Robust research programs are those most often held up as the models others desire to emulate; they flourish and thrive, are vital and enduring, contribute to the achievement of organizational goals and, overall, add value to the parent organization. These programs must be effective, that is, they must produce a quantity of high-quality, well-targeted products capable of application to the real problems of their parent units. However, it is not enough that they do good technical work. To achieve a robust status, they must also be perceived as doing good work. Some research programs remain robust over long periods, whereas others struggle for respect and support. Managers concerned about building robust research programs should seek ways to achieve these ends. This report focuses on those key attributes that contribute to the achievement of robustness. In-depth interviews with public and private sector senior managers, both domestic and international; academics; a focus group of state Department of Transportation (DOT) research http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_280.pdfmanagers; peer exchange activities (extensive peer-to-peer meetings conducted by state DOT research units); and business and technology literature provide the basis for the conclusions found in this report. Analysis of these sources reveal that there is something more to creating and maintaining vital and enduring research programs than delivering timely, high-quality products—though this is essential. Seven key attributes (the "seven keys") were identified that seem to distinguish robust programs from others. What's more, these key attributes are universal, that is, they are applicable to research programs whether found in commercial enterprises, national or international organizations, or state DOTs. They are the keys to building robust research programs. Although all research programs must be vigilant to assure their relevance and connectedness to their sponsors, state transportation research programs operate in especially difficult This report may be accessed by Internet users at institutional settings. There are no explicit and compelling imperatives for DOTs to invest in research. Top managers may have short tenure and are increasingly drawn from nontechnical disciplines with a lack of understanding of how to manage research. In addition, there is the temptation to be a follower, that is, to use the results of research from other states, rather than committing to one's own program. These factors combine to encourage a tendency to neglect research. However, state DOTs are in need of solutions for their particular technical, policy, environmental, financial, or other problems, some of which can be found through research. Although federal legislation generally requires each state to invest in research, the required program may be inadequate to address the needs of the parent department or to achieve a scale that warrants top management attention. These conditions present a major challenge for research managers. One of the most positive factors in the achievement of robust programs is the presence of a chief administrative officer (CAO) who is predisposed towards research, understands the contribution research can make to achieving organizational goals, provides sufficient resources, and requires accountability from the research program. Such leadership, combined with top-notch research management, virtually assures a robust program. Conversely, there are some CAOs who are predisposed against research, believing that research is at best an unavoidable overhead cost, and at worst a waste of taxpayer funds. Even the most capable research management will experience difficulties under such circumstances, and in such instances a robust program may prove impossible. However, most CAOs do come to office more or less indifferent to research and left alone may finish their term with little understanding or appreciation for it. It is in these situations where the seven keys can make a difference. The incorporation of these attributes into a research program will, over time, establish its reputation as an important and vital part of the organization. This reputation will prevail among most top and middle department management, as well as legislators, academics, and the private sector. These individuals will form a constituency who will become advocates for the program at critical milestones as, for example, when new top management arrives on the scene or in times of department downsizing and budget cutting. Most of this report describes the seven keys and illustrates these descriptions with anecdotes that demonstrate how successful managers have applied them in a wide variety of situations. In some cases names and places have been used; in others, specifics have been omitted or disguised to avoid individual or organizational embarrassment. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting