Download Highway Engineering Research Problem Statement: Format, Sections, and Evaluation and more Schemes and Mind Maps Literature in PDF only on Docsity!
Appendix
B
THE RESEARCH PROCESS - DETAILS AND
EXAMPLES
Introduction
The purpose of this appendix is to provide greater detail, and a number of examples, of some of the activities described in Chapter Three. Most of the sample documents have been taken from the National Co-operative Highway Research Program. These documents can be modified relatively easily to suit the requirements of other programs.
Problem Statement Development
The format of the problem statements used by AASHTO to select projects for inclusion in the National Co-operative Highway Research Program is as follows:
- Problem Title
- Problem
- Objective
- Key Words
- Related work
- Urgency/Priority
- Cost
- User Community
- Implementation
- Effectiveness
The title should be succinct. A title, which is vague, may result in a project not receiving due consideration. A title that is too long not only obscures the problem but also complicates cataloguing and databases, which frequently limit the number of characters in each field.
The Problem section justifies the need for the project. The initial justification of the project is generally only the beginning in the understanding of the research problem. All research activities should be couched within “Further understanding the problem or problems.” This concept provides the “Big Picture” that justifies and unites all the activities and purposes of the research project. Without this concept, research programs run the high risk of failure from investing in solutions searching for problems, or allocating resources to problems that are already well understood. Problems needing research should be redefined and better understood as a matter of course throughout a successful research project. Without constant refinement of the research problem itself, finding effective solutions and implementable recommendations is elusive.
Researchable problems may be discovered in the problem statement phase. Some initial problem descriptions may not turn out to be researchable. Some may not be true problems. Many requests may be referred to operations or planning units for assistance. If a problem is thought to be worth research investment, hopefully, after further discussion, literature syntheses, surveys, pilot studies, experiments, development, etc. the problem can be better understood, and a useful result can still be offered. It is for these reasons that some successful research projects employ multiple lines of investigation, hoping that at least some of them will be useful for different aspects of the problem.
The problem section typically consists of one to three paragraphs describing the problem, and explaining why it should be solved. The section should include background information on current practices and why they are deficient. It is important to provide information on the magnitude and extent of the problem. For example, whether the problem is a serviceability issue or a safety issue, and whether it occurs at the local, regional or national level. Wherever possible, it is useful to provide baseline data, e.g. number of accidents, or cost of failures. It is often appropriate to place limits on the scope of the project by indicating what form the solution should take, e.g. a specification, report, test method, design procedure, computer program, or a piece of equipment. A very useful test of whether a problem can be solved by research is that, if the form of the solution can be defined, the problem is researchable.
The purpose of the Objective section is to state very clearly what products are expected from the research. The ability to define products that will resolve the problem, are attainable, and can be implemented, has a major impact on the likelihood of success.
Key words are used for indexing, and also for conducting a literature search to determine if related research is underway elsewhere. The section on related work provides an opportunity for the proposer to identify other work that is in progress or proposed in other research programs. Frequently, a research project will build upon the results of a project completed recently. It is unlikely that the results of the project will have been recorded in electronic databases, and would not be discovered by reviewers unless the proposer draws attention to the study.
Urgency/Priority provides an opportunity for the proposer to explain why the research needs to be initiated soon, and the consequences of a delay.
In the NCHRP process, problem statements include the cost, but not the duration of a project. Cost is required to estimate the benefit-cost of projects during the project selection phase. Other considerations, including cost, are discussed in the section ‘Request for Qualifications and Proposals’. Some agencies do include an estimate of time required for the work in the problem statement. This also provides an indication of the anticipated scope of the work, especially if fieldwork is envisaged, and permits annual budgets to be prepared for multi-year projects.
