1. RAC/CUTC LIAISON GROUP Successful Partnerships Survey Jason Bittner/University of Wisconsin Sue Sillick/Montana DOT July 2011

2. Development of examples of successful partnerships between RAC and CUTC members through a survey and Development of case studies PURPOSE

3.  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)

4.  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)

5. QUESTION 1: STATE DOTS AND UNIVERSITIES WERE ASKED ABOUT THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONDUCTED JOINTLY.

6. ActivityState DOTCUTC Research Projects2824 Cross Membership on Committees or Advisory Boards 2520 Joint Meetings/Workshops2022 Development of Research Ideas1820 Workforce Development1319 Manage LTAP129 Provide Continuing Education1316 Other105 QUESTION 1: STATE DOTS AND UNIVERSITIES WERE ASKED ABOUT THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONDUCTED JOINTLY.

7. 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.

8. AgreementsState DOTsCUTC In state1517 Out of State20 Both94 None93

9. QUESTION 3: STATE DOTS AND CUTC MEMBERS ASKED ABOUT THE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS THEY HAVE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

10. Agreement TypeState DOTCUTC Master Agreements w/ Project-Specific Task Agreements 1912 Project specific agreements only1012 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 67 Grants25 Don’t Have Agreements61 Other43

11. QUESTION 4: THIS QUESTION ASKED HOW RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ARE FUNDED THROUGH THESE AGREEMENTS.

12. PaymentState DOTCUTC As a Lump Sum56 Project by Project2521 Don’t Have Agreements51 Other40

13. QUESTION 5: THIS QUESTION ASKED WHETHER STATE DOTS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MATCH FOR THEIR CUTC MEMBER.

14. Match Required?State DOTCUTC Yes94 No2620

15. 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.

16. QUESTION 7: THIS QUESTION ASKED IF THE AGREEMENT PROCESS WORKS WELL.

17. Agreement Process Works Well?State DOTCUTC Yes1915 No00 Sometimes97 Don’t Have Agreements72

18. QUESTION 8: STATE DOTS AND CUTC MEMBERS WERE ASKED ABOUT BARRIERS TO DEVELOPING AGREEMENTS WITH THEIR IN-STATE COUNTERPART.

19. QUESTION 9: STATE DOTS WERE ASKED ABOUT BARRIERS IN DEVELOPING AGREEMENTS WITH OUT- OF-STATE UNIVERSITIES.

20. Barriers to Developing Out-of-State AgreementsState DOT State Law Prohibits Contracting with Out-of-State Agencies/Organizations 0 State Policy0 Cost Considerations0 No Need16 Other7

21. 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.

22. QUESTION 11: STATE DOT AND CUTC MEMBERS WERE ASKED TO RATE EACH PARTNERSHIP ON A SCALE OF 1 (LOW) TO 10 (HIGH).

23. 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

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