Date: October 12, 2000

Prepared for: Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20590

Submitted by: Equals Three Communications^®
7910 Woodmont Avenue
Suite 200
Bethesda, MD 20184-3015

Table of Contents

I.	INTRODUCTION
	Research Objectives
	Methodology
	Role of Qualitative Research
II.	DETAILED DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
	Expected Transportation Needs by 2010
	Anticipated Changes and the Potential Impact on FHWA
	Function of FHWA
	Identification of Present and Future Needs for Services from FHWA
	Comments Regarding Particular Areas of Interest
	Present vs. Future Needs
	Use of Contractors
	Possible Job Exchange Programs
	Possible Actions by FHWA to Improve Recruitment and Retention of Personnel
	APPENDIX
	Discussion Outline

I. INTRODUCTION

Retirements, mid-career moves to corporate or consulting jobs, reduced numbers of new engineering graduates, and a variety of other factors have made it difficult in recent years for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to maintain a staff with the desired capabilities. Changes in transportation systems, programs, and the composition of the workforce require FHWA to place renewed emphasis on finding and hiring the right people, developing their knowledge and skills, and retaining them as quality employees.

This small study was conducted to obtain the views of experienced DOT executives from several states regarding future transportation needs, the current and future roles of FHWA and state DOTs, areas where technical expertise from FHWA will be needed by the states within the next ten years, and steps that could be taken by FHWA to attract and retain qualified personnel. The aim was to help identify the kinds of specialties or services that will be most needed and to consider ways of meeting these needs.

Research Objectives

The purpose of this research phase is to:

• Discuss future transportation needs and the future role of FHWA
  
  
• Gather insights regarding employee retention, recruitment and hiring

The findings will be used as a tool to evaluate FHWA strategy.

Methodology

Nine people were chosen by FHWA to participate in a two-hour group discussion held in Bethesda, MD on October 12. Eight people participated in person and one by speaker-phone. The representatives, all from different states and various professional levels, reflected considerable variety in terms of:

• Region, size, topography, climate, population density, economic base, and other factors affecting transportation.
  
  
• Officials were also chosen as having different areas of specialization (finance, engineering, administration, and planning).

At the beginning of the session, participants were given a list of the questions to be covered; these appear in italics in this report. After an initial exchange of ideas about future transportation needs and the respective roles of FHWA and state DOTs, a form with 28 topic areas was used to obtain ratings of services that might be provided by FHWA to state DOTs now and by the year 2010. Each participant chose three areas he/she expected to be most important 10 years from now, and these areas were then discussed.

At the end of the session, each person was handed another form to be completed later. This form requested ratings of the probable effectiveness of 31 actions that could be taken by FHWA to improve the agency's ability to hire and retain qualified personnel. Six participants returned the form within a few days of the session.

As a cautionary note, given the small number of participants and the limited time available to cover a variety of topics, the findings should clearly be regarded as suggestive rather than definitive. While a similar group of officials from other states might well have reached similar conclusions, there is no assurance that this would be the case.

Role of Qualitative Research

Focus groups seek to develop insight and direction, rather than quantitatively precise measures. Because of the limited number of respondents and the restrictions of recruiting, this research must be considered in a qualitative frame of reference.

The reader is reminded that this report is intended to clarify cloudy issues and point out the direction for future research. The data presented here cannot be projected to a universe of similar respondents.

The value of focus groups lies in their ability to provide observers with comments from a segment of the target population and for decision-makers to gain insight into the beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of their consumer base.

II. DETAILED DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Expected Transportation Needs by 2010

What do you see as the greatest transportation needs 10 years from now? Will the emphasis be mostly on construction, operations, planning, the environment, maintenance, or something else?

Maintenance: One of the greatest needs respondents said they will have to face during the next 10 years is rebuilding existing systems. As one person put it, "Ninety percent of what we will do over the course of the next 10 years is rebuild." Maintenance currently has a much higher priority than adding capacity, since it is necessary to deal with reconstruction and rehabilitation before attempting to build new infrastructure. Major concerns are finding ways to get roads rebuilt in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost, and in a way that will enable them to last a long time.

Major reconstruction on interstate and urban freeways and rehabilitation of the remaining highway system is viewed as a necessity, but there are major questions regarding the availability of funds to accomplish this. Some people feel that secondary roads may go without repairs until there is a public outcry, and there may be significant policy clashes over allocating funds for alternative transportation and public transportation systems.

In one state, projects are of three types: substantial maintenance, major modifications, and system enhancements (bypasses, new interchanges, corridors, etc., requested by local agencies). Planning is facilitated when interested parties realize that funds have to be allocated fairly across all three categories, and that money spent on one is not available to meet other important needs.

Special Interest Groups: Participants noted the increased influence that special interest and environmental groups have had on transportation systems during the last 10 years, and almost everyone expected this influence to increase between no and 2010. Environmental groups generally favor mass transit over roads, "no growth" advocates oppose any additional road construction, and some groups are pushing for privatization of functions that have traditionally been handled by government.

Not surprisingly, some officials viewed the growing influence of special interest groups as an obstacle to their work in the future. However, everyone agreed that environmental issues will continue to be an integral component of highway maintenance and construction, and transportation operations in general.

Regulation: Another issue mentioned by participants was regulation, particularly regarding air quality, and its influence on transportation. It is not possible to add capacity without affecting air quality, so environmental agencies can limit transportation choices. The general feeling was that there will be greater regulation in the future, primarily regarding safety and the environment, and that this will have a major impact on the transportation system.

Finance: The group felt that the allocation of transportation funds will undergo major change within the next 10 years. Some felt the money that is now allocated for highway construction will be converted to transit programs. One respondent said, "We can't build our way out of congestion, so we have to build up public transportation. We will need more money for these programs."

Capacity Expansion to Adjust Transportation Infrastructure for Areas of Growth: The group agreed that this was a major concern, but generally felt that maintenance of existing systems has to be given a higher priority. In addition, the barriers to adding capacity - cost, environmental concerns, lack of space, opposition from advocacy groups, etc. - operate together to make expansion extremely difficult.

Integration of Systems, Intermodal Planning: Since TEA-21 allows the use of some highway funds for mass transit needs or services, most people felt that "raiding" or transfer of highway funds to public transportation is likely to increase. Since there is no way to build enough lanes to meet all demand, there is advocacy pressure to scale back roads, using more public transportation to maintain air quality and to stop urban sprawl. An often-used slogan is "You can't build your way out of congestion." Congress and other officials are also promoting public transportation.

Integration of System Improvements to National and State Economies, Including Travel and Tourism Economies: Several participants felt that economic development was an important issue that should not be ignored, especially since it is important to decision-makers. They are aware that the quality of a state's transportation system is a crucial aspect of economic development. Some officials get pressure from companies that say congestion slows economic growth and development.

Two people noted that tourism will not drive development but will affect the way maintenance is performed ("Tourism will not drive what we do, but how we do it"). Tourism is a major industry in some states (ranked among the top two or three contributors to the economy), and legislators are aware that tourists like good roads but dislike encountering repair work ("Tourists don't like orange barrels"). As a result, efforts are made to avoid daytime maintenance. In one state the legislature mandated that repairs could only be made at night and as quickly as possible. Such requirements can have a major impact on the cost and durability of roads.

Cooperative inter-state efforts to attract tourists will probably increase. As a recent example, three northeastern states conducted a joint program to inform potential tourists about events and local travel in all three states.

Impact of New Technology: There was some disagreement about the impact of the Internet on commuting patterns. One person felt that as time passes fewer people will drive or take mass transit to work on a daily basis, instead relying on telecommuting. Another said that individuals will not stay home every day, since the workplace will continue to provide important opportunities for social interaction. Someone else noted that technology may also change the type of traffic, perhaps increasing the number of trucks and delivery vehicles and reducing the number of passenger cars. The general conclusion was that new communications technology has the potential to significantly reduce the number of people on the road, and to change the vehicle mix, but its impact is unclear at this time.

