RAC/CUTC LIAISON GROUP
Successful Partnerships Survey
Jason Bittner/University of Wisconsin
Sue Sillick/Montana DOT
July 2011
PURPOSE
Development of examples of successful
partnerships between RAC and CUTC
members through a survey and
Development of case studies
RESPONDING STATES (35)












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 CUTC MEMBERS (26)
 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
QUESTION 1: STATE DOTS AND UNIVERSITIES WERE ASKED
ABOUT THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONDUCTED
JOINTLY.
State DOT
CUTC
Other
4%
Other
7%
Provide Continuing
Education
9%
Research Projects
20%
Manage LTAP
6%
Manage LTAP
9%
Workforce Development
9%
Development of
Research Ideas
13%
Provide
Continuing
Education
12%
Cross Membership on
Committees or Advisory
Boards
18%
Joint
Meetings/Workshops
15%
Research
Projects
18%
Cross
Membership
on Committees
or Advisory
Boards
15%
Workforce
Development
14%
Development
of Research
Ideas
15%
Joint
Meetings/Wor
kshops
16%
QUESTION 1: STATE DOTS AND UNIVERSITIES WERE ASKED
ABOUT THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONDUCTED
JOINTLY.
Activity
State DOT
CUTC
Research Projects
28
24
Cross Membership on Committees or Advisory
Boards
Joint Meetings/Workshops
25
20
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 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 .
CUTC
State DOTs
None
12%
None
26%
Both
17%
In state
43%
In state
71%
Both
26%
Out of
State
0%
Out of State
5%
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.
State DOT
Don’t Have
Agreements
3%
Other
9%
Don’t Have
Agreements
13%
Master
Agreements w/
Project-Specific
Task
Agreements
40%
Grants
4%
Memorandum
of Agreement
(MOA)/Memora
ndum of
Understanding
(MOU)
13%
Project specific
agreements
only
21%
Grants
12%
Memorandum of
Agreement
(MOA)/Memoran
dum of
Understanding
(MOU)
17%
CUTC
Other
8%
Master
Agreements w/
Project-Specific
Task Agreements
30%
Project specific
agreements only
30%
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
Project specific agreements only
19
12
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.
State DOT
Other
10%
Don’t Have
Agreements
13%
As a Lump
Sum
13%
Project by
Project
64%
Don’t Have
Agreement
4%
Other
0%
CUTC
As a Lump
Sum
21%
Project by
Project
75%
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.
State DOT
CUTC
Yes
17%
Yes
26%
No
74%
No
83%
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.
Don’t Have
Agreements
8%
State DOT
CUTC
Don’t Have
Agreements
20%
Sometimes
26%
No
0%
Yes
54%
Sometimes
29%
Yes
63%
No
0%
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 OUTOF-STATE UNIVERSITIES.
Cost
Consideration
0%
State DOT
State Policy
0%
State Law
Prohibits
Contracting
with Out-ofState Agencies/
Organizations
0%
Other
30%
No Need
70%
QUESTION 9: STATE DOTS WERE ASKED ABOUT
BARRIERS IN DEVELOPING AGREEMENTS WITH OUTOF-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 1
IA
KS
MN
----------------------------------------------TIER 2
MD
MT
WI
Questions?
Contacts
Jason Bittner
[email protected]
608-262-7246
Sue Sillick
[email protected]
406-444-7693