Figure B-1: An Example of a Research Problem Statement
Project Selection
There are a number of ways of ranking individual projects for the purpose of developing the research program. In many agencies, the responsibility rests with an advisory committee, comprising representatives of the client groups. Typically each member of the committee will review all the research problem statements independently, discuss them with colleagues, and rank them according to some or all of the criteria given in Chapter Three. The ranking may be complex, involving weighting the criteria, or it could be simple three (0,1,2 or low, medium, high) or four (0,1,2,3, or no need, low, medium, high) point ranking. This simple approach works well when there are a large number of problem statements to consider, and the size of the program is such that most will not be selected. In situations where only a small number of problem statements are to be considered, a ranking procedure involving a greater number, and weighting, of the selection criteria may be justified.
Requests for Qualifications or Proposals
As noted in Chapter Three, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is normally used in one of two situations:
- When the work activities are known and the sponsor wishes to hire qualified people to complete the work.
- As the first step before issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP).
An example of the first situation is given in Figure B-2. The RFQ provides an introduction describing why the work is being undertaken and the specific duties of the contractor. It also provides details of the format required for the response, selection criteria, time and schedule, and administrative details.
The format of an RFQ issued to screen respondents prior to issuing an RFP is very similar to that used in the first situation. The RFQ normally states the nature and scope of the work in general terms, and requests recipients to describe the qualifications and availability of key personnel, facilities, and prior experience in related work. It is common to limit the number of pages for the response.
An example of a Request for Proposals is given in Figure B-3. The RFP is an amplification of the research problem statement, with the addition of a schedule and administrative details. Because the NCHRP utilizes project panels, comprising individuals who are themselves technical experts in the field of study, RFP’s usually provide details of the tasks which the panel views necessary to complete the research successfully. Other research programs are less specific, and define the problem and solution desired, without stating the approach that is expected.
Figure B-3: An Example of a Request for Proposals
Research Proposals
Most sponsors have specific requirements for the content and format of proposals. This ensures that all the required information is provided. Review of the proposals is simplified if a standard format is used because the reviewers know where to find specific items. The NCHRP requires that the following information be presented in order:
- Cover
- Summary Page
- Table of Contents
- Research Plan
- Qualifications of the Research Team
- Accomplishments of the Research Team
- Other Commitments of the Research Team
- Equipment and Facilities
- Time Requirements
- Itemised Budget
- Co-operative features (if appropriate)
- Appendices (if appropriate)
Complete details of content and format are provided in the booklet ‘Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals’. The following is an excerpt of the requirements (items omitted are self- explanatory or satisfy administrative requirements).
Research Plan
The research plan shall detail completely the prosecution of the research, including the submission of an acceptable final report. The plan ultimately becomes a part of the contract by reference of the proposal; therefore, it should describe, in a specific and straightforward manner, the proposed approach to the solution of the problem described in the project statement. It should be concise, yet include sufficient detail to describe completely the approach to the solution of the problem. Research methodology shall be described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the probability of success in achieving the objectives.
The research plan shall be subdivided into the following sections:
Introduction
The introduction to the research plan should provide a concise overview of the proposer’s approach to conducting research. It should describe the manner in which the expertise and experience of the proposed team will be used in the research, and the application of special data, facilities, contacts or equipment should be presented. The Introduction should highlight the linkages of the proposed team’s capabilities to the project tasks and the manner by which the proposed plan will satisfy the objectives.
Equipment and Facilities
This section shall include a description of the facilities available to undertake the research and an itemization of the equipment on hand considered necessary to complete the research. In the event that use of the facilities or equipment is conditional, the conditions should be described. In the event that certain facilities or equipment are considered necessary to undertake the research but are not on hand, that fact should be presented. The proposer should identify any arrangements that will be made to borrow or rent necessary equipment. In the case where it is contemplated that additional equipment will be purchased under project funds, be certain that the budget item “capital equipment” indicates this.
Time Requirements
The time required to complete the research project shall be specified. Proposals will not be rejected if the proposed time does not match the time specified in the project statement. However, the agency must justify any difference. In addition, a schedule shall be included that shows each phase or task of the work, when that phase or task will begin, how long it will continue, and when it should end. The timetable should clearly delineate the points in time where project deliverables and reports are planned.
