FHWA Peer Exchange Training Programsp.research.transportation.org/Documents/CompleteMan… · Web...

PEER EXCHANGE

FOR

STATE DOT RD&T MANAGEMENT PROCESSES

A TRAINING PROGRAM OF THE USDOT,FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK

SNI International Resources, Inc.Phoenix, Arizona USA

THIS WORKBOOK IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE DURING THE TRAINING SESSION. IT IS DESIGNED AS A CONVENIENT NOTE-TAKING TOOL AND IS ALSO MEANT TO BE USED AS A REFERENCE AFTER THE SESSION.

THE WORKBOOK IS DIVIDED INTO THREE SECTIONS.

THE FIRST SECTION INCLUDES THE COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OUTLINE. THE OUTLINE ALSO SERVES AS THE AGENDA FOR THE DAY AND SHOWS APPROXIMATE START TIMES FOR EACH MAJOR TOPIC.

SECTION TWO IS THE COURSE CONTENT, OR NARRATIVE. THE INSTRUCTOR WILL FOLLOW THIS TEXT CLOSELY AND WILL INFORM YOU IF HE OR SHE INTENDS TO DEVIATE FROM THE CONTENT AS PRESENTED. THIS SECTION ALSO INCLUDES A “PEER EXCHANGE WORKBOOK”, A USEFUL BOOKLET THAT CAN BE USED AS A GUIDELINE DURING EACH PART OF THE PEER EXCHANGE PROCESS.

SECTION THREE INCLUDES COPIES OF THE COURSE HANDOUTS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 - Course Description and Outline

Scope and Behavioral Objectives....................................................................................................... iCourse Agenda................................................................................................................................ iii

SECTION 2 - Course Content

1. The Technical Process

1.1. Background....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1. Purpose.................................................................................................................. 1-11.1.2. Overview of Peer Exchange...................................................................................1-21.1.3. The Peer Exchange Perspective..............................................................................1-21.1.4. Role of the Federal Highway Administration.........................................................1-31.1.5. The Peer Exchange Team Member.........................................................................1-51.1.6. Training Procedures............................................................................................... 1-6

1.2. Administration Processes................................................................................................... 1-7

1.2.1. Scheduling a Peer Exchange..................................................................................1-71.2.2. Assignment of Peer Exchange Participants.............................................................1-81.2.3. Identifying Team Leaders......................................................................................1-81.2.4. Expenses Related to Exchange...............................................................................1-81.2.5. Maintaining the Peer Reviewer List.......................................................................1-8

1.3. Pre-Peer Exchange Activities............................................................................................. 1-9

1.3.1. SHA Research Manager Responsibilities................................................................1-91.3.2. Peer Exchange Team Preparation.........................................................................1-121.3.3. Team Leader Preparation.....................................................................................1-131.3.4. Actions by the Host Transportation Agency.........................................................1-14

1.4. The Peer Exchange.......................................................................................................... 1-16

1.4.1. Peer Exchange Team Meeting..............................................................................1-161.4.2. Discussion of RD&T Programs............................................................................1-171.4.3. Example Projects.................................................................................................. 1-181.4.4. Interviews/Discussions......................................................................................... 1-181.4.5. Report.................................................................................................................. 1-191.4.6. Close-out Session................................................................................................. 1-201.4.7. Follow-up Activities............................................................................................. 1-21

1.5. Post Peer Exchange Activities.......................................................................................... 1-21

2. The Consulting Process

2.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2. Staff Consulting Roles....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3. The Consulting Model....................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.1. Entry into the Organization....................................................................................2-22.3.2. Agreement.............................................................................................................. 2-32.3.3. Data Collection...................................................................................................... 2-32.3.4. Diagnosis............................................................................................................... 2-52.3.5. Feedback & Decision to Act................................................................................... 2-52.3.6. Guidelines to Effective Feedback...........................................................................2-7

References.................................................................................................................................. 2-11

Peer Exchange Workbook........................................................................................................ 2-13

SECTION 3 - Course Handouts

SECTION 1

Course Description and Outline

Scope

This course is designed to assist State, FHWA, university and private sector research managers in developing skills to actively participate in a peer exchange and to help guide the peer exchange activities. This course will:

1. Train participants to operate in a team environment.2. Prepare participants to effectively communicate with and question each other, and customers,

managers and staff of the host State.3. Train participants in the peer exchange process.4. Provide techniques for presenting the results of the peer exchange.

The course will provide comprehensive coverage in each of the following major areas:

• Peer Exchange Process• Sensitivities in Conducting Peer Exchanges• Communications Skills in Conducting Peer Exchanges• Peer Exchange Report Preparation

Behavioral Objectives

Upon completion of the course, the participants will be able to:

1. Describe how each State agency RD&T management process is unique.

2. Explain some of the many ways there are of conducting and managing research through examples of some of the current State research programs.

3. Participate as a team member in a peer exchange, and describe the crucial components of positive team membership.

4. Establish and maintain a comfortable environment for participants involved in the peer exchange, including the customers, managers and staff of the host State.

5. Identify individual communications styles, and be able to interact positively with other members of the team and those being interviewed.

6. Utilize listening, interviewing and consulting skills in order to promote a positive relationship between the team and all individuals involved in the exchange.

7. Present oral and written conclusions of the peer exchange activity.

Target Audience

Course participants are managers from State transportation agencies, FHWA, universities and the private sector responsible for research, development, and technology transfer programs. The candidates for this course will be:

7

Peer Exchange For State DOT RD&T Management Processes-Course Description & Outline-

AGENDA

1. Experienced in transportation research related activities.2. Experienced in research management.3. Knowledgeable and experienced in research planning, funding, documentation and technology

transfer.

The course will accommodate approximately 30 participants.

Course Length

One (1) day, with approximately 8 hours of instruction over the one-day period.

Training Aids/Instructional Material

1. Instructor Guide 2. Visual Aids3. Participant Workbook

8


AGENDA

8:00 a.m. Introduction/Course Overview

• Instructor and Group Introductions• Housekeeping Chores• Course Scope, Objectives, and Format

8:30 a.m. Background

• Purpose• Overview• Historical Development• Role of the FHWA• The Peer Exchange Team Member• Training Procedures

9:30 - 9:45 a.m. Break

9:45 a.m. Communication Skills in Peer Exchange

• Staff Consulting Roles• Communication Styles

12:00 noon LUNCH BREAK

1:00 p.m. • The Consulting Model• Entry into the Organization• Contracting• Data Collection• Diagnosis• Feedback and Decision to Act• Guidelines to Effective Feedback

2:45 - 3:00 p.m. Break

3:00 p.m. Administrative Processes

• Scheduling a Peer Exchange• Assignment of Peer Exchange Participants• Identifying Team Leaders• Expenses Related to the Visit• Maintaining the Peer Exchange List

9


Peer Exchange TrainingHandouts For State DOT RD&T Management Processes

3:15 p.m. Pre-Peer Exchange Activities

• SHA Research Manager Responsibilities• Review Team Preparation• Team Leader Preparation• Actions by the Host Transportation Agency

3:45 p.m. The Peer Exchange

• The Peer Exchange Team Meeting• Discussion of RD&T Programs• Example Projects• Interviews/Discussions• Report• Close-out Session• Follow-up Activities

4:30 p.m. Post-Exchange Activities

4:45 p.m. Conclusion: Questions and Answers

5:00 p.m. Adjournment

HO-10


Questionnaire for Peer Review Candidate

Name

Title

Agency Unit/Division

Parent Agency

Street Address

City

State Zip Telephone ( ) Fax ( )

Home Address

City State Zip

My status is: Active Retired

Preferred Mailing Address:

Business Home

Experience In (enter years in appropriate categories): Design experience Agency management Administrative experience Project management Office management

Technical Specialty (Check as many as apply):

Agricultural Geotechnical

Sanitation

Architectural HVAC/Energy

Structural

Bridge/Highway Hydraulics

HO-11


Surveying Chemical

Landscape E/A

Transportation

Civil Marine

Administration

Construction Mgmt Mechanical

Finance

Electrical/Electronic Metallurgical

Human Resources

Emergency Mgmt Mining

Legal Energy Analysis

Petroleum

Public Relations

Environmental Other:

Professional Experience

Title

From

To

Present:

Former:

HO-12


Number of employees directly supervised: Current Maximum

Degrees Earned

Ph.D. Engineering M.S. Engineering B.S. Engineering

D.Sc Engineering M.Arch B.Arch

M.Eng. Administration M.B.A. B.A. Business

Admin. J.D.

L.L.B. Other (specify):

Are you a registered or licensed professional?Yes No

In which field or discipline?

In which state(s)?

Have you participated in a peer review program?

As a reviewer? Yes No As one reviewed? Yes No

In what areas of management do you feel most comfortable reviewing other agencies?

Organizational Management Human Resource Management Project Management Financial Management Emergency Management Procedures Public Relations Practices Technical Practice & Procedures

Signature: Date:

HO-13


Peer Review Team Leader Questionnaire

1. Were there new, unusual or awkward situations in this review with which you are not experienced, or for which you have not been trained? No Yes If yes, please describe.

2. Did you discover or develop new techniques or methodologies that can be used by future peer review participants? No Yes If yes, please describe.

3. Do you have suggestions for future reviewer training sessions?

4. What did you learn from the process?

5. Would you like to participate in more reviews? No Yes

HO-14


6. Please identify anyone in the reviewed organization you believe would be a good reviewer candidate, including phone number and address.

Your Name

Agency Reviewed

Date(s)

Thank you for your help.

Please mail to: Associate Administration for Research and DevelopmentFederal Highway AdministrationTurner-Fairbank Highway Research Center6300 Georgetown PikeMcLean, VA 22101

HO-15

Research Manager Questionnaire(To be completed by the head of the research office being reviewed)

1. Preparing for the peer review required a substantial commitment by you and your staff. Did you find the preparation of documents, and scheduling the review, of value to you? Do you have any suggestions regarding the elimination or addition of documents, or how to better prepare for a review?

2. Was the schedule for the peer review followed? Do you have any suggestions for improving the schedule?

3. Did the review team present a concise and clear oral report? Do you have any suggestions regarding improvement of the oral report? Was the critique presented thoughtfully?

4. How often do you think an organization should be reviewed?

5. Was the time spent by the reviewers too long, too short, or just about right to provide an effective review?

6. Do you feel the reviewers were diplomatic and sensitive?

7. Would you recommend these reviewers to others?

8. Did you find the peer review beneficial to your organization?

9. Any additional comments or suggestions?

Organization:

Head of Reviewed Office:

Date:

Return to: Associate Administration for Research and DevelopmentFederal Highway AdministrationTurner-Fairbank Research Highway Center6300 Georgetown PikeMcLean, VA 22101

Questioning Skills

Good questioning and listening skills are key to successful data collection. Since relationships drive the positive completion of any task, it is important to gather data at 2 levels - the “task” level and the “feelings” level. Failure to gather information at both levels can result in an artificial understanding of client needs and issues. As a result, solution and recommendations may miss the target.

The following are examples of questions used to determine both task and feeling needs and issues.

Task Questions:

Focus on technical facts such as: How much? How many? How long?

Feeling Questions:

Uncover personal motives, political or relationship needs and issues, and general emotional reactions. For example:

- How receptive is your staff to learning a new computer system at this time?- How do you feel about the process?- What will happen if your current system fails?

It is important to balance rapport with asking questions. Since certain questions on sensitive issues can create a strong emotional reaction, feeling questions are often asked indirectly in order to maintain rapport. (See below)

Direct Questions:

Ask directly for information regarding either task or feelings. For example:

- How do you feel about gun control?- Who is in charge of this project?

Indirect Questions:

Ask for the same information but in a more round about way. For example:

- Many people have expressed strong anti gun control sentiments. I wonder what you think about their reactions?- I wonder, who might tell me who is in charge of this project?

Open-ended Questions:

Open-ended questions are questions that cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”. Open-ended questions begin with words like “who”, “what”, “when”, “how” and encourage in-depth responses. For example:

- What ideas do you have regarding...- Who do you suggest to work with us on the Jones project?

South Dakota Peer Exchange Questions

These questions encompass the range of information to be gathered. They are targeted to specific audiences, such as staff, management, customers, etc. These questions are also listed by target audience. In some instances, the same question is asked of different audiences.

1. What do you expect from the research process? What does it do for you?

2. What are the tangible and intangible benefits from research?

3. Is there a balance of short and long-term projects?

4. Do you have sufficient training to participate in the research process?

5. Do you understand the research process?

6. What is the primary purpose of research?

7. Is research balanced among the different specialties?

8. What are the top 3 objectives of research?

9. How do you identify your research needs?

10. How can research implementation be improved?

11. Do you have enough involvement in the research process?

12. How can we make research results more beneficial and available?

13. How can research be made more friendly?

14. Can the research cycle time be improved?

15. Do you get more research reports than you need? Are the executive summaries good?

16. Do you know enough about outside research results and activities?

17. Are staffing and funding resources adequate for your area of interest?

18. Is there a good balance of ideas among those that you generate and those generated by the research staff?

19. What should the future research emphasis be?

20. What else do you want to ask about research?

21. How can the technology transfer activities be improved?

22. What criteria would you use to evaluate research programs and projects?

23. Tell me about the best and worst research project you remember.

24. What are the advantages and disadvantages of in-house versus contract research?

25. Do you have any suggestions to help make the peer exchange better?

26. How can we make Requests for Proposals easier to respond to?

27. Are time and budget constraints reasonable?

28. How can the Research Review Board operate more efficiently?

29. What limits do you use most in conducting effective research?

Executive Questions


2. What is the primary purpose of research?

3. What are the top 3 objectives of research?



6. What should the future research emphasis be?

7. What criteria would you use to evaluate research programs and projects?

Customer Questions


2. What are the tangible and intangible benefits from research?

3. How do you identify your research needs?



6. Is there a good balance of ideas among those that you generate and those generated by the research staff?

Staff Questions




4. Do you know enough about outside research results and activities?

5. Are staffing and funding resources adequate for your area of interest?

6. What limits do you use most in conducting effective research?

Contract Research Questions





5. Can the research cycle time be improved?

6. How can we make Requests for Proposals easier to respond to?

7. Are time and budget constraints reasonable?

Suggested Interview Questions for Interviews ofOrganization Personnel

The following questions are offered as suggestions for interviews with personnel of the organization being reviewed. All topics need to be covered in every interview. Questions should relate to the research program and its management processes.

1. Do you know why we are here?

2. Do you understand the confidentiality provisions?

3. What is your educational and experience background?

4. How do you perceive your job? Does it correspond with the job description? Are your responsibilities clear? Is there confusing overlap of duties with others?

5. Is communication good among staff members and their supervisors, and other members on the staff and management? How does communication occur? Is the staff kept informed about what it needs or wants to know?

6. How does the office operate? Do people cooperate as a team, or do they go their own way? Are people doing the things necessary to produce the best service for customers?

7. At work, what gives you the greatest satisfaction? What causes the most frustration?

8. What do you think about the organization and your unit? What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses?

9. Do you have contact with senior managers?

10. What are your career objectives?

11. Do you feel you are improving your skills? Are you provided with the training, guidance and counseling you believe you need? Are you getting the experience and opportunities that you need or want?

12. How do you rate the morale of the agency?

13. What is needed to improve the agency as a place of employment? What is needed to improve the work that the agency produces?

Summary Report of the Review for

(Agency)

To provide a structured and uniform appraisal, it is recommended that the reviewers organize their report to the research manager using the following guidelines.

1. Organizational Management

a. Does the research unit have a clearly written mission statement, goals, and objectives?

b. Are these statements available to employees, the public, and users?

c. Is the research unit achieving its goals and objectives?

d. Does the research organization clearly define reporting relationships and assign responsibility to managers and other employees?

e. Are written job descriptions available for key employees?

f. Is communication among management personnel satisfactory?

g. Are the working conditions, physical facilities, and office environment for employees satisfactory?

h. Are consultant and construction contracts being prepared, reviewed and negotiated properly?

2. Project Management

a. Is there a functioning project management system?

b. Are there policies and procedures for selecting personnel who will participate in a particular project?

c. Is participation by appropriate personnel continuous throughout the project?

d. Are projects being planned adequately?

e. Does management review employee workload and schedules?

f. Is the staff appropriate, in size and grade level, for the current workload?

g. Are contracts managed to avoid overruns in scheduling, budgeting, change orders, etc?

h. Is communication good within the project team?

I. Are research project files organized and do they provide complete and accurate chronological records? For example, do the files include records of telephone calls, conferences, calculations, field and laboratory data, decisions made, etc?

j. Are there project follow up activities?

3. Technical Practice and Procedures

a. Is there a Quality Assurance Program and does it correspond to the organization’s policies and procedures?

b. Is the technical and professional staff qualified to perform assigned work, as measured by education, training, experience, and familiarity with existing standards?

c. Are training and continuing education endeavors satisfactory for each level of employee?

d. Are technical resources available, in-house such as library and laboratory equipment? Are these resources sufficient?

e. Are personnel trained in the use of engineering standards?

f. Are computers used and managed effectively?

4. Human Resource Management

a. Does there appear to be adequate new employee orientation procedures?

b. Do staff members have positive attitudes toward management and the agency?

c. Are employees satisfied in their jobs?

d. Are there procedures for periodic evaluation of employee performance? Do they include individual conferences to discuss progress and career advancement?

e. Are there sufficient career development opportunities?

5. Financial Management

a. Is there a formalized system for developing appropriate budget estimates?

b. Are there reasonable procurement and record-keeping procedures for expenditures?

c. Do line managers and project managers receive timely reports of operational and project costs in relation to budgets?

d. Are project costs reviewed at closeout?

SECTION 2

Course Content

Peer Exchange TrainingParticipant Workbook For State DOT RD&T Management Processes

1 . The Technical Process

1.1. Background

1.1.1. Purpose

The objective of a peer exchange program is to give state highway agencies (SHAs) a means to improve the quality and effectiveness of their research management processes. A peer exchange is appropriate for agencies of any size, mission, discipline, or responsibility.

The program is designed to send an outside team of invited top-level managers to meet with the host agency to discuss and review its RD&T management process. Information on the host agency and team members’ RD&T policies and procedures are exchanged with the intent to improve the overall RD&T management process. The information gathered from the exchange is presented to agency management.

Peer exchange does not analyze the technical competence of an agency or its individuals. The program maintains the principles of voluntarism and confidentiality, and the selection of the team is by the host organization.

Exchanges are not to be confused with audits, investigations, or other activities conducted for regulatory purposes.

A crucial objective of the exchange process is to establish and maintain a comfortable environment for the agency individuals involved, including customers, managers and staff. This will require that the peer exchange team members have appropriate and solid communication skills. Such skills include listening, interviewing, and consulting skills. Team members must also have a complete understanding and acceptance of the concepts of teamwork.

NOTES

1-39


1.1.2. Overview of Peer Exchange

This training program was established as a result of requirements in Federal regulations.

1.1.3. The Peer Exchange Perspective

In the civil engineering profession, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) developed a peer review process in 1986 for consulting engineers. This decision was prompted by ASCE's concern for improving the quality of design and construction practices.

The ASCE peer review model is used in organizations that often are involved in highway construction (such as consulting engineering firms).

In higher education, a type of peer review is used to determine the accreditation status of universities and colleges. The process is also used in other levels of education.

This program distinguishes between peer “review” and peer “exchange.”

One distinction is based on the fact that reviews have the potential for misuse in political environments (such as in state government). Reviews in private firms are not subject to certain political realities, like budget analysis by governing bodies, nor are they subject to public scrutiny, where findings or recommendations for change can be misconstrued or used for political ends.

This peer exchange training has been developed to address the requirements of the Federal regulations, while contributing to the advancement of management processes in SHAs’ research endeavors.

NOTESThe exchange model allows agency

1-40


researchers to contribute, among colleagues, to personal, professional and organizational development.

The first peer exchanges were in New Mexico and South Dakota, conducted before this training program was established. Much of the information used to develop this course is based on the experiences of these two efforts, particularly the experiences in South Dakota. A significant finding from these activities is that there is no specific model for SHA research management processes. The states are distinct in many ways, including size, budgets, organization, and philosophy.

As you will see, these differences among states must be determined before the peer exchange takes place, so that the exchange is structured to meet the needs of the RD&T unit, and all parties involved benefit from the effort.

1.1.4. Role of the Federal Highway Administration

The Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 instituted a number of substantive changes pertinent to the planning and research program.

On July 22, 1994, the FHWA issued regulations (23CFR Part 420) to implement the revised procedures for carrying out the State Planning and Research program.

It also established the conditions under which the FHWA may allow states increased flexibility for directing and controlling their program initiatives, subject to certain program standards. These regulations set forth the minimum Federal requirements for carrying out RD&T activities using FHWA planning and research funds.

NOTES

There are four conditions that each state must meet to be eligible for its RD&T activities. These are:

1-41


• Implement a program of RD&T activities for planning, design, construction and maintenance of highways, and public and intermodal transportation systems.

• Develop, establish and implement a management process that identifies and

implements RD&T activities expected to address high priority transportation issues.

• Agree to peer reviews (exchanges) of its RD&T management process and be willing to participate in the review of other states’ programs.

• Maintain documentation of its management processes.

The FHWA is responsible for maintaining a list of qualified peer reviewers.

The state is responsible for selecting and organizing the peer exchange team. The peer exchange team may consist of other state highway agency research personnel, university researchers, FHWA Division, Region or Washington Headquarters staff and AASHTO and TRB staff, if available.

When preparing for a peer exchange, the states shall select at least two members of the peer exchange team from the FHWA list of qualified peer reviewers.

NOTES

1-42


1.1.5. The Peer Exchange Team Member

A peer exchange team member is an experienced and trained individual who has extensive knowledge of the managerial and technical requirements needed in a transportation-related research program.

The continuity of a successful peer exchange program requires a ready supply of qualified team members. FHWA and SHAs are encouraged to submit qualified candidates for peer exchange training.

A team member should have experience in transportation research, related activities, and research management.

The team member should be knowledgeable and experienced in research planning, funding, documentation and technology transfer.

Individuals qualify to participate on a peer exchange panel by completing a peer exchange training session. The training is conducted to strengthen their communications skills and to acquaint them with the program and peer exchange processes.

