendation(s) do we anticipate at the project completion?
j) What implementation of data in terms of end results are we specifically looking for?
k) Do we anticipate the recommendation(s) from the research will have an impact on any existing MDOT specification(s), manual, etc.? If so; explain how. What are we trying to improve in regards to the specification(s), manual, etc.?
2) The Office of Research and Best Practices (ORBP) will review and explore the viability of the benefits to MDOT and SPR, Part II, fund availability for the project.
3) ORBP will prepare a comprehensive proposal incorporating the above submittal and specifying the financial impact to any and all currently approved projects, regardless of start date, as well as the overall SPR, Part II, Program budget if MDOT participation in this proposed pooled fund study is approved.
4) The Engineer of Research will present this comprehensive proposal for executive review and decision.
APPENDIX B: Program Development and Administration
B2 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX B: Program Development and Administration
YE
S
MD
OT
Offi
ce o
f Res
earc
han
dB
estP
ract
ices
Poo
led
Fund
Stu
dy P
roce
ssD
evel
oped
byO
RB
P T
eam
, Jun
e 24
, 200
8
MD
OT
staf
fre
com
men
dspa
rtici
patio
n to
appr
opria
teB
urea
u (R
AC
Cha
ir)
RA
C C
hair
cons
ults
appr
opria
te F
ocus
Are
a M
anag
er(F
AM
)
Bur
eau
agr
ees
parti
cipa
tion
will
be
nefit
MD
OT
TC/P
M*
com
plet
es/
mod
ifies
and
(r
e)su
bmits
5302
** to
OR
BP
*
A te
chni
cal c
onta
ct (T
C) f
rom
the
parti
cipa
ting
stat
e m
ust b
e id
entif
ied.
If M
ichi
gan
is to
be
the
lead
age
ncy
durin
g a
stud
y,a
proj
ect m
anag
er (P
M) m
ust a
lso
be d
eter
min
ed.
The
TC a
nd P
M m
ay b
e th
e sa
me
pers
on.
**If
5302
is s
ubm
itted
to O
RB
P 2
1 w
orki
ng d
ays
prio
r to
a sc
hedu
led
RE
C M
eetin
g, it
will
be
plac
ed o
n th
e ag
enda
for t
hat m
eetin
g.**
* A
noth
er fu
ndin
g so
urce
cou
ld b
e so
ught
, suc
h as
Sta
tew
ide
Pla
nnin
g an
d R
esea
rch,
Par
t I.
Eng
inee
r OR
BP
Rev
iew
s fo
rco
mpl
eten
ess
NO
YE
SO
RB
Pde
term
ines
SP
R II
fund
ing
elig
ibili
ty a
ndav
aila
bilit
y
OR
BP
add
s st
udy
to p
ropo
sed
amen
ded
SP
RII
Pro
gram
tem
plat
e
NO
***
YE
S
OR
BP
sub
mits
prog
ram
tem
plat
eto
RE
Cfo
rap
prov
al
RE
C a
ppro
val
NO
OR
BP
not
ifies
TC
/P
M *
of R
EC
appr
oval
and
post
ing
on T
PF
Web
site
OR
BP
upd
ates
MD
OT’
sco
mm
itmen
t on
the
TPF
Web
site
(Apr
il &
Nov
.)
Sen
d M
DO
Tap
prov
ed S
PR
IIP
rogr
am te
mpl
ate
to F
HW
A fo
rap
prov
al
FHW
Aap
prov
al
OR
BP
not
ifies
all
inte
rest
ed p
artie
s(R
AC
, FA
M,T
C/
PM
*, P
lann
ing)
Exi
t
OR
BP
not
ifies
RA
C C
hair
And
TC
/PM
*
OR
BP
Res
earc
hA
naly
st (R
A)
Req
uest
sap
prov
ed fo
rm53
02
Poo
led
Fund
Stu
dy S
teer
ing
Com
mitt
ee a
ppro
ves
the
rele
ase
of fu
nds
NO
TC s
ubm
itsan
nual
prog
ress
repo
rts to
OR
BP
NO
YE
S
YE
S
Impl
emen
tabl
ere
sults
opt
aine
d?
