1 / 24

RAC/CUTC Liaison Group

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

alika-dyer
Download Presentation

RAC/CUTC Liaison Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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. 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. 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.

  9. Question 3: State DOTs and CUTC members asked about the types of agreements they have with one another.

  10. Question 3: State DOTs and CUTC members asked about the types of agreements they have with one another.

  11. Question 4: This question asked how research activities are funded through these agreements.

  12. Question 4: This question asked how research activities are funded through these agreements.

  13. Question 5: This question asked whether state DOTs were required to provide match for their CUTCmember.

  14. Question 5: This question asked whether state DOTs were required to provide match for their CUTCmember.

  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. Question 7: This question asked if the agreement process works well.

  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. Question 9: State DOTs were asked about barriers in developing agreements with out-of-state universities.

  21. Question 10: State DOTs and CUTC members were asked to list the criteria for developing successful partnerships. • Each partner must clearly understand the other’s culture, mission, goals, objectives, and schedules. • 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. • There must be a good working relationship among the partners based on trust, confidence, and respect. • There must be clear expectations and accountability for all partners, based on precise problem statements, scopes of work, contracts, and deliverables. • There must be effective, ongoing communication among the partners. • There must be a willingness on all sides to contribute to the partnership (e.g., funds, expertise, equipment, time), creating incentives for all partners. • All partners must have strong leaders who serve as champions for the partnership. • The research must not be overburdened by administrative requirements. • There must be a collaborative process to identify research needs and select projects. • 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

More Related