The form entitled “Questionnaire For Peer Exchange Team,” is to be completed by prospective and potential peer exchange candidates. The form can be adapted to the needs of each state highway agency and formatted to capture specific desired information.

Experienced reviewers report that the peer exchange process is a stimulating and educational experience for them as well as for the host agency. Team members also have the satisfaction of helping their colleagues and the profession.

NOTES

1-43


1.1.6. Training Procedures

This 1-day peer exchange training program is sponsored by the FHWA and is in response to the requirements promulgated in part 420 23CFR.

The program was developed under contract by SNI International Resources, Inc., with assistance from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The technical instruction and communications skills sessions are provided by SNI.

It is assumed that participants in this training session have some knowledge of the peer exchange process.

The training session will focus on the following topics:

• Purposes of the peer exchange program;

• Distinctive features of the program;

• Preparation for and conduct of the exchange;

• Proper attitudes and reporting style;

and, significantly,

• Communications skills required to perform a quality exchange.

The training will be conducted in up to 9 locations, corresponding to the FHWA Regions. The location of each session will be determined by the FHWA.

The training session will not exceed one working day. The focus of the training will be on the contents of this manual and corresponding materials.

NOTES

1-44


In addition to the communications aspects of the training, perhaps the most significant skills development for the team members will be post-training.

It is expected that the experience each individual or team garners (“on the job”) will be shared as exchanges are conducted. The growing body of experience and knowledge, based on actual exchanges, will ensure that each succeeding exchange is more effective and productive than that preceding it.

Following each session of the peer exchange training program, a certificate of completion will be issued to all participants who complete the training.

1.2. Administration Processes

1.2.1. Scheduling a Peer Exchange

The FHWA Associate Administrator for Research and Development will establish and maintain a list that includes individuals:

• Trained in peer exchanges;

• Who have participated in peer exchanges;

and,

• Who may have capabilities as team leaders based on previous experience or feedback.

The states will be responsible for selecting each member of the peer exchange team.

The state research coordinator will be the primary contact for the host transportation agency and will have the responsibility for ensuring appropriate liaison

NOTES

1-45


between the team leader and the transportation agency.

1.2.2. Assignment of Peer Exchange Participants

The agency scheduling the peer exchange should take into account the geographical location of the peer exchange.

Trained team members from nearby states or offices should be used, when possible, to maximize cost effectiveness.

1.2.3. Identifying Team Leaders

As the peer exchange program matures, some participants will demonstrate leadership skills and can be identified as future team leaders. Until the experience base is established, however, personal judgment and review of resumes will be used to identify team leaders.

1.2.4. Expenses Related to Review

Upon returning to their home bases, the peer exchange team members should promptly compile their expenses with appropriate documentation. This material should be sent to the state DOT for reimbursement.

1.2.5. Maintaining the Peer Reviewer List

The FHWA will maintain a list of trained and qualified people to serve as team members/leaders. The list will include:

• Name;

• Agency;

NOTES• Address;

1-46


• Pertinent information related to the peer exchange experience.

The list is to be used by the research manager of the host agency to select at least two members of the peer exchange team. Additional members of the team may be selected from the list, but it is optional.

1.3. Pre-Peer Exchange Activities

1.3.1. SHA Research Manager Responsibilities

A peer exchange represents a substantial commitment on the part of the host organization. It should be noted that the host organization can expect to benefit in proportion to its participation before and during the process.

It is the responsibility of the state agency research manager to coordinate all of the preparatory activities prior to the actual exchange.

Before the exchange team visit, the research manager should determine the scope of the peer exchange, and become familiar and comfortable with the exchange concept.

The manager should conduct one or more meetings with employees to set the stage for the exchange. It is also important that the agency’s chief executive exhibit strong support of the exchange, and reinforce the idea that benefits will accrue to the agency as a result.

Specific executive support will ensure the cooperation necessary for a successful exchange.

NOTES

The commitment to discuss particular policies and procedures in depth should be made clear among

employees in the agency. It is best not to establish new policies and procedures within a short period

1-47


prior to the peer exchange. Doing so will distort the perceptions of employees’ knowledge and skills before the exchange.

The manager should describe the program to the employees so that everyone understands the process and what to expect.

Each employee should be asked to cooperate during interviews, and to answer questions honestly. They should respond to questions without regard to whether any answer is favorable or unfavorable to the agency or to the employee.

The research manager should communicate with the staff in writing. He or she should reiterate support for the peer exchange and describe what will take place. As a result of this communication, all persons should understand the process and what to expect.

She or he should stress that all interviews will be confidential, and that the peer exchange team will transmit only a summary of interview results, without citing the source of particular ideas or comments.

Points that should be covered in the written communications to agency staff include the following:

• Employees should arrange their work schedules so that they are able to be present during the exchange process.

NOTES

• Employees should cooperate during the interviews and respond to questions without regard to whether the response is

favorable or unfavorable. Interviews will be considered confidential. Management will receive

1-48


only a summary of interview results and the summary will not identify sources.

• The general topics of the exchange should be shared with the staff.

• The exchange will not analyze individual projects to ascertain the correctness of the procedures performed nor will it attempt to examine the technical competence of any individual.

• A peer exchange should not be viewed as threatening. It is undertaken in an effort to serve and help the RD&T unit to operate more effectively. The comments may or may not be critical, and will be offered in a helpful way to improve operations and procedures. Comments can be judged regarding whether they are applicable or not and can be used accordingly .

In preparation for the exchange, the research manager will send the following information about the agency directly to each team member.

• A copy of the state transportation research manual.

• Other documents concerning the policy and procedures of the RD&T program.