Stu
dy e
nds
Ent
er M
DO
TO
RB
P P
roje
ctC
lose
Out
Pro
cess
YE
S
NO
NO
YE
S
Req
uest
an
MP
IN n
umbe
r
Req
uest
Obl
igat
ions
inM
FOS
Cre
ate
Pro
ject
Info
rmat
ion
fileFA
M a
ssig
nsth
e TC
/PM
* to
the
proj
ect
Michigan Department of Transportation B3
Michigan Department Of Transportation
5307 (05/08)
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & BEST PRACTICES TRANSPORTATION POOLED FUND STUDY
ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2008
STUDY TITLE:
FUNDING SOURCE: SPR, Part II ( %) FHWA ( %) MFUNDS( %) NCHRP ( %) OTHER ( %)
TECHNICAL CONTACT:
TPF # MDOT START DATE JOB NUMBER MDOT COMPLETION DATE (Original) ORBP NUMBER COMPLETION DATE (Revised) LEAD AGENCY PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACTOR
BUDGET STATUS Total Budget FY 2009 Estimated Budget
TOTAL COST (Original)* TOTAL (Revised)**
EXPENDED FUNDS TO DATE*** SALARIES FY 2008 Budget EQUIPMENT (Expendable)
FY FUNDS (Original)**** EQUIPMENT (Non-expendable) (Revised)***** TRAVEL
FY EXPENDITURE OTHER PERCENT COMPLETE (By Budget) PERCENT COMPLETE (By Work)
PARTICIPATING STATES ABBREVIATE THE PARTICIPATING STATES. IF MDOT IS THE LEAD AGENCY, ALSO LIST THE CONTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE PER STATE.
( %), ( %), ( %), ( %), ( %), ( %), ( %),
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
FISCAL YEAR 2007 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FISCAL YEAR 2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
JUSTIFICATION(S) FOR REVISION(S) (List the approval date for the revision(s))
SUMMARY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION (Required the last year of participation)
*The original authorized total budget amount of the study **The authorized total budget amount as revised, if applicable *** The project life to date expenditure ****The current fiscal year’s original budget amount *****The revised fiscal year budget amount, if applicable
APPENDIX B: Program Development and Administration
Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX CAPPENDIX C
Research ProjectManagement
Michigan Department of Transportation C1
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES Research Advisory Panel (RAP) Members Selected
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT #: ORBP #:
PROJECTMANAGER PRINCIPALINVESTIGATORRESEARCHCONSULTANT AGENCY
RAP MEMBERS Name Division/Region/TSC Telephone E-Mail
Focus Area Manager’s Signature:
Date:
ORBP Initial of Receipt: Date of ORBP Initial:
cc: Project File
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C2 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C2
C2 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C2
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C2 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Mic
higa
n D
epar
tmen
t of T
rans
porta
tion
Prop
osal
for P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t Ser
vice
s, “N
ame”
R
evis
ed T
imel
ine
for W
ork
Are
as a
nd T
asks
Ju
ly 2
007
thro
ugh
Dec
embe
r 201
0
20
07
2008
20
09
2010
St
art D
ate
July
200
7 3Q
074Q
071Q
082Q
083Q
084Q
081Q
092Q
093Q
094Q
091Q
102Q
103Q
104Q
10
Wor
k A
rea
A: P
eer E
xcha
nge
CO
MPL
ETED
1.
Dev
elop
them
e(s)
, ide
ntify
team
2. L
ead
plan
ning
mee
tings
3. D
evel
op p
re-e
xcha
nge
com
mun
icat
ions
pla
n
4. A
rran
ge fa
cilit
ies,
acc
omm
odat
ions
5. S
erve
as
faci
litat
ors
6. D
evel
op p
ost-e
xcha
nge
com
mun
icat
ions
pla
n
Wor
k A
rea
B: C
omm
unic
atio
ns
1. D
esig
n to
ols
to ra
ise
awar
enes
s of
O
RN
BP
2. D
esig
n to
ols
to b
ring
MD
OT
new
kn
owle
dge
3. W
rite
cont
ent
4. F
acili
tate
pub
licat
ion
and
dist
ribut
ion
5. D
eliv
er p
rese
ntat
ions
at M
DO
T
Wor
k A
rea
C: R
esea
rch
Adm
in. M
anua
l C
OM
PLET
ED1.