Itemized Budget
The estimated cost for the project should be based on the proposed performance period. The budget shall reflect phase and/or task costs. Lump sum estimates are not acceptable; budgets shall be itemized in accordance with the following cost categories where appropriate: (a) Salaries and Wages. Each employee to participate in the performance of the project shall be identified by name, with role, level of effort, and cost presented in the format specified in the terms of Figure B-4. (b) Borrowed Personnel. Reimbursement to other employers for salaries and wages paid by them to their employers released for, and directly engaged in, the performance of the subject research, plus federal and state payroll taxes and related employee benefit plan costs. (c) Consultants. Costs for services of independent consultants deemed necessary for accomplishment of the research. (d) Subcontract. Costs for services deemed necessary for performance of a portion of the research. (e) Capital Equipment. Items with a value in excess of $500.00 per article or assembly required for the conduct of the research. (f) Materials and Services. Materials, supplies, and other articles, including the cost of processing, testing, rental of apparatus and equipment from others, preparing, editing and reproducing reports, including the final report. (g) Communications and Shipping. Long-distance telephone calls, postage, freight, etc. (h) Travel. Transportation costs plus reasonable actual subsistence expenses (i) Employee Benefit Plan Costs and Payroll Taxes. Costs of group insurance and employees’ pension and retirement plans federal and state payroll taxes for employees working directly on the subject research. (j) Overhead. An allowance for overhead costs determined in accordance with the research agency’s usual method of accounting and generally accepted accounting principles.
Figure B-4: NCHRP Requirements for Tabulating Level of Effort in Proposals
Cooperative Features
If assistance in the form of personnel, data, or equipment is required from other agencies, public or private, describe the plans for obtaining such help or information. In the case where such cooperative features play an important part in the conduct of the research, a letter of intent from agencies agreeing to provide cooperative features should be included in the proposal.
Appendices
The appendices may include such things as statements concerning previous work on this problem or related problems, abstracts of related projects. A bibliography or list of references, or descriptive brochures or materials describing the agency’s organization and capabilities in general terms. Any other material not specifically mentioned previously and felt to be relevant for purposes of the proposal may be included as an appendix.
Review of Proposals and Contractor Selection
The selection criteria used by different programs are very consistent, and typically consist of:
- Understanding of the Problem - Has the investigator grasped what the problem and issues really are and not just reiterated the contents of the request for proposal?
- Research Approach - Has the investigator stated clearly a research methodology with “whys”, “whats”, “hows”, and “whens” in sufficient detail, in terms of both work and budget, to assess the probability of success and monitor progress against prescribed tasks and milestones?
- Staffing - Are those who will work on the project identified and their capabilities documented by reference to qualifications, experience and publications? Is the role and responsibility of each contributor clear, and is the contributor available for the time committed in the proposal?
Figure B-5: An Example of a Form for the Initial Rating of Proposals
Research Work Plan
In the absence of specific requirements for the format and content of the research work plan, the following constitutes a useful outline:
- Title
- Introduction
- Objectives
- Research Approach
- Project Team
- Equipment and Facilities
- Budget
- Schedule
- Anticipated Results
- Implementation
The introduction provides background information taken from the Problem Statement or the Request for Proposals. It is included because the work plan should be a “stand-alone” document, i.e. the reader should not need to refer to other documents. The objectives also should be a re-statement of the objectives from the earlier documents. The ‘Research Approach’ is the largest section in the work plan. It should present the hypothesis, and describe and justify the strategy, which is being employed to satisfy the objectives. For instance it could be a desk study comprising literature review and analysis, laboratory studies, field studies, or a combination of approaches. It is usual to divide the work into tasks, each of which constitutes a milestone in the completion of the work. For example, if the study involves writing a state-of-the-art report, the tasks might be: Task 1 Literature Survey Task 2 Questionnaire Task 3 Field Visits Task 4 Preparation of First Draft Task 5 Preparation of Second Draft Task 6 Preparation of Final Draft For each task the activities should be described in detail. In Task 1 the search strategy and the databases should be described. In Task 2 the recipients of the questionnaire should be identified. If it is known which agencies will be included in the field visits in Task 3, they should be identified, otherwise it should be made clear how the decision would be made. In Task 4, the scope and intended audience should be identified, and a tentative outline of the report provided. The work plan should also state who would review each of the drafts.