• List of items deemed desirable to focus on during the exchange.

NOTES

If the organization does not have this information, it should state concisely what the applicable policies are understood to be, and how that understanding was achieved. It should explain why specific documents are not needed.

Lack of formal documentation in any of these areas should not be a deterrent to peer exchange.

The exchange team should receive these materials from the agency at least 15 days prior to the scheduled

1-49


peer exchange.

1.3.2. Peer Exchange Team Preparation

During the 15-day period prior to arriving on site, each team member should become familiar with the information he or she has received from the agency.

Notes should be made of his or her reaction to the materials, including favorable comments, suggestions for improvement, and identifying inconsistencies that are found.

Team members should generate any additional questions for the initial meeting the evening prior to the exchange start date.

The team leader should discuss these preparatory documents with the team, by telephone, prior to the visit. It may be desirable to do so in a conference call with all team members.

Team members should take this opportunity to discuss and set ground rules for how they will perform as a team. The team leader should also be prepared to reiterate the basic communications skills learned by the team members in the training sessions.

NOTES

At this time, the team should start preparing for a meeting the evening before the first day of the exchange to:

• Compare notes from the advance materials;

• Prepare a list of appropriate subjects to be emphasized during the exchange;

• Discuss their approach to the exchange;

and,

• Formulate the items to be discussed in the initial meeting with the agency’s management.

Team members should be prepared to discuss their programs, successes, and failures and to participate in open discussions.

1.3.3. Team Leader Preparation

1-50


It is the responsibility of the team leader to ensure that all pertinent information is distributed to team members, and that the coordination and logistics of the visit are in order.

She or he should telephone the agency’s research manager 5-10 days before arrival of the team to confirm the details and to encourage open communication.

Included in details to confirm or establish, are:

• Verification of dates and times;

• Confirmation of hotel reservations;

NOTES

• Distribution of the list of personnel who will participate in the exchange and be interviewed;

and,

• Identification and distribution of the list of users of agency research efforts, including phone numbers for telephone interviews.

The Team Leader coordinates the peer exchange visit with the DOT Research Manager.

1.3.4. Actions by the Host Transportation Agency

The research manager should coordinate closely with all of the peer exchange participants, including the:

• State DOT director;

• State DOT personnel to be interviewed;

and,

• Peer Exchange Team.

The manager should begin to make arrangements, plan logistics and initiate appropriate communications at least 60 days before the scheduled visit.

Details to be resolved include:

• Dates of the visit (the visit should be scheduled to last at least 3 days);

• Hotel reservations for the peer exchange team members (3 nights);

1-51


NOTES

• Identification of the team leader and team members, addresses and phone numbers;

• Requirement for forwarding documents to the team members 15 days prior to the visit;

and,

• Arrangements for travel and lodging reimbursements for the team members.

To reiterate, it is important for the review team to receive all information 15 days prior to the visit. Subsequent communications will occur primarily between the team leader and the agency’s research manager.

The team leader will confirm the visit 5 to 10 days prior to travel.

The host state should prepare an agenda for the visit. The agenda should include time for:

• Introductory team meeting;

• Host and visitors to discuss their RD&T programs;

• Team to look at example projects as they have advanced through the system;

• Interviews and discussions with customers, contractors and staff;

• Host and visitors to prepare report;

• Close out session; and

• Follow-up activities.

NOTES

1-52


1.4. The Peer Exchange

1.4.1. Peer Exchange Team Meeting

The team leader will coordinate a meeting of the team members the day before the exchange.

Members should arrive in the host city no later than the afternoon of the day before the exchange. This allows adequate time to get acquainted, dine together and prepare for the following days.

At the team meeting, the agenda should be confirmed and the list of questions (if deemed necessary) should be finalized.

New questions may need to be developed. Decisions are made regarding team assignments, the interview schedule, and confirmation of questions to be asked.

The team should determine if any additional data is needed and assign team members to obtain the information.

Interviews with selected customers, managers and staff serve several purposes. They:

• Confirm opinions derived from the information received from the agency;

• Reveal the degree to which the agency's policies are understood and practiced below management level;

• Provide insight into how people outside the research unit perceive its role in the SHA; and

• Reveal individual perceptions of the service the RD&T provides to the SHA.

NOTES

1-53


Team members should affirm that they understand the exchange is not an adversarial exercise.

They should acknowledge that it is designed to determine what the office policies and procedures are, relative to R&D management processes, and to make suggestions for change or improvement to the appropriate officials.

Finally, the team leader should discuss communication skills and techniques with the exchange team, as a refresher, and discuss the use of checklists, and the proposed report.

1.4.2. Discussion of RD&T Programs

The host State should present its research management process, describing how it carries out each step in the process. The process should include procedures for:

• Identifying and prioritizing RD&T activities for inclusion in a work program;

• Tracking program activities, schedules, accomplishments and fiscal commitments;

• Using the TRIS database for program development, reporting of current RD&T activities and input of the final report information;

• Determining the effectiveness of the State’s management process in implementing the RD&T program and determining the utilization of the State’s RD&T outputs;

and,

• Documenting RD&T activities through the preparation of final reports.

NOTES

1-54


The State members of the peer exchange team should be prepared to offer similar information on their RD&T management process.

1.4.3. Example Projects

There should be time for the team to look at example projects as they have advanced or are advancing through the system. This should begin with submittal of the problem statement and carry through to implementation. Both good and bad experiences should be shared. If appropriate, depending on how a State conducts its research program, examples of in-house, university and consultant research should be included.

1.4.4. Interviews/Discussions

The team should first meet with the research manager and senior manager of the SHA. At the meeting, the team leader and the research manager should briefly describe the exchange process and provide an opportunity for agency management to ask questions, resolve issues and confirm its support for the activity. The meeting should be used to gauge a general perception of where research “fits-in” in the overall State transportation program.