Rev
iew
dra
ft m
anua
l
2. R
ecom
men
d us
es o
f man
ual
Wor
k A
rea
D: O
RB
P St
rate
gic
Plan
ning
1. C
oord
inat
e w
ith M
DO
T pl
an
2. Id
entif
y na
tiona
l bes
t pra
ctic
es
3. L
ead
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng p
roce
ss
4. D
raft,
revi
se a
nd fi
naliz
e st
rate
gic
plan
5. D
evel
op o
utre
ach
activ
ities
6. A
ssis
t with
SO
AT
deve
lopm
ent
Michigan Department of Transportation C2a
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
EXAM
PLEEELLLLLELE4Q
09
EEQ10 LELLEELE
PLE
PPPLLEE
PLE
MMPPPLLEE
MPLE
MMMPPPLLEE
MPLE
MMMPPPLLE
MPL
AMMMMPPPLL
AAAMA
AM
PLAAMMMM
PPPLAM
PXAXAAMAAMAMMMMP
MP
MP
MPP
XAMP
XXAAAMMMMPP
T ne
w
new
XAXAAMAAMAMMMMMM XAM
XXAAAMMMM
XAXAAMAAMAMMMM
EXAM XXAAAMMM
publ
icat
ion
and
dist
ribut
ion
pu
blic
atio
n an
d di
strib
utio
n XAXAAMAAMAMMM
EXAM XXAAAMM
sent
atio
ns a
t MD
OT
sent
atio
ns a
t MD
OT
EXAXXAAA EXEX
sear
ch A
dmin
. M EXEXAX
anua
l an
ual
XX EXXXs
of m
anua
l s
of m
anuXXXEXXXEXE
rate
gic
Plan
ning EXXT plan T plan EE
C2a Michigan Department of Transportation
Wor
kA
rea
BW
ork
Are
a D
Wor
kA
rea
EW
ork
Are
a F
Prin
cipa
lC
onsu
ltant
21%
7560
5075
260
$0
Con
sulti
ng,
Writ
ing,
Pro
ject
M
anag
emen
t8%
025
2550
100
$0
Writ
ing
&
rese
arch
48%
300
100
100
100
600
$0
Edi
ting
10%
805
400
125
$0
Pub
licat
ion
and
Web
Des
ign,
G
raph
ics
10%
5020
500
120
$0
Adm
inis
trativ
esu
ppor
t3%
2510
100
45$0
Labo
r Sub
tota
ls53
022
027
522
512
50$0
$0.0
0 T
rave
l**Pr
intin
g, c
opie
s, o
fc. S
uppl
ies*
*$0
$0
**Tr
avel
, prin
ting,
sup
plie
s bi
lled
at c
ost.
Orig
inal
Cos
t
"Dat
e"
Prop
osal
for P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t Ser
vice
s
Prep
ared
for M
ichi
gan
Dep
artm
ent o
f Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Prep
ared
by
"Nam
e"Ef
fort
by
Task
s (H
ours
and
Cos
ts)
Am
endm
ent f
or A
dditi
onal
$10
0,00
0
* See
Lab
or a
nd O
verh
ead
Rat
es
Tota
lH
ours
Hou
rly R
ate
Incl
udin
gO
verh
ead *
Am
endm
ent
Cos
tPr
inci
pal S
taff
Mem
bers
Rol
e in
Pro
ject
Tim
e (%
) O
ver
Con
trac
tPe
riod
CTC
Ass
ocia
tes
LLC
M
DO
T C
omm
unic
atio
ns P
ropo
sal
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
EXAM
PLEELE
7526
0$0
75
260
$0
025
2550
100
$0
025
2550
100
$0
Writ
ing
&
ritin
g &
re
sear
chse
arch
48%
300
100
100
100
600
300
100
100
100
Edi
ting
ing
10%
805
10%
805
Pub
licat
ion
and
Pub
licat
ion
and
Web
Des
ign,
W
eb D
esig
n,
Gra
phic
sG
raph
ic1
ghe
adhe
ad*
en Co LE PLE
AMPL
XAM
EXA
EXXAAM
PLLEE
MMPE
"name"MDOT Proposal for Technical Communication ServicesLabor and Overhead RatesApril 6, 2007
Classification
PayRate
OverheadRate*
Subtotal Fixed Fee
Total Fixed HourlyBillingRate
(rate/fee)Principal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Senior Associate $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Researchers/Writers $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Editor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Graphic Designer** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Administrative Associate $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
*Includes employee taxes and fringe benefits**Subcontractor overhead rate = 5%
Michigan Department of Transportation C2a
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
EXAMPLE
0.000.00 $0.0$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000.00 $0.00$0.00
0000 $0.000 $0.00$0.0$0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00.00 $0.00$ $0.00$0.00
PLLEEEEEELELELEPLE
Subcontract Checklist and Examples
The following statements must be included in subcontract agreements:
MDOT/Prime contract number and authorization number (if applicable). Prime consultant’s name. Sub-consultant’s name. Description of work to be performed by sub-consultants, as stated in the scope of services. Job number(s), control section(s), and structure number(s), if applicable. A derivation of cost must be included in the subcontract. One of the following statements (using recommended or similar contract language) specifying
the basis of payment, maximum contract amount, and fixed fee amount (if applicable) must be written into the subcontract:
(1)Actual Cost & Total Dollar Amount: compensation for the services must be on the basis of actual cost and must not exceed $____, as set forth in Exhibit ____.
