Hennepin-University Partnership Since November 2004 - Three Years of Connecting Where it Counts

1. Hennepin-University PartnershipSince November 2004 - Three Years of Connecting Where it Counts Ad Hoc Assessment Committee October 31, 2007 Meeting

2. BEGINNINGS + + + + +   where we started Study of Biodiesel fuel in Snowplows, 1999-2000 A project of the Center for Diesel Research at the University of Minnesota Parties Involved Hennepin: Barb Sutey, Central Mobile Equipment Division Parties Involved University: Kelly Strebig, Center for Diesel Research Other Parties Involved: Mn DOT Contact Person: Kelly Strebig, Center for Diesel Research Project Description: The Center for Diesel Research wanted to test the reliability of biodiesel fuels in heavy machinery in a cold climate. The project stretched over two winters and involved a comparison in fuel efficiency, power, and driver perception of standard diesel powered snowplows and some powered by a 20% mix of biodiesel fuel. The results of the test were positive; the drivers found the process easy and the research was thorough and accurate. Why was Collaboration chosen? The project could not have taken place with out cooperation. The State Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources provided funding, University did not have the trucks but Hennepin County did. Project Goals: The Center for Diesel Research sought to demonstrate the feasibility of Biodiesel in cold climates, identify any mechanical or chemical problems, and generate operator approval. Outcomes: Operators were satisfied and the initiative proved the benefits and functionality of Biodiesel in Minnesota. Benefits to University: The project could have cost several hundred dollars a month if done with a different partner. Hennepin was wonderful to work with; they provided an integrated and painless process start to finish. Benefits to Hennepin County: The County could not have conducted this research alone. They are slowly moving toward more Biodiesel and need more research to convince manufacturers and operators. • Catalogued and analyzed existing connections • Establish focus and direction • Direction from Richard Johnson and Tom Scott • Interviews with Commissioners, department heads, faculty, heads of centers

3. Hennepin County / University of Minnesota Collaboration Initiative 2005 BEGINNINGS + + + + +   where we started • Created a unified vision and purpose, established an identity • Vision and Goals • March 2005 kick off event with President Bruininks, Commissioner Koblick, Commissioner Johnson • Public relations team developed a name, tagline, logo – connecting 2 strong ‘brands’

4. V I S I O N G O A L S Create knowledge: Conduct joint research on issues of mutual interest Share Expertise: From both academic and practitioner perspectives A Strategic Alignment between the State’s Primary Research University and the State’s Largest County- connecting where it counts Students: More opportunities for students to gain from enriched learning experiences and to build community-awareness into future work force Operational Efficiencies: Share knowledge and best practices around the operation of large institutions Hennepin County / University of Minnesota Collaboration Initiative 2005

5. ACTION + + + + +   executing the vision • Liaison and research assistants draw upon resources from both entities to execute tasks… • Initiate collaborative projects: • Ending Homelessness Initiative • Dialogue on Children’s Mental Health • SHAPE survey • Boys Reading Initiative • Early Neutral Evaluation

6. ACTION + + + + +   executing the vision • Liaison and research assistants draw upon resources from both entities to execute tasks… • Initiate collaborative projects: Transitway Impacts Research

7. ACTION + + + + +   executing the vision • Liaison and research assistants draw upon resources from both entities to execute tasks… • Streamlining the contracting process with a Master Cooperative Agreement – signing ceremony in August 07

8. ACTION + + + + +   executing the vision • Liaison and research assistants draw upon resources from both entities to execute tasks… • Responding to requests for assistance • Connecting Experts – academic and practitioner • Connecting with Students as interns/research assts • Supporting programmatic connections • Troubleshooting

9. ACTION + + + + +   executing the vision • Liaison and research assistants draw upon resources from both entities to execute tasks… • Communication strategies to support collaboration

10. SUCCESS + + + + +  what has worked well so far • Support from Leadership • Development of a resource • County Commissioners and staff - help in navigating complexities of U of M structure; U of M administrators and leaders - bridging the gap to the world of government • Current model works best for early adopters -> • Relationship Building w Key Individuals • CYFC, CTS, HHH, etc • One new research program established(Transitway Impacts Research Program)

11. AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT + + + + +  challenges • - Starting up new connections-- takes time and effort • * Exceptional effort rather than "business as usual” • Frustration arising from unrealistic expectations • Funding challenges - R & D gets cut when money is tight

12. AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT + + + + +  challenges

13. Where do we go from here? + + + + +