Similar discussions should be held with:

• Customers - people who use the research results, i.e., Division Chiefs for Design, Construction, Maintenance, District Engineers, etc;

• Contractors - university researchers, and private consultants; and

• Research staff.NOTES

The questions developed at the team

1-55


meeting or from “Suggested Interview Questions for Interviewers of Organizational Personnel” should be used to initiate discussion. The discussions should not become a question/answer type session.

The objective is to draw out facts and information concerning the operation of the RD&T management process.

1.4.5. Report

If at all possible, the report should be written before the close-out conference. As a minimum, the report should be prepared before the visitors leave. The report is to be considered a team effort that involves all of the visitors and the host State Research Program Manager.

The report should include a brief introduction (short paragraph) that identifies all of the participants on the team and describes the purpose and intent of the activity. The body of the report should briefly discuss those aspects of the Research Program that the team focused on.

The conclusion section of the report is the paramount part of the report. Each member of the team (including the host State) should identify the ideas, methods, concepts that he/she intends to take back to their State and try to adopt.

This listing of “things I learned” reflects highlights of the open discussions. It is expected that the report will reflect items that the visitors and host State desire to incorporate into their own programs as well as the desirable features of each State’s program that should be emphasized and those aspects of each State’s program that appear to warrant a new or expanded approach.

NOTES

The report is most likely to be of value if it is kept brief and to the point. The use of “bullet” phrases and other outlining

1-56


techniques should be used to help avoid the need to “word smith” the report and minimize the time needed to review the document.

The report should include an endorsement by all of the members of the team. Because the host State is considered a member of the team, this precludes the need for a separate written response to the report by the host State. A copy of the report should then be forwarded to the FHWA Division Administrator. If the host State elects to not endorse the report, a separate written response should then also be forwarded to the FHWA Division Administrator.

1.4.6. Close-out Session

The “close-out” has the potential for the greatest benefit if it is conducted with upper management of the host State and/or the uppermost Research Advisory Committee. If the “close-out” is done verbally with the host State’s upper management, it is recommended that each member of the team be prepared to talk about what they learned and intend to “take-back” with them to their own programs. The host State Research Manager is expected to discuss what he/she has gained as a result of the exchange. The “close-out” should highlight the most positive aspects of the host State research program and the aspects of the host State program that the visitors intend to incorporate into their own programs.

Any suggestions for changes to the host State program, as agreed to by the team, should also be brought to the attention of upper management. It is understood that management support is necessary to make significant changes and the visitors’ perspective may be necessary to help the host implement those changes. NOTES

1.4.7. Follow-up Activities Throughout the process --pre-

1-57


exchange to conclusion -- the State Research Manager, the team leader and members of the team should reach consensus regarding follow-up to the exchange activity. The specific follow-up products, including long-term follow-up, are at the discretion of the agency.

One additional activity that appears to have substantial merit is that about a year after the first visit, the host State should initiate a round robin report that identifies any changes that have occurred and that were introduced as a result of the initial visit. Each of the visitors should add to the report those activities that were enhanced in their respective programs as a result of their participation in the peer exchange.

This subsequent report would be circulated among all members of the team until everyone had had an opportunity to review everyone else’s comments. This is a completely optional activity, dependent upon the desires of the host State.

1.5. Post-Peer Exchange Activities

FHWA will be responsible for revising the peer exchange process and providing updated guidance as experience may dictate. Team leaders and the research manager of the host agency are asked to comment on the peer exchange process and the value of the exchange itself.

Comments should address preparation, planning, and execution of the exchange, and communication between the team members and the host agency.

NOTES

1-58

Peer Exchange TrainingParticipant Manual For State DOT RD&T Management Processes

The Handouts entitled “Peer Exchange Team Leader Questionnaire,” and “Research Manager Questionnaire” are forms that may be used to provide this information. The former is completed by the team leader and sent to FHWA. The latter is completed by the manager of the host transportation agency and is also sent to FHWA.

2-59


NOTES

2-60


2. The Consulting Process

2.1. Introduction

The individual involved as a peer reviewer serves as a “consultant” to the state agency; he or she must be aware of the functions of “consulting.” In addition to possessing the necessary communications skills required of the experienced consultant, the reviewer must understand the different forms consulting may take.

2.2. Staff Consulting Roles

Pair of HandsThe client sees the consultant as an "extra pair of hands." The client defines the task and the consultant carries it out.Characteristics:• Consultant is passive - client has control• Depends on client's accurate diagnosis• Collaboration not necessary

Problems:• Decisions are client's to make• Consultant may become scapegoat• Limited two-way communication

ExpertConsultant provides expertise to the client for a task or project.Characteristics:• Client has an inactive role - consultant has

control• Consultant makes the decisions• Collaboration is not required• Two-way communication is limited

Problems:• Depends on consultant's accurate diagnosis• People may not be committed to im-

plement the recommendations of an "outsider"

CollaborativeThe consultant joins his or her expertise with the manager's specialized knowledge of theorganization. Both are actively involved in the consulting process.Characteristics:• Manager and consultant work inter-

dependently - in collaboration• Control issues are discussed and negotiated• Communication is two-way• Implementation issues are discussed and

agreed upon

Problems:• Client may confuse collaborative action as

foot-dragging or insubordination when the consultant does not play "expert" or "pair of hands

2-61


2.3 The Consulting Model

The “consulting contract” is an explicit agreement between the reviewer and the agency on how they will work together and what they expect from each other. It is critical that this agreement be developed with mutual consideration for both the reviewer and the agency.