(2)Actual Cost Plus Fixed Fee: compensation for the services must be on the basis of actual cost plus a fixed fee and must not exceed $________, which amount includes a fixed fee of $______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.
(3)Lump Sum: Compensation for the services must be on a lump sum basis in the amount of $______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.
(4)Milestone: Compensation for the services must be on a milestone basis in the amount of $______, payable upon completion of defined milestones, as set forth in Exhibit ____.
(5)Fixed Hourly Rate – Compensation for the services must be on the basis of a fixed hourly rate plus actual direct expenses and must not exceed $______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.
(6)Unit Price: Compensation for the services must be on the basis of a set unit price and must not exceed $ ______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.
A statement must be included in the subcontract that the subcontract will be governed by the laws of the State as set forth in the prime agreement.
A statement must be included that all terms and conditions included in the prime agreement are incorporated in the subcontract.
A statement must be included stating that in the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of the subcontract and those of the prime agreement, the terms and conditions of the prime agreement will prevail.
(Optional) Subcontract effective and expiration dates. If these dates are not provided in the subcontract, the prime agreement’s effective and expiration dates will be used.
The subcontract must be submitted to the department for approval prior to execution by the prime consultant and subcontractor. Once department approval is obtained, the subcontract will be mailed to the prime consultant for execution. An original signed copy of the subcontract must be returned to MDOT for the contract file.
NOTE: Subcontracts for less than $25,000 do not require MDOT approval. Sub-contracts must be approved by MDOT prior to sub work commencing on a project or invoicing for sub work.
All sub-contract revisions, including deletions and additions to contract language or budget information, must be reviewed and approved by MDOT.
C3 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C4
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
MDOT 5303 (01/08) Page 1
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM
FY YEAR
COMPLETED BY SUBMITTING AGENCY PROJECT TITLE
CRITICAL ISSUE CODE
MDOT PROJECT CATEGORY (See below)
PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE
SCOPE
PRODUCTS/DELIVERABLES
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
SUBMITTING AGENCY AGENCY NAME
CONTACT NAME
TELEPHONE #
FAX #
EMAIL ADDRESS
BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGET (Breakdown by FY)
FY1
FY2
FY3
FY4
INDIRECT COST RATE
CRITICAL ISSUE CODES
0 - ADMINISTRATION 1 - CONGESTION: Increasingly congested facilities across all modes 2 - EMERGENCIES: Vulnerability to terrorist strikes and natural disasters 3 - ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT: Extraordinary challenges 4 - EQUITY: Burdens on the disadvantaged 5 - FINANCE: Inadequate revenue 6 - HUMAN & INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: Inadequate investment in innovation 7 - INFRASTRUCTURE: Enormous, aging capital stock to maintain 8 - INSTITUTIONS: 20th century institution mismatched to 21st century missions 9 - SAFETY: Lost leadership in road safety
MDOT PROJECT CATEGORIES
1 - Bridges & Structures 2 - Asphalt Pavements 3 - Concrete Pavements 4 - Traffic & Safety
C5 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
MDOT 5303 (01/08) Page 2 5 - ITS & VII Congestion Management 6 - Environment 7 - Miscellaneous
Michigan Department of Transportation C5
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C5a Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
E
Michigan Department of Transportation C6
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C6a Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department Of Transportation
5305 (05/08)
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & BEST PRACTICES MDOT RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT FORM
FISCAL YEARS 2008-2009 PROJECT TITLE
FUNDING SOURCE: SPR, Part II ( %) FHWA ( %) MFUNDS ( %) NCHRP ( %) OTHER ( %)
PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACT/AUTHORIZATION # PROJECT START DATE SPR NUMBER COMPLETION DATE (Original) ORBP NUMBER COMPLETION DATE (Revised) RESEARCH AGENCY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
FY 2008 QUARTER 1st (Oct 1 – Dec 31) 2nd (Jan 1 – Mar 31) 3rd (Apr 1 – Jun 30) 4th (July 1 – Sept 30)
BUDGET STATUS Total Budget FY 2009 Estimated Budget
TOTAL COST (Original)* TOTAL (Revised)**
EXPENDED FUNDS TO DATE*** SALARIES FY 2008 Budget EQUIPMENT (Expendable)
FY FUNDS (Original)**** EQUIPMENT (Non-expendable) (Revised)***** TRAVEL
FY EXPENDITURE OTHER % PERCENT COMPLETE (By Budget) PERCENT COMPLETE (By Work)
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
FISCAL YEAR 2007 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FISCAL YEAR 2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
JUSTIFICATION(S) FOR REVISION(S) (List the approval date for the revision(s))
SUMMARY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION (Required the last year of the project)
*The original authorized total budget amount of the project **The authorized total budget amount as revised, if applicable *** The project life to date expenditure ****The current fiscal year’s original budget amount *****The revised fiscal year budget amount, if applicable
Michigan Department of Transportation C7
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C7a Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C8
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES
QUARTERLY REPORT EVALUATION FORM
Project Manager:
Do you approve of the attached quarterly report form: Yes No
If no, please explain why:
Must be returned to ORBP within 10 working days
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES
UNIVERSITY CONTRACT INVOICE APPROVAL FORM
Please review the attached invoice and approve or disapprove.