In the case of a project that involves experimental work and developing the plans for subsequent fieldwork, the tasks might be as follows: Task 1 Literature Survey Task 2 Laboratory Studies Task 3 Exposure Plot Studies Task 4 Development of Field Study Design Task 5 Preparation of Final Report Task 1 would be described as in the previous example. Task 2 will probably consist of sub-tasks, each comprising a series of experiments. The experiments should be described in detail. This allows the principal investigator to ensure that the necessary people, equipment and laboratory facilities will be available to perform the work, and to calculate the cost of the work. This will usually be an iterative process that involves determining how many experiments can be performed
no more than about 10 tasks, and about an equal number of sub-tasks, a chart similar to that shown in Figure B-6 is perfectly adequate. Using the second study described above as an example, the chart shows the start and completion dates for each sub-task, and the anticipated progress of each sub-task, as a cumulative percentage. It also shows the interrelationship of the tasks and sub-tasks because it is clear which activities are underway concurrently, and which are sequential. The schedule allows one month for the review of the interim report, and two months to review the final report. The anticipated progress on the overall project can be calculated from a knowledge of the amount of effort required for each task and sub-task. The amount of effort required to complete each sub-task, expressed as a percentage of the effort required to complete the project, is shown in the third column. Taking the end of June 1996 as an example, the anticipated overall completion is:
Task 1 + 25% of sub-tasks 2a, 2b, and 2c = 10% + 0.25 x (16% + 16% + 16%) = 22%
By plotting the values from the row “Overall Completion” in Figure C-6 against duration of the project, a chart of anticipated progress is developed, as illustrated in Figure B-7. Using the same technique, planned expenditures can be plotted, as shown in Figure B-8, from knowledge of the budget and cash flow projections for each sub-task. Figures C-6 to C-8 are used to measure the progress of the research as described in the section “Execution of the Research”.
The Gantt chart provides a powerful visual representation of the work schedule and quite large research projects, typically up to $1million budget, can be managed in this way. Larger projects, especially those involving many semi-autonomous contributors, or requiring access to expensive equipment that is used on many projects, may require a more sophisticated work schedule to be developed. This can be done by preparing a critical path analysis or using computer software designed for project management.
The final section of the work plan, Implementation, describes how the findings of the research will be implemented. This enables the researchers to involve those who will be responsible for implementation in the research, and to allow the plans for the implementation activities to be developed while the research is in progress so that there is no delay between completion of the research and implementation of the findings.
Figure B-6: Example of a Work Schedule Using a Gantt Chart
Figure B-7: Planned Progress
- Figure B-9: Completed Progress Schedule for December,
- Figure B-10: Overall Progress to December,
Figure B-11: Expenditures to December, 1996
Implementation and Dissemination of Research Results
An NCHRP study of technology transfer methods and implementation practices included a survey of transportation agencies and an analysis of case studies (10). Much of the information in this section is based on the data collected in the study, and from which the recommendations presented in Chapter Three were developed. Implementation “success” was defined in terms of timeliness, effectiveness, and scope of use. The study examined success from three perspectives:
- Characteristics of the research results
- Characteristics of the implementing organization
- Characteristics of the implementation process
From each perspective, the relative importances of factors that promote implementation, and those which act as barriers to implementation were rated, by participants in a workshop, on a scale of 1 to 5. The results are given in Tables B-1 to B-3 (the data were obtained from figures contained in reference 10). Barriers to implementation have been expressed on a scale of -1 to -5 (-5 being the greatest barrier).
Characteristics of Research Results
Some attributes of the research output can impede implementation. Most obviously, if the research does not meet the needs of potential users, the results will not be put into practice. Also, if users do not see evidence that a new product or process has been adequately tested, they may not want to be guinea pigs.
On the other hand, research results are more likely to be put into practice rapidly and effectively, if the researchers have accounted for real-world situations. In many cases, pilot or demonstration projects are useful steps toward full implementation. Their purpose is to evaluate the new products
