RAC/CUTC Liaison Group

RAC/CUTC Liaison Group Successful Partnerships Survey Jason Bittner/University of Wisconsin Sue Sillick/Montana DOT July 2011

Development of examples of successful partnerships between RAC and CUTC members through a survey and Development of case studies Purpose

AK • AZ • CA • CO • GA • HI • IA • ID • IL • KA • LA • MA • MD • ME • MN • MO • MS • MT • NC • NE • NH • NJ • NM • NY • OH • OR • PA • RI • SD • TX • UT • WA • WI • WV • 1 unidentified state Responding States (35)

GA Institute of Technology • IA State University • Jackson State University • KS State University • MI Technological University • MT State University • Morgan State University • OK State University • OR Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC) • PA State University • Rutgers, the State University of NJ • San Jose State University • University of AL, Birmingham • University of AL, Tuscaloosa • University of CA, Davis • University of Memphis • University of MN • University of NV, Reno • University of TN • University of TX, Austin • UT State University • University of VT • University of WA • University of WI • 2 unidentified CUTC members Responding CUTC Members (26)

Question 1: State DOTs and Universities were asked about the type of activities that are conducted jointly.

Question 2: State DOTs were asked whether they have formal agreements with university-based transportation centers. Similarly, CUTC members were asked whether they have formal agreements with state DOTs.

Question 3: State DOTs and CUTC members asked about the types of agreements they have with one another.

Question 4: This question asked how research activities are funded through these agreements.

Question 5: This question asked whether state DOTs were required to provide match for their CUTCmember.

Question 6: State DOTs and CUTC members were asked to identify the agencies/organizations with which they have agreements. In addition, they were asked to identify each agreement and to elaborate on the purpose and terms of the agreements.

Question 7: This question asked if the agreement process works well.

Question 8: State DOTs and CUTC members were asked about barriers to developing agreements with their in-state counterpart.

Question 9: State DOTs were asked about barriers in developing agreements with out-of-state universities.

Question 10: State DOTs and CUTC members were asked to list the criteria for developing successful partnerships. • Each partner must clearly understand the other’s culture, mission, goals, objectives, and schedules. • The partnership must be beneficial for all partners; it must address both current priority needs of the DOT and the academic and business goals of the university. • There must be a good working relationship among the partners based on trust, confidence, and respect. • There must be clear expectations and accountability for all partners, based on precise problem statements, scopes of work, contracts, and deliverables. • There must be effective, ongoing communication among the partners. • There must be a willingness on all sides to contribute to the partnership (e.g., funds, expertise, equipment, time), creating incentives for all partners. • All partners must have strong leaders who serve as champions for the partnership. • The research must not be overburdened by administrative requirements. • There must be a collaborative process to identify research needs and select projects. • A good partnership among organizations begins with good relationships among individuals.

Question 11: State DOT and CUTC members were asked to rate each partnership on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high).

Question 12: The last question asked if the respondents were willing to provide additional information for case studies .(In Progress) Tier 1 IA KS MN ----------------------------------------------- Tier 2 MD MT WI

Questions? Contacts Jason Bittner jjbittner@wisc.edu 608-262-7246 Sue Sillick ssillick@mt.gov 406-444-7693

RAC/CUTC Liaison Group

RAC/CUTC Liaison Group

Presentation Transcript