RETURN TO ANNETTE NEALEY (E020).
Project Manager: R. Till Invoice #:
Date Invoice Received:
Date Invoice Sent to PM:
Title of Project:
University/Consultant: Michigan State University
Contract #: 06-0411 Authorization #:
Project #:
Notes: Invoice is for the period of .
Project Manager’s Signature of Approval:
Date:
University Research Administrator’s Signature of Approval:
Date:
C9 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C9a
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C9a Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C9a
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C9a Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C9a
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
EX
C9a Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C9b
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C9b Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C9b
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
E
C9b Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
EXAMPLE
Michigan Department of Transportation C9c
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C9c Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
E
Michigan Department of Transportation C9c
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C9c Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
E
Michigan Department Of Transportation
5306 (03/08)
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & BEST PRACTICES STATEWIDE PLANNING & RESEARCH, PART II
RESEARCH PROJECT CHANGE REQUEST FORM
PROJECT TITLE PROJECT MANAGER
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
RESEARCH AGENCY
RESEARCH MANAGER
CONTRACT/AUTHORIZATION #
SPR NUMBER
ORBP NUMBER
APPROVED TOTAL COST
PROJECT START DATE
APPROVED COMPLETION DATE
CHANGE REQUEST(S)
CHANGE IN STAFF ORIGINAL STAFF PERSON
POSITION TITLE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHANGE
NEW STAFF PERSON REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE
CHANGE IN SCOPE OF WORK REQUESTED CHANGE REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE
CHANGE IN COST COST INCREASE/DECREASE
NEW COST
REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE
CHANGE IN COMPLETION DATE NEW COMPLETION DATE REQUESTED
REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE
PROJECT MANAGER SIGNATURE DATE
ENGINEER OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES SIGNATURE DATE
FHWA APPROVAL NEEDED? NO YES, If yes, complete the following
DATE FHWA APPROVAL REQUEST WAS SENT
DATE FHWA APPROVAL WAS RECEIVED
CC: Project File
Michigan Department of Transportation C10
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C11 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C11
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
C11 Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation C11
APPENDIX C: Research Project Management
Michigan Department of Transportation
APPENDIX DAPPENDIX D
Implementation andTechnology Transfer
MD
OT
Offi
ce o
f Res
earc
han
d B
est P
ract
ices
Ado
ptio
n Pr
oces
sD
evel
oped
and
revi
sed
by O
RB
P Te
am,O
ctob
er 2
007
EN
TER
Impl
emen
tatio
n/R
esea
rch
Man
ager
Dev
elop
deta
iled
pilo
t pla
n
Subm
it pl
an to
RAC
for r
evie
wan
d de
term
inat
ion
Is it
feas
ible
at th
is ti
me?
OR
BP
Com
plet
esC
lose
out
Will
we
cond
uct p
ilot?
Res
earc
hM
anag
erco
nduc
ts p
ilot
stud
y
Will
we
impl
emen
t at a
larg
er s
cale
?
OR
BP C
ompl
etes
Clo
se o
ut
Is fu
rther
eval
uatio
nne
eded
?
Do
we
gofu
rther
with
impl
emen
tatio
n?
Rep
ort t
o R
ECth
ru O
RB
P
Ref
er b
ack
toap
prop
riate
leve
lfo
r fur
ther
stu
dy/
eval
uatio
n
Rep
ort t
o R
EC
Sub
mit
to R
EC
thru
OR
BPA
gree
toad
opt?