There was little mention of ITS, electric or hybrid vehicles, or other applications of technology that might be expected to have a major influence on transportation systems a decade or so in the future.

Other Issues: A few respondents expressed concern about legislators promoting the construction of roads and highways that may not be urgently needed. When this occurs, funds needed to maintain existing roadways are sometimes cut, and the system as a whole suffers. Legislative pressure can influence costs as well as the timing and quality of construction. The officials regarded it as unfortunate that Congress and other political figures are getting more involved in programs, and making decisions about road construction. They often have a two-year or four-year time horizon (matching their term of office), while state DOTs must plan and build for a much longer period.

A comment: "We have no standard performance measures for 'providing a well-functioning transportation system.' We have distinct clean air and clean water measures which allow the resource agencies veto power over transportation facilities. It may be time that transportation measures are established - not for infrastructure conditions, which are available, but for economic activity and mobility. The academic congestion models that always reach the billion-dollar mark are irrelevant to project decisions. Policy makers deserve better information!"

Another person noted that time and dollar issues are easy to measure with regard to road construction and repair, but that quality is a different matter. Thus state legislatures may tend to go for relatively low-cost road construction methods because they do not relate this to long-term durability. If someone were to offer a warranty that a road would last for a certain number of years if constructed in a particular way, this might change. "We already know how to build a road that will last for 50 years, but no one wants to pay for it. You have to balance the cost against the amount of time the road is expected to perform. You are judged more by the number of miles you build than by the quality of those miles." There is a crucial need for a mechanism to monitor the condition of road systems. "You don't want to rebuild a road that still has life; on the other hand, you don't put maintenance treatment on a road that doesn't have life. The type of fix that you do for the road is the most important decision you make, so the information you have about your system conditions is one of the most important tools available to you - because it will help you decide what treatment to put on what road at what time."

Anticipated Changes and the Potential Impact on FHWA

What changes do you expect in state DOT organizations and roles, and how will these changes affect the roles of FHWA?

Safety: One official said that safety is an issue that state DOT organizations and FHWA will be forced to contend with more as a result of population growth. This is especially true since much of the public is concerned about safety on the roads, and people often blame road conditions for accidents while disregarding other causative factors, such as driver error.

The group stated that one important issue that FHWA will have to face is the relationship between road capacity and safety. To a certain extent, they felt that there would have to be a trade-off - that increasing road capacity would decrease safety and vice versa. The issue is complicated by the fact that traffic congestion decreases speeds, so while the number of collisions increases their consequences become less serious. When property damage increases but fatalities drop, the indicators or measures used become crucial in saying whether a result is good or bad. FHWA may have a role in helping states find the optimal balance between capacity and safety.

An administrator's comment: "We do a lot of things to increase capacity that may reduce safety, though it's not always clear and you're never sure where to draw the line - a long-time dilemma. We all want to say we're for safety, and it's obviously important, but we know that people want higher speed limits and fewer restrictions and faster roads, so there are trade-offs every day. For example, some people feel that shoulders on interstates should be opened to traffic, which would instantly increase capacity but probably result in additional crashes. There is no easy way to compare all the consequences associated with those two outcomes."

Litigation: Some states are already spending millions of dollars a year to handle or settle litigation, and most group members felt these numbers are likely to increase. Most lawsuits deal with safety (states are sued when someone claims a road condition caused an accident) or with the environment. Some state DOTs have lawyers on staff or available by contract, but some people felt that FHWA should have legal experts available to help other states with litigation issues as they arise.

Data Collection: When the primary emphasis nationally was on safety, requirements were imposed on states with regard to collecting data on where and how accidents happen. The states tried but were never able to gather the data successfully. They are now having a similar problem collecting data on the economic impact of transportation systems on disadvantaged populations. They would like to see these requirements revisited, in part because they believe that trends are more important than exactness at a point in time, and that it may be possible to reach policy conclusions from partial data that are as valid as those based on much more complete data.

