rac/cutc liaison group
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
RAC/CUTC LIAISON GROUP
Successful Partnerships Survey
Jason Bittner/University of WisconsinSue 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.
Research Projects20%
Cross Membership on Committees or Advisory
Boards18%
Joint Meetings/Workshops14%
Development of Research Ideas13%
Workforce Development9%
Manage LTAP9%
Provide Continuing Edu-cation
9%
Other7%
State DOT
Research Projects18%
Cross Mem-
bership on
Com-mittees or Ad-visory
Boards15%
Joint Meet-ings/Workshops16%
Devel-opment
of Re-search Ideas15%
Workforce Development14%
Manage
LTAP7%
Provide Con-
tinuing Educa-
tion12%
Other4%CUTC
Activity State DOT CUTC
Research Projects 28 24
Cross Membership on Committees or Advisory Boards
25 20
Joint Meetings/Workshops 20 22
Development of Research Ideas 18 20
Workforce Development 13 19
Manage LTAP 12 9
Provide Continuing Education 13 16
Other 10 5
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 .
In state43%
Out of State6%
Both26%
None26%
State DOTs
In state71%
Both17%
None13%
CUTC
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 .
Agreements State DOTs CUTC
In state 15 17
Out of State 2 0
Both 9 4
None 9 3
QUESTION 3: STATE DOTS AND CUTC MEMBERS ASKED ABOUT THE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS THEY HAVE WITH
ONE ANOTHER.
Master Agreements w/ Project-Specific Task
Agreements40%
Project specific agreements only21%
Memo-randum
of Agree-ment
(MOA)/Memo-
randum of Un-der-
standing (MOU)
13%
Grants4%
Don’t Have Agreements13%
Other9%
State DOT
Master Agreements w/ Project-Specific
Task Agreements30%
Project specific agreements only30%
Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA)/Memo-randum of Un-
derstanding (MOU)
18%
Grants13%
Don’t Have Agreements
3% Other8%
CUTC
QUESTION 3: STATE DOTS AND CUTC MEMBERS ASKED ABOUT THE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS THEY HAVE WITH
ONE ANOTHER.Agreement Type State DOT CUTC
Master Agreements w/ Project-Specific Task Agreements
19 12
Project specific agreements only 10 12
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
6 7
Grants 2 5
Don’t Have Agreements 6 1
Other 4 3
QUESTION 4: THIS QUESTION ASKED HOW RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ARE FUNDED THROUGH THESE
AGREEMENTS.
As a Lump Sum13%
Project by Project64%
Don’t Have Agreements
13%
Other10%
State DOT
As a Lump Sum21%
Project by Project
75%
Don’t Have Agreement
4%
CUTC
QUESTION 4: THIS QUESTION ASKED HOW RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ARE FUNDED THROUGH THESE
AGREEMENTS.
Payment State DOT CUTC
As a Lump Sum 5 6
Project by Project 25 21
Don’t Have Agreements 5 1
Other 4 0
QUESTION 5: THIS QUESTION ASKED WHETHER STATE DOTS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MATCH FOR
THEIR CUTC MEMBER.
Yes26%
No74%
State DOT
Yes17%
No83%
CUTC
QUESTION 5: THIS QUESTION ASKED WHETHER STATE DOTS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MATCH FOR
THEIR CUTC MEMBER.
Match Required?
State DOT CUTC
Yes 9 4
No 26 20
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.
Yes63%
Sometimes29%
Don’t Have Agreements8%
CUTC
Yes54%Some
times26%
Don’t Have Agreements
20%
State DOT
QUESTION 7: THIS QUESTION ASKED IF THE AGREEMENT PROCESS WORKS WELL.
Agreement Process Works Well? State DOT CUTC
Yes 19 15
No 0 0
Sometimes 9 7
Don’t Have Agreements 7 2
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.
No Need70%
Other30%
State DOT
QUESTION 9: STATE DOTS WERE ASKED ABOUT BARRIERS IN DEVELOPING AGREEMENTS WITH OUT-
OF-STATE UNIVERSITIES.
Barriers to Developing Out-of-State Agreements State DOT
State Law Prohibits Contracting with Out-of-State Agencies/Organizations
0
State Policy 0
Cost Considerations 0
No Need 16
Other 7
QUESTION 10: STATE DOTS AND CUTC MEMBERS WERE ASKED TO LIST THE CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING
SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS.
1. Each partner must clearly understand the other’s culture, mission, goals, objectives, and schedules.
2. 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.
3. There must be a good working relationship among the partners based on trust, confidence, and respect.
4. There must be clear expectations and accountability for all partners, based on precise problem statements, scopes of work, contracts, and deliverables.
5. There must be effective, ongoing communication among the partners.6. There must be a willingness on all sides to contribute to the partnership (e.g.,
funds, expertise, equipment, time), creating incentives for all partners.7. All partners must have strong leaders who serve as champions for the
partnership.8. The research must not be overburdened by administrative requirements.9. There must be a collaborative process to identify research needs and select
projects. 10. 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 1IAKSMN
-----------------------------------------------TIER 2
MDMTWI