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
EXI
T
Sub
mit
plan
and
dete
rmin
atio
n to
R
EC th
ru O
RBP
Subm
it pl
an a
ndde
term
inat
ion
toO
RB
P
Rep
ort R
AC
deci
sion
to
REC
Rep
ort t
o O
RB
P
Impl
emen
tatio
nM
anag
er c
reat
espl
an to
ens
ure
adop
tion
Impa
ct M
eetin
gw
ith s
take
hold
ers
Dis
tribu
tion
ofap
prov
ed a
dopt
ion
plan
Ado
ptio
n
D1
APPENDIX D: Implementation and Technology Transfer
D1 Michigan Department of Transportation
Research Spotlight
D2
ORBP Newsletter
D3
Office ofResearch & Best Practices
Inside This Issue:
Michigan Department of Transportation • January 2008
Team BuildingNew name reflects global
reach of research and best
practices at MDOT.
Team building exercise helps
refine the structure and
operation of ORBP.
Mission and vision statements
articulate the purpose and
direction of the office.
Peer ExchangeFocused effort yields valuable
insights into administration of
Michigan’s Transportation
research cycle.
Michigan’s transportation research
community is healthy and well-
respected; retaining staff and
communicating with stake-
holders will keep it strong.
ResultsORBP team unveils process for
implementing research results.
Peer exchange report, updated
Research Manual, and new
Web site will help maximize the
potential of the ORBP.
Team BuildingIn his book Path of Least Resistance for Man-
agers (1999), author Robert Fritz introduces the notion of a structural tension that exists in every organization. He describes this tension as the difference between an organization’s cur-rent reality and a vision of what is possible for the organization in the future. “Tension creates a state of nonequilibrium,” Fritz writes. He goes on to explain that the structure of an organiza-tion naturally attempts to restore equilibrium. In other words, structural tension causes move-ment between an organization’s current reality and a vision; either the vision devolves until it resembles the current reality or the current re-ality evolves to become more like the vision. Structure is the key to making a current reality evolve toward a vision.
Casting Vision, Refining StructureIn early 2005, MDOT’s leadership created
a vision for an offi ce that would orchestrate and coordinate all of MDOT’s research ef-forts, and monitor both transportation research and operational practices nationwide to make sure valuable innovations and best practices in other places would not go unnoticed. In pur-suit of this vision, MDOT’s Offi ce of Research and National Best Practices (ORNBP) was es-tablished on September 26, 2005. The purpose of the new offi ce was to lead the department’s research efforts and to collect and dissemi-nate transportation best practices throughout MDOT, within Michigan and across the coun-try. In late 2007, “National” was dropped from the name. The new name, Offi ce of Research and Best Practices (ORBP), expands the scope and extends the vision for the offi ce. “The name
Continuous Improvement Team building and peer exchange efforts provide a clear vision and a refined structure for the transportation research cycle in Michigan
Peer Exchange Business leader Andrew Carnegie once
said, “The range of our collective vision is far greater when individual insights become one.” It is perhaps with this in mind that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established the peer exchange program with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi -cacy act of 1991. The program requires that each state department of transportation (DOT) agree to a peer exchange of its Research, De-velopment, and Technology Transfer (RD&T) management process to be eligible for FHWA planning and research funds.
see “Team Building” on page 2
see “Peer Exchange” on page 2
change will better position us to exchange best practices and innovations globally, not just na-tionally,” explained offi ce administrator Calvin Roberts. “It will also enable us to more easily share Michigan’s extraordinary transportation research talent and expertise with the global transportation community.”
Since 2006, Roberts and his team have been working to align research investments with the Michigan Transportation Plan, which presents goals, objectives, strategies, and policy recom-mendations to set the direction for decisions and investments on the state transportation system through the year 2030. “Our team was assem-bled to make the most of every research opportu-nity within the department,” explained Roberts. “We’ve realized some success, but the diversity of the groups we serve has made it diffi cult to develop a cohesive strategy. I felt we were miss-ing key structural elements that would enable us
MDOT Office of Research and Best Practices Page 2
“Our mission and vision grew out of our strength and po-sition as a team,” Roberts explained. “We are located in the center of a highly integrated network of dynamic partnerships among transportation professionals.”
Here’s the Plan Strategic planning was the fi nal phase of the team building pro-
cess. “A strategic plan takes into account the internal dynamics of an organization and provides the structure necessary to transform a vision into a new reality,” Becker explained. A detailed analy-sis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) was the fi rst step in the strategic planning process. After the SWOT analysis, the team identifi ed things they could do to capitalize on their strengths in order to protect against weakness-es, seize opportunities, and avoid threats.
The team then articulated specifi c initiatives that would help them accomplish the mission of the ORBP while realizing their shared vision. In addition to techniques for refi ning operations internal to the team, they also identifi ed strategies and tools for nurturing channels of communication between the team and their customers. As an example of an internal tool, the team has made a commitment to start every meeting with an activity that is de-signed to stimulate “out-of-the-box” thinking.