Function of FHWA

Do you see FHWA as more of a management agency or an engineering agency? Please discuss as it is now and as you think it should be in the future.

Several people said they preferred to use the term "service" rather than "management." The implication was that in their view FHWA should function as a resource to assist states in meeting their needs rather than as an arbiter of policies and standards imposed on the states. Overall, the participants agreed that the services offered by FHWA should be based on a strong foundation of engineering and technical expertise.

Several people remarked that in the future FHWA should allow the states to work more independently. They felt that the standards provided by FHWA were very clear and easy to understand, and were being followed by the states. Consequently, they felt that continuous FHWA supervision of programs and projects was not necessary; one person said that spot checks should suffice. They emphasized that FHWA's focus should be on providing assistance and acting as a resource. A few people said that FHWA exerted a lot of control over the state DOTs. Many stated that in the future, they would like for FHWA to provide greater support with problems affecting local and state programs. Most importantly, they wanted to receive technical expertise and service from FHWA officials as the needs arose. One suggestion: "An assessment of what the states really are asking for may be helpful. Since not all states are at the same level of expertise, some Federal services could be targeted to those states that want and need the help."

There was consensus in the group that FHWA needs to clearly define its role in working with the states. Participants mentioned that there are sometimes inconsistencies between FHWA officials in the states and in Washington, even to the extent that managers in the field may not agree with the standards they apply.

A comment: "FHWA needs to analyze where they are currently over-performing and not necessarily adding value. From my perspective, a number of engineering tasks could and should be eliminated if they have actually subscribed to the notion of devolution." Most people agreed that FHWA no longer has the staff to do all the hands-on managing it used to do.

Enforcement of standards and regulations is still an important role of FHWA, and state people sometimes use the regulations (and the support of FHWA) to avoid taking unwise actions advocated by local officials. Everyone agrees that it is a blessing to have consistency in roadways and signage on interstate highways, and this would not have happened without strong Federal standards.

Identification of Present and Future Needs for Services from FHWA

As a customer or constituent of FHWA, what do you need from the agency? What are the most important areas where staff resources could be allocated to achieve the biggest payoff for your state's transportation system?

To provide a convenient means of answering this question, participants were given a form (Form A) which listed 28 areas, plus room for write-ins. They were asked to use a 1-to-10 scale (10 = most important) to indicate how important it is now for FHWA to provide various kinds of expertise to state DOTs. They were also asked to rate the needs in 2010, given the changes they expect to occur in the next 10 years (in technology, transportation systems, intermodalism, the environment, etc.).

The average ratings are shown below. The areas of interest are ranked in order of their estimated importance in 2010. The numerical ratings are not intended to suggest precision, but to provide a rough indication of relative position; it is probably safe to say that the areas near the top of the ranking are viewed as relatively important, and those near the bottom as relatively unimportant.

However, the judgments are clearly subjective, are made by only a few people, and almost certainly reflect differences in the backgrounds of the raters (engineering, finance, planning, and administration). At present there is no way to know whether DOT officials in other states, or with other areas of specialization, would make similar predictions about their future needs.

In addition to providing ratings, group participants were also asked to choose the three areas from this list that they felt would be most important in 2010. The figures in parentheses indicate the number of people choosing various areas as ones where they felt that expertise from FHWA would be especially important in the future.

Comments Regarding Particular Areas of Interest

Leadership Role

There was general agreement that FHWA should be the agency that reports to Congress on behalf of the states. As part of this role, FHWA should collect and summarize data from all of the states in order to gain support in Congress for various transportation programs. This kind of function obviously cannot be performed by the states individually.

Increased Technical Assistance

The group felt strongly that FHWA should develop a pool of resources that states can turn to when they need technical assistance. The issue was not whethertechnical assistance would be provided, but rather howit would be provided. There was a fairly strong feeling in the group that states wanted to be able to obtain information or advice, but preferred to decide for themselves what to do with it - in short, to make their own decisions rather than having choices dictated by an outside authority.

