After researcher selection and contracting is complete, the real work of research begins. Managing research is a time-intensive, people-driven process. Typically, research program staff take the lead but rely on the active engagement of participants from across the agency and beyond to ensure that the research their agencies fund is effectively managed to produce valuable results.
This examination of member states’ research project management identifies the entities overseeing research at the project level, and considers how the roles and responsibilities of the people participating in the oversight and management of research are defined for each member state.
Note: At the time of database development, Wyoming was not convening a committee or panel to manage each research project. The summary tables below will not include Wyoming when a query is not relevant to the agency’s current practices.
Identifying Participants in Research Oversight
All but one member state — Wyoming — identifies potential participants on a committee or panel that will oversee a research project. For some member states, this committee or panel is in place before contracting to assist with development of a request for proposal or participate in the selection of a qualified researcher to conduct the work.
As the table below indicates, 80% of member states invite subject matter experts (SMEs) with relevant experience and an interest in research to participate on a project panel. SMEs may also be invited to participate if they have already participated in evaluating a problem statement or may approach the research program to express interest in overseeing a particular research project. For eight member states, selection of a project panel may also involve administrators with an interest in particular topic areas who recommend staff members to participate on project panels.
Selected Practices
Some member states provided additional information about the participants on their research project panels:
- New Mexico. The project advocate and/or sponsor select the technical panel.
- Colorado. The project manager and champion often work together to invite panel members to participate.
- Nevada. Champions typically work with the agency’s research program and researchers to identify potential oversight committee members. The champion makes the final determination on member selection.
Project Panel Composition and Engagement
Of the 14 member states convening a committee or panel to oversee each research project, only two limit the membership of these oversight bodies in some way:
- In Oklahoma, there is only one subject matter expert (SME) on the project panel.
- Utah aims for a maximum of seven people on a research project technical advisory committee. This number is somewhat flexible and considers the inclusion of the agency champion, Research and Innovation division project manager, and researcher.
External Participants
Member states are more likely than not to allow or encourage the participation of panel members from outside the agency. The most typical external participants are described below:
- Colorado. Other state or federal agencies, stakeholders, and SMEs.
- Idaho. Stakeholders who may be end users of project outcomes, affected by the outcomes, or who have unique expertise to provide oversight. Examples are representatives of industry, such as contractors, suppliers, and the state member of the American Council of Engineering Companies; Local Highway Technical Assistance Council, Idaho’s Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), an administrative organization established in state code and separate from Idaho Transportation Department; and advocacy groups related to safety.
- Montana. Subject area experts may be representatives of state agencies such as the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and foundations such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. This participation is encouraged for projects requiring expertise that is not readily available within the agency.
- Nebraska. Consultants, contractors, and representatives from cities and counties. The agency permits both agency staff and external stakeholders to serve as voting members.
- Nevada. SMEs from other state agencies who have an interest in the research and participate as voting members. The champion casts the deciding vote on all project governance matters.
- New Mexico. Industry stakeholders related to the project (for example, material providers) participate on panels but are not voting members.
- South Dakota. Other state agencies, contractors, material suppliers, and organizations such as the Associated General Contractors of America may participate; all are voting members.
- Texas. Other transportation-related agencies and organizations, including FHWA, regional mobility organizations, and other state agencies such as the Department Public Safety and Department of Parks and Wildlife.
- Utah. External participants have included representatives from the Utah Transit Authority, metropolitan planning organizations, other universities, FHWA, other consultants, other Utah state agencies, materials suppliers and highway contractors. Typically, voting is not an issue, as most project committee items are decided by discussion and consensus.
- Washington. Panels may include “upstream and downstream stakeholders” such as local jurisdictions and community organizations.
Research Program Participants
Only two member states — Alaska and Washington — do not place a research program staff member on every committee or panel overseeing research projects.
Meeting Schedules
There is no consensus among member states for the frequency with which panels meet to discuss the research projects they manage. Two-thirds meet on at least an ad hoc basis, while seven agencies meet according to a set schedule. The table below summarizes member state responses.
Selected Practices
Several member states described a nuanced approach to convening the committees and panels that oversee research:
- In Colorado, the frequency of project panel meetings depends on the type of project and project needs. Most project panels meet quarterly and monthly, in addition to ad hoc meetings convened when the researcher, champion or project manager identify a need.
- The frequency of Idaho’s panel meetings varies depending on the scope and complexity of the project, the nature of the deliverables, and the management style of project managers. (Note: Idaho recently began requiring a project manager and co-project manager for each project. The co-project manager can function as the project manager in the event the other project manager leaves their position, leaves the agency, is out for an extended period of time or is otherwise unable to fulfill their duties.)
Idaho’s ad hoc meetings are typically smaller than regularly scheduled meetings, often bringing together only the researcher and project manager; research program staff may be called in to provide administrative assistance.