“Innovation is a common thread running through the long-range plan for the department, and it’s one of our core values,” Roberts explained. “These activities will help maintain a culture of innovation on the team.”
External tools include a department-wide research database and an annual research conference. The database will ensure that research conducted in each region and transportation service cen-ter is shared across the entire state. “The research database will maximize the utility of research investments and prevent dupli-cation of effort,” Roberts explained. “It will also promote multi-modal research by providing a holistic view of research efforts.”
An annual conference will help maintain channels of commu-nication within the transportation community. Interestingly, the inherent diversity of this community, which was one of the main reasons Roberts initiated the team building effort, turned out to be one of the core strengths of the team. “Our network of part-nerships among transportation professionals provides us access to a wealth of valuable information,” Roberts said. “The refi ned structure of our team and the new tools we’re developing will help us and our customers make the most of every opportunity.”
to do more.” With this in mind, Roberts arranged with MDOT’s Performance Excellence Division in July 2007 to initiate a team-building and strategic planning effort within the offi ce.
Customers Provide Clarity Mark Becker, MDOT performance consultant, guided the ORBP
through a series of exercises to help refi ne structure and operations. The effort began with a process mapping exercise. Through it, the team identifi ed discrete steps involved in administering transporta-tion research. They then listed customers, stakeholders, products and services, and quality characteristics associated with each step. When complete, the process map provided the ORBP team with a visual overview of their sphere of infl uence. “Identifying who must be satisfi ed, what they need, and how to serve them provides great clarity for the rest of the process,” Becker explained.
ORBP customers include executives, managers, and staff members of federal and state government agencies, colleges and universities, and private companies. “We serve the transportation research community by identifying relevant research needs, ad-ministering meaningful research projects, and then implementing valuable research results,” Roberts explained. “Serving such a diverse group is challenging. Clear goals, good communication and strong relationships are keys to doing so successfully,”
Mission and Vision With their focus directed through the process map and fi rmly
grounded on their customers, the team then wrote vision and mis-sion statements, and identifi ed common values among all team members. “A team’s mission has to do with the specifi c prod-ucts and services delivered to customers,” Becker explained. “A team’s vision articulates how the individual members of the team see themselves working together to accomplish the mission. The mission is external; the vision is internal. Values determine how the vision is pursued and the mission is accomplished.”
The mission of the ORBP includes four focus areas: Coordinate and manage research programs for MDOT; Monitor learning and innovation in development and operation of integrated transportation systems; Promote implementation of learning and innovation throughout MDOT; Encourage research that supports integrated multi-modal transportation and MDOT’s strategic goals.
The ORBP’s vision is to be a recognized leader in coordinat-ing applied research and implementing results. To do so, the offi ce will:
Identify cutting edge research topics; Coordinate development of research projects;Implement research results.
1.2.
3.
4.
1.2.3.
Team Building (continued)
The peer exchange program is a means for state DOTs to im-prove research programs through customer input, peer counsel, and identifi cation of best practices. After the fi rst round of peer exchanges were held, the National Cooperative Highway Research
Peer Exchange (continued)
January 2008Page 3
Figure 1. Peer Exchange Panel.
Program (NCHRP) issued a report titled Peer Exchange: a Value-added Program Management Tool (2001). The report described the process for conducting an exchange conference, and it sum-marized the results of the fi rst round of conferences. The program received wide acclaim from states that participated. Since then, several rounds of peer exchange conferences have been held with continued high levels of success and support.
Focusing the Efforts The ORBP sponsored a peer exchange of MDOT’s research
program on December 3–6, 2007. In addition to four members from the ORBP team, the peer exchange panel (see Figure 1) in-cluded a representative from Pennsylvania State University, two representatives from the FHWA, and representatives from DOTs in Iowa, Louisiana, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington State. Leni Oman from Washington State served as chair of the panel. CTC & Associates, a technical communications fi rm from Madison, WI, that specializes in information design for public agencies and civil engineering fi rms, assisted the ORBP in facilitating the exchange.
The ORBP team assembled the panel based on expertise and experience in the following fi ve focus areas:
Developing a research program Identifying research needs Partnering with universities Managing research projects Measuring and reporting performance
The focus areas address current needs within the MDOT research program. “We chose members whose programs followed a path of development similar to ours,” Roberts explained. “We were encour-aged to realize the great position we’re in and we gained tremen-dous insights into making adjustments to refi ne our program.”
1.2.3.4.5.
