Peer Exchanges: Summary of Changes in SP&R Guide For Peer Exchanges Issued January 2010

1. Peer Exchanges: Summary of Changes inSP&R Guide For Peer ExchangesIssued January 2010 Barnie Jones Research Section Manager Oregon Department of Transportation

2. Peer Exchanges • Federal Requirement. • “Each State shall conduct peer reviews of its RD&T program and should participate in the review of other States' programs on a periodic basis.” [23 CFR 420.207 (b)] • Objective: improve the quality and effectiveness of research management process.

3. Peer Exchanges: History • Federal Requirement emerging from ISTEA (1991). • One component of a new model for research management. • Peer Review vs. Peer Exchange

4. Peer Exchanges: History • Federal Requirement emerging from ISTEA (1991). • One component of a new model for research management. • Peer Review vs. Peer Exchange

5. Peer Exchanges: History • Federal Requirement emerging from ISTEA (1991). • One component of a new model for research management. • Peer Review vs. Peer Exchange

6. Success of the Peer Exchange • The Peer Exchange is widely recognized as an excellent tool. • The Peer Exchange is frequently copied by other groups within transportation. • The goal of the RAC Peer Exchange Task Force was to improve the effectiveness of this valued tool.

7. RAC Task Force and its Recommendations • Revise requirement to perform a peer exchange from once in 3 years to once in 5 years. • Allow more flexibility to explore alternate formats. • Provide assistance with travel reimbursement for panel participants. • Develop training materials & updated resources for FHWA Division Office & State DOT Research Personnel.

8. Key Changes • Updates philosophy by both encouraging and creating the flexibility to use the peer exchange strategically. • Provides for alternate formats. • Revised interval between peer exchanges. • Revised peer exchange length. • Suggests new resources for peer exchange logistical support. • Clarifies close-out and follow-up requirements. • Clarifies the Role of the FHWA Division office

9. Using your Peer Exchange Strategically • .

10. Using your Peer Exchange Strategically • First Peer Exchange: • a) full evaluation of the program • Second Peer Exchange: • a) full evaluation of the program and/or • b) specific focus topics • After Second Peer Exchange: • a) full evaluation of the program and/or • b) specific focus topics • c) explore emerging opportunities for program improvements

11. How to use your peer exchange strategically • Panel composition • Other participants • Format • Length • Timing • Activities planned during the exchange

12. Alternative Formats • On-site at Host State (standard format) • Multi-state Peer Exchange • Virtual Peer Exchange • Multiple ”mini” Peer Exchanges

13. Multi-state Peer Exchange • No more than 3 states may meet the requirement at a Multi-state Peer Exchange. • Must include an equal or greater number of panelists, beyond representatives of the Peer Exchange states. • Expected to be longer than a standard Peer Exchange. • Exchange must still incorporate discussion of facilities of all the Peer Exchange States. • All the Peer Exchange states must hold their own closeout meeting with their upper management and Division office.

14. Virtual Peer Exchange • Only in rare instances. • Same array of participants as other formats. • Prohibits back-to-back virtual peer exchanges.

15. Multiple “mini” Peer Exchanges • More than one part-day or one-day activity. • May be a combination of formats. • Must cumulatively satisfy the requirement of 2-3 days within 5 years. • Must still address key requirements, including a report, and a closeout meeting.

16. Length and Cycle Time • Old minimum of 3 days revised downward to 2-3 days. • Length should consider scope and objectives • Longer for multi-state peer exchanges • Perhaps longer for a comprehensive peer exchange. • Can be treated as a cumulative total over multiple peer exchanges. • Definition of “Periodic” has been bumped from 3 to 5 years.

17. New Resources for • Peer Exchange Administration • Most states struggle with the administrative side of hosting a Peer Exchange, because of issues related to paying for travel, lodging, meeting facilities, meals or refreshments. • The new manual suggests some options: • LTAP Centers • University Transportation Centers • Transportation Pooled Fund Program

18. The role of your FHWA Division office • Solicit their support in planning your peer exchange. • Invite them to participate directly. • Prepare and submit a follow-up report

19. Closeout Meeting • New guidance contains specific expectations for the closeout meeting: • “The host state should hold a close-out meeting together with their FHWA division office representative and their State DOT upper management on the peer exchange.“

20. New Follow-up Expectations • Old System • Optional “Round Robin” follow up Report. • A formal response required only if the host state rejects the Peer Exchange Report and Recommendations. • New System • “Before the next peer exchange the state director of research should prepare a follow up report or memorandum summarizing changes that were or were not made to the program based on the previous peer exchange, and submit it to their FHWA division office and their State DOT upper management.”

21. Questions?