"FHWA has to have a core of technical expertise in fields tied to highway construction and maintenance, but also facilitation skills to help us get it done rather than order us to do something. In other words, a helping orientation rather than 'command and control.'"

Design Standards and Systems Architecture

Initially, "development" and "standardization/coordination" of design standards and systems architecture were listed separately because they reflect separate processes. Some group members saw them as essentially one function, however, so these functions were combined for purposes of the discussion.

Participants expressed interest in having a foundation of core experts on design standards they could call on for help with particular issues as needed. In addition, consistency was a fairly important issue. Participants noted that they would like consistent specifications across the board.

Technology Transfer

Technology transfer was seen as very important, with FHWA providing a system through which people can share technical knowledge. However, one respondent said that there should also be an open-minded willingness to accept information and assistance when it is provided.

Present vs. Future Needs

In 24 of the 28 areas, the need for expertise from FHWA was expected to be higher in 10 years than at present. The need was anticipated to be lower in only three areas (right of way, civil rights, and safety), and to remain about the same in one area (planning).

There are at least four possible reasons for a relatively low perceived need for certain FHWA services, both now and in the future. (There was no real opportunity to discuss these in the group, but they deserve further exploration as FHWA considers which kinds of services to offer in the next decade.) In some states, staff capabilities may have been developed to the point where outside assistance in specialized areas is seldom needed. In other states, particular problems may have been dealt with satisfactorily enough that little need is seen to devote further resources to them. In all states, some problems may be regarded as so intractable that no form of assistance would provide a solution. Perhaps most important, the perceived changes in the transportation environment during the next decade will involve so many conflicts and trade-offs (between capacity and safety, air quality and driver convenience, mass transit and road maintenance, etc.) that more comprehensive new forms of technical assistance beyond those presently envisioned may be required.

Use of Contractors

What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks of using contractors rather than in-house staff to provide services and expertise to state DOTs? Do you feel that FHWA is likely to be using contractors more in the future? How can we assure that contractors are supervised and managed effectively?

Given the fact that needs for specialized knowledge are likely to increase, most people felt that in the future it may be necessary for FHWA to use contractors more to assist with various projects. There was consensus that this does not present a problem, and in fact that state DOTs have also had to rely more on outside help for certain kinds of expertise. However, people generally said they would rather deal with FHWA than directly with contractors or consultants, and in the latter case they strongly prefer to have an FHWA representative present.

There was a general feeling that FHWA should prioritize the skills that it values and needs the most and focus recruitment and retention efforts in these areas. A comment: "It may be advantageous to define a core workforce level and supplement that level with contracted experts. To increase public sector employment is in no one's interest, unless we all become better managers."

Several people felt strongly that FHWA officials in Washington should visit states more often in order to gain a better understanding of how state DOTs operate on a day-to-day basis. They also recommended that FHWA representatives from different states conduct peer reviews in the field, which would provide detailed feedback that could benefit all parties involved.

Possible Job Exchange Programs

Should we implement an exchange program in which some personnel at FHWA and state DOTs could switch jobs for a year? Possible benefits: (1) increasing worker job satisfaction by providing more varied tasks and responsibilities, (2) broadening worker skills, and (3) enhancing future FHWA/DOT collaboration by helping workers understand both places better. Would these be likely to happen? What would be the likely drawbacks of such a program?

There was some discussion of the idea of implementing an exchange program in which some personnel at FHWA and state DOTs could switch jobs for a year or so. A few people noted that this idea is similar to an IPA program that was formerly in place, and that it could be worthwhile because it would give personnel the opportunity to work in different areas and thus develop a broader perspective on transportation issues. These state DOT officials seemed to feel that the major gain from a job-exchange program would be a greater understanding of state needs on the part of FHWA staff. One person mentioned that a similar exchange program had been implemented by the Food and Drug Administration and was viewed as very successful.