Research a High Priority The structural integrity of MDOT’s research program, as identi-
fi ed by the panel, can be attributed to the deep interest in research among technical staff throughout the department and among universities, consultants, and industry professionals across the state. Michigan is home to a vibrant transportation research com-munity and MDOT has a reputation for credible research that is regularly applied in other states. With six internationally known universities in the state, including two University Transporta-tion Centers (UTCs) and an effective Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), MDOT has access to a wide range of valuable research and technology transfer facilities, services, and capabili-ties. In addition, the FHWA division offi ce in Michigan is very supportive of MDOT’s research program; the program regularly capitalizes on federal funding opportunities.
The panel also identifi ed cultural strengths of the ORBP. Spe-cifi cally, support of research by the highest levels of MDOT lead-ership, and commitment among the core ORBP staff to align the program with the direction of the department as a whole is a strong foundation for continued success. The ORBP’s emphasis on pursu-ing research topics that cover all areas of transportation research, not just materials and construction, is evidence of this alignment.
Retention, Communication and RelationshipsAreas where the ORBP team could face challenges in the fu-
ture include maintaining technical expertise in-house; collect-ing, tracking and communicating research results; and nurtur-ing the relationships that are necessary to continue the success and expansion of the program.
Back row, from left: Tim Croze, MDOT; Mark Morvant, Louisiana DOT; Mark Dunn, Iowa DOT; Dr. Sudhakar Kulkarni, MDOT; Marcia Kenney, Recently Retired from FHWA. Front row, from left: Blaine Leonard, Utah DOT; Dave Huft, South Dakota DOT; John Mason, Pennsylvania Transportation Institute; Calvin Roberts, MDOT; Leni Oman, Washington DOT; Andre Clover, MDOT; Angela Nelson, MDOT.
MDOT Office of Research and Best Practices Page 4
This publication is intended to disseminate technical information to MDOT personnel and is published by the Offi ce of Research and Best Practices. 5000 copies of this document were printed at a cost of $0.21 per copy for a total of $1050.00. It is printed in accordance with Executive Directive 2007-17.
��������������� �������� ����� ������
© 2008 Michigan Technological University. To obtain permission to reprint text or graphics from this publication, or if you have suggestions or ques-tions, contact Calvin Roberts, Administrator, MDOT Offi ce of Research and Best Practices; 517-241-4667, FAX 517-355-2785.Produced by:
Michigan’s Local Technical Assistance Program John Ryynanen, Editor
ReferencesFritz, R. 1999, The Path of Least Resistence for Managers. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Harder, B.T., 2001, Peer Exchange: A Value-added Program
Management Tool. National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-gram, Project No. 20-7/Task 125, March 2001.
Figure 2. Overview of the Research Adoption Process.
Team Building + Peer Exchange = ResultsBased on results of the team building effort and advice from
the peer exchange, the ORBP team established a detailed plan for implementing research results (see Figure 2). This plan, referred to as the adoption process, will help principal investigators, proj-ect managers, and research managers develop implementation plans during the origination phase of a research project. “This piece of the transportation research cycle makes adoption of re-sults a part of normal department operations, which will maxi-mize the return on our research investments,” Roberts said.
Next Steps To fi nalize this exciting period of self-examination and plan-
ning for the ORBP, and to take steps toward pursuing the full po-tential of Michigan’s research program, the team will complete three immediate projects. The fi rst will be to publish a report that summarizes the peer exchange effort. The report will include specifi c observations and suggestions from the panel about how to achieve success in each focus area.
The second and third projects both address the need for good communication within the transportation research community. A research Web site is in development through the ORBP. The
Web site is currently available to the ORBP team; plans are in place to make it available outside of MDOT. An update of the department’s Research Administration Manual is scheduled to be released in February 2008. The manual was last updated in 2003, and does not refl ect the new strategy for administering research in the state. “The new research manual will provide comprehen-sive guidance for all groups and individuals at all phases of the research cycle,” explained Roberts.
EXIT
ENTER
ORBP CompletesClose out
Submit plan anddetermination toREC thru ORBP
Will weimplement at alarger scale?
Will weconduct pilot?
Submit plan anddetermination to
ORBP
Yes
Is it feasibleat this time? Yes
No No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Submit plan toRAC for review
and determination
Implementation/reseach
manager developdetailed pilot plan
Report RACdecision to
REC
Researchmanagerconductspilot study
Is furtherevaluationneeded?
Refer back toappropriate level for further study/
evaluation
Report to ORBP Report to REC
Do we gofurther with
implementation?
Implementationmanager createsplan to ensure
adoption
Submit to RECthru ORBP Yes
NoNo
Agree toadopt?
Report to RECthru ORBP
ORBP completesclose out
Impact meetingwith stakeholders
Distributionof approved
adoption plan
Adoption
No