- The panels overseeing Nebraska’s research projects meet five times over the life of the project:
- Project kickoff
- 25% complete
- 50% complete
- 75% complete
- Project completion (final meeting)
Additional ad hoc meetings can be convened upon the request of panel members or the Research Section.
- Nevada’s project panels meet as needed, but not less frequently than quarterly.
- Project panels in Oklahoma meet once each quarter.
- In Washington, project panels will convene when project performance issues, emerging risks or opportunities arise that require prompt attention.
Panel Member Guidance
One-quarter of member states do not provide formal guidance regarding panel member duties. For the states that do provide such guidance, most often it takes the form of a review of project roles at the project kickoff meeting. Seven member states — Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington — provide written guidance.
See the Program Documentation page for member states’ guidance for project panel members.
Selected Practices
Colorado’s research manual describes the panel member role and is provided to new panel members as they are appointed. In Nebraska, panel members receive an email outlining the agency’s expectations for participation throughout the life of the project. Panel members are provided access to all project-related documents through a SharePoint location.
Duties of Participants in the Research Process
This section highlights the specific tasks performed by the four primary participants on project panels overseeing each research project:
- Research program staff members
- Project champion of committee chair
- Committee or panel members
- Principal investigator
Research Program Staff Members
Member states identified the principal tasks conducted by research program staff members participating on a research panel from among 15 common activities. These activities range from administrative tasks, such as scheduling meetings and taking notes, to recommending potential implementation activities over the course of the research effort.
Research program staff in four member states perform all 15 tasks — Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Washington. In Washington, research program staff members have conducted — or are capable of conducting — not only the 15 tasks identified in the table below, but also these activities:
- Help identify and mitigate risks and opportunities
- Explore potential synergies across agency departments and/or other ongoing or completed research projects
- Help identify upstream and downstream stakeholders to mitigate unanticipated challenges and promote successful research implementation
Not all research program staff members are as heavily engaged in research program oversight. In California, research program staff perform three tasks — scheduling and facilitating panel meetings, and coordinating the review of project deliverables. For all member states, the least likely task for a research program staff member to perform is to recommend and discuss potential communication products throughout the life of the research project.
Project Champion or Committee Chair
Project oversight for member states involves a project champion or committee chair (for some member states, the project champion is the committee chair) who performs tasks that go beyond those expected of other committee or panel members. For all but two member states, the champion or chair participates in addressing project-related matters, including those associated with the research team. Among the eight tasks identified in the table below, this key participant in project oversight is least likely to review invoices — only Idaho and Washington involve the champion or chair in this review.
Panel or Committee Members
Almost all member states include panel or committee members in project decisions and the review of task and final deliverables. As the table below indicates, panel members are least likely to present research results at relevant meetings or conferences — only panel members overseeing Nebraska’s research projects make these presentations — and promote research results within the agency.
As do other participants in Washington’s research process, project panel or committee members explore synergies on any ongoing work in respective departments, and identify implementation barriers, risks and opportunities.
Principal Investigators
Like the research program staff members participating in project oversight, the principal investigator (PI) can be tasked with a wide range of activities.
The table below identifies 14 activities commonly undertaken by a PI. As the table indicates, no member state requires its PIs to perform all of them. Three states — Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming — do not require the PI to attend research project meetings. Only six member states require the PI to take notes during panel meetings, and fewer than half require development and delivery of a final project presentation to the agency.
Eight member states involve PIs in promoting research results at relevant meetings or conferences. Only five member states currently involve PIs in the promotion of project results through avenues such as articles and podcasts.
Presenting Research Findings
Two member states offered additional details of PI outreach and final deliverables:
- Nebraska asks its PIs to present research results at conferences they opt to attend, but there is no contractual obligation for PIs to make presentations at webinars, conferences or other meetings.
- Idaho researchers often present their work with Idaho Transportation Department at conferences and webinars outside the agency, but making those presentations is not specified in the terms of the PI’s agreement. A few PIs have also presented to agency leadership. Some very small, narrowly focused projects may not require a final presentation.
Other Selected Practices
Two member states described additional administrative tasks for the PI:
- In Idaho, invoices are most often submitted by the finance office of the PI’s organization, not by the PI.
- PIs conducting research for Oklahoma submit monthly and annual reports, as well as a final report.
Research Process Duties Spotlight on Practice: Washington
Invoice-related provisions allow Washington State DOT to more effectively track a research team’s progress and take appropriate action before the research contract expires.
Documenting Billable Activities
In addition to quarterly reports, Washington State DOT requires researchers to include a short paragraph describing what was accomplished during the period of performance for each invoice.
Tracking Expenditures
The agency tracks actual time and costs and identifies when they appear to be out of sync — particularly during the final quarter of the contract. Research program staff alert the project champion to any inconsistencies and intiate a discussion while the project is still in process and action can be taken, if needed, before the contract expires.
Holding Funds
Contractual language allows the agency to reserve the right to hold up to 10% of the contracted amount or $10,000, whichever is less, until such time as the final deliverable is accepted by the project champion and the research program’s compliance guidelines have been met.