A comment: "Job sharing seems to be a fairly cheap way to get a 'pseudo sabbatical.' It may energize people and broaden their horizons."

Possible Actions by FHWA to Improve Recruitment and Retention of Personnel

A review of notes from the "listening sessions" conducted earlier this year with FHWA staff around the country identified 50 steps that might be taken by FHWA to improve its recruitment and retention of qualified staff. In consultation with FHWA, this list was reduced to 31 steps that were considered relatively feasible. A form listing these steps was given to the focus group participants, who were asked to rate the probable payoff of each step as high, moderate, or low. The combined ratings were later given numerical scores which were used to rank-order the 31 steps as shown below.

As with the earlier topic-area rankings, this is not intended to be a precise ordering. It simply provides a rough indication of the perceived value or probable effectiveness of various actions in meeting the agency's staffing needs. There is no clear clustering in the results - financial incentives, educational opportunities, enhanced benefits, and procedural changes all show up in the top, middle and bottom sections of the ranking. All of the suggestions, which originated with FHWA personnel in a number of states, would appear to have potential value in improving FHWA's staffing situation.

Steps Viewed as Most Likely to Improve FHWA Staffing (top 10)

• Provide continuing education in technical specialties
  
  
• Continue to subsidize education and training for people willing to specialize in areas where FHWA needs are greatest
  
  
• Use cafeteria-style benefits package - let employees choose best benefits for their stage of life
  
  
• Provide a signing bonus for new employees
  
  
• Expand the amount of time and training for mid-career development
  
  
• Expand telecommuting programs
  
  
• Allow recruiters to reduce the time between initial contact and job offer
  
  
• Allow transfers from one state to another, with additional programs to assist relocation and to facilitate job placement for spouses
  
  
• Provide more flexibility and empowerment for lower-level personnel
  
  
• Pay off federal student loans
  
  

Steps Viewed as Moderately Likely to Improve FHWA Staffing (middle 9)

• Clarify responsibilities of Divisions and Resource Centers in providing technical assistance/expertise
  
  
• Formalize mentoring arrangements - allocate time for meetings, define roles and clarify expectations
  
  
• Increase amount of incentive awards
  
  
• Provide more training in professional/managerial skills (communications, negotiation, etc.)
  
  
• Allow people nearing retirement to reduce their work hours over a 3-to-5 year period
  
  
• Increase travel funds so FHWA staff can visit state offices and programs more often
  
  
• Use professional recruiters
  
  
• Consider outside hires for management positions
  
  
• Offer more rotational assignments to enhance skills and experience
  
  

Steps Viewed as Least Likely to Improve FHWA Staffing (bottom 11)

• Provide more training through video conferencing
  
  
• Allow employees to contribute a higher percentage into the Thrift Saving Program
  
  
• Allow retirees to return to their previous jobs on a part-time or full-time basis with no loss of benefits
  
  
• Provide additional incentives for staying with the agency, like re-enlistment bonuses every few years
  
  
• Use professional career counselors to design and test Individual Development Plans
  
  
• Provide bonuses for achieving professional certification
  
  
• Allow state employees to transfer their retirement benefits into the FERS
  
  
• Add long-term disability coverage to benefits package
  
  
• Place stories about FHWA successes in industry magazines
  
  
• Provide non-monetary rewards - new computers, better office space, etc.
  
  
• Hire temps to fill in for personnel on rotational assignments
  
  

Two participants wrote additional suggestions: take any steps possible to reduce paperwork and regulatory burdens, and offer job-sharing exchange programs with states.

Outline

Session objectives, discussion guidelines, self-introductions

The Issue:

As the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) looks to the future and the administration evolves, it must carefully consider the issues of workforce planning and professional development. Retirements, mid-career moves to corporate or consulting jobs, reduced numbers of new engineering graduates, and a variety of other factors all affect decisions the organization must make concerning workforce development. Changes in transportation systems, programs, and the composition of the workforce require FHWA to place renewed emphasis on finding the right people, managing to hire them, developing the workforce, and retaining quality employees. In this session we are looking for your advice and comments about actions that FHWA can take to serve you better, both now and in the future.

Areas of Inquiry:

Future Needs What do you see as the greatest transportation needs 10 years from now? Will the emphasis be mostly on construction, operations, planning, the environment, maintenance, or something else? To what extent do you feel the focus of the highway program will be on: Major new or capacity expansion facilities to adjust transportation infrastructure for areas of growth? Major reconstruction on interstate and urban freeways and rehabilitation of the remaining highway system? Integration of system/modal planning? Integration of system improvements to national and state economies including travel and tourism economies? Strong environmental planning considerations in the transportation planning process? Integrated operation of transportation facilities? Improved safety and operations of facilities? Deployment of new technology? Others? What changes do you expect in State DOT organizations and roles, and how will these changes affect the roles of FHWA? Function of FHWA Do you see FHWA as more of a management agency or an engineering agency? Please discuss as it is now and as you think it should be in the future. More specifically, how much emphasis do you think FHWA should place on providing the following roles and services?

As a customer or constituent of FHWA, what do you need from the agency? What are the most important areas where staff resources could be allocated to achieve the biggest payoff for your state's transportation system?

On a 1-to-10 scale (10 = most important), please indicate how important it is for FHWA to provide each of the following kinds of expertise to state DOTs. Given the changes you expect to occur between now and in 2010 (in technology, transportation systems, intermodalism, the environment, etc.), also rate the needs in 2010.

	Now	By 2010
Leadership role in providing a national perspective on management and operation of the transportation system
Expanded leadership to achieve integrated intermodal planning
Increased technical assistance in new technologies and in traditional skills to meet customer and partner expectations and improve program performance
Continued leadership in quality management through the application of Baldridge criteria
Continued leadership in policy promulgation as an independent reviewer/arbiter to obtain a nationally equitable, coherent transportation service
Management of international transportation and economic issues
Function as focal point for long-term/high-cost research
Ability to facilitate Federal requirements
Finance
Federal lands issues: providing technical services to Tribes and Federal agencies to improve transportation access to and on Federal Lands
Local Technology Assistance Programs
Legal
Operations
Maintenance
Planning
Design standards and systems architecture for safe and efficient operations: development standardization/coordination
Construction
Environmental protection and enhancement
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Right of Way
Civil rights
Marketing
Materials Information management/knowledge management (communities of practice, sharing/questioning via the Web)
Communications
Infrastructure (pavements, bridges, etc.)
Technology transfer: developing and implementing new technologies in infrastructure and operations
Safety
Other (specify)______________________
Other (specify)______________________
Other (specify)______________________

Now please look back over the areas on Form A that you rated highest for the year 2010, and choose the three that you feel will be the most important. We'll tally your choices and then get your comments on the similarities and differences in your views, as well as anything you want to add about the changes you expect to see between now and 2010.

Additional questions to cover if time remains:

Contractors

What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks of using contractors rather than in-house staff to provide services and expertise to state DOTs? Do you feel that FHWA is likely to be using contractors more in the future? How can we assure that contractors are supervised and managed effectively?

Sharing

Should we implement an exchange program in which some personnel at FHWA and state DOTs could switch jobs for a year? Possible benefits: (1) increasing worker job satisfaction by providing more varied tasks and responsibilities, (2) broadening worker skills, and (3) enhancing future FHWA/DOT collaboration by helping workers understand both places better. Would these be likely to happen? What would be the likely drawbacks of such a program?

Optional Discussion

If there is time, we'll consider some actions that FHWA could take to improve its staffing situation. Please fill out Form B, and then we'll discuss your answers.

Now look back over the items on Form B that you checked as "high" and choose the three actions that you feel offer the best combination of high payoff and high feasibility. We'll tally your choices and see whether there is agreement on a few top choices, then discuss briefly any places where there is strong disagreement.

How would you rate the probable payoff for FHWA staff recruitment and retention (high, moderate, or low) of each of these suggested steps?