SUCCESSFUL PEER EXCHANGES REQUIRE AUTHENTIC

BEHAVIOR BETWEEN THE AGENCY’S PERSONNEL AND REVIEWERS, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS, FROM ENTRY INTO THE ORGANIZATION THROUGH FOLLOW-UP.

2.3.1. Entry Into The Organization

The following are items you must address

• Personal Acknowledgment - acknowledge that it is difficult to ask for help. Increase the comfort level of agency managers and employees by making a personal statement about your feelings while you are meeting with them.

• Communicate Understanding of the Issues - communicate your understanding of the issue(s) in a manner that acknowledges the unique aspects of the SHA’s situation. Then restate your perception of the issue(s) and be reassuring about solutions.

• Agency Wants and Offers - this is the crucial part of the contracting process. Ask "What do you want from me?". You need to know not only what the agency wants in the project, but also what is expected from you, the reviewer. Watch for uncertain or "fogged" wants.

• Reviewer Wants and Offers - it is critical to describe specifically what you want as a

reviewer. This must be done up front to avoid derailing the process later. NOTES

2-62


Distinguish for the research manager, and others as

necessary, your essential wants - the "must haves"—versus the desirable wants—the "would like to have." Learning to say "I want" rather than "I need" is apowerful skill to build into this phase.

2.3.2. Agreement

Be specific and realistic about what you can offer.

• Reaching Agreement - it is crucial to reach agreement about the process up front, and avoid re-negotiating after the process begins.

• Asking for Feedback about Control and Commitment - this can be a delicate process. As the reviewer, ask questions such as:

_"Is this project something you really want to see happen?"_"Do you feel you have enough control over the project?_"How could you get hurt by this process/project?”_"Who else should be involved?”

• Giving Support - make a genuine, specific and positive statement regarding the agency’s willingness to support the project.

• Restating Actions - wrap-up the meeting with a clarifying statement describing the next steps.

2.3.3. Data Collection

Data collection is the formal step used in discovering

the total dimensions of the issue or problem. Data

can be collected in a variety of methods. When

inter-views are used, the reviewer will

generally find threelayers of analysis:

NOTES

2-63


• The issue or problem, generally expressed as a concern;

• The agency's perception of how others contribute to the issue or problem; and

• Agency managers’ and employees’ perception of how they contributes to the issue or problem.

SUCCESSFUL DATA COLLECTION INVOLVES COLLECT-

ING, ANALYZING, AND REDUCING DATA TO A MANAGE-

ABLE NUMBER OF ISSUES. DURING THE PROCESS OF

DATA COLLECTION, YOU MAY ENCOUNTER RESISTANCE.

MASTERING THE SKILL OF DEALING WITH RESISTANCE

WILL BE CRITICAL TO COLLECTING DATA.

The steps in data collection include:

• Identifying the Issue or Problem - this is the agency's first description of the issue or problem. Generally, only symptoms are identified after data collection is completed.

• Deciding to Proceed - the reviewer and agency mutually agree to do the data collection to improve a situation - not just to do research.

• Selecting Dimensions - a limited list of questions is developed that encompasses the agency's technical expertise.

• Deciding Who Will Be Involved - individuals? organizational levels? people to whom feedback will be given?

• Selecting the Data Collection Method - depends on project scope, time available, motivation of people, and the practical aspects (situational).

Five methods to collect data include:

NOTES

2-64


_Oral interviews;_Pencil & paper questionnaires;_Analyzing documents (procedural, financial, etc);_Direct observation; and_Your experience during the process.

• Data Collection Activity - the reviewer uses the selected methods.

2.3.4. Diagnosis

• Funnel the Data - reduce the data to manageable proportions. (See exhibit on page 10 for graphic display of this process)

• Data Summary - summarize the data in a useful format.

• Data Analysis - describe what the data means and why it is important.

2.3.5. Feedback & Decision to Act

Personal and organizational data must be presented at

a feedback meeting. Emotions may be high. Planning

is critical, and resistance should be anticipated.

Feedback language requires assertive behavior, not

aggressive or nonassertive behavior. This means

stating directly what you want without infringing on

the rights of others.

WHEN GIVING FEEDBACK, SELECT ISSUES OVER WHICH

THE AGENCY HAS CONTROL, TO WHICH THERE IS

STRONG COMMITMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT, AND ARE

ISSUES CLEARLY IMPORTANT TO THE ORGANIZATION.

The suggested structure of the feedback meeting is

asfollows (% of time to spend in the

meeting):

NOTES

2-65


• Feedback

_Restate the original agreement and state the structure of the meeting (5%);_Present diagnosis and present recommendations (15%);_Ask for management’s reactions (30%);_Ask the research manager and executive: “Are you getting what you want?” (10%);

• Decision to Act

_Decision to proceed (30%);_Test for concerns of control and commitment (10%);_Ask yourself if you got what you wanted, and;_Give support.

• Approach

_Do Do Not

Confirm ColludeConfront ArgueSupport Make Excuses

• Language

_Use Avoid

Descriptive JudgmentalFocused GlobalSpecific StereotypeBrief LengthySimple Complicated

• Objectives . As the reviewer, you present your findings and recommendations.

You and the agency’s management agree on appropriate action. The focus should be on items:

NOTES

2-66


_over which the agency has control;_that are clearly important to the organization; and_have commitment in the organization.

2.3.6. Guidelines To Effective Feedback

Learning how to effectively give and receive feedback

is a valuable skill that is useful in management, inter-

personal relationships, and consulting. Once you are

comfortable with the “consulting process,” you will

find yourself in many situations where the knowledge of how to use “feedback,” enhances your communication with others. Generally, you should give consideration to the following aspects in practicing feedback:

• Timing - feedback should be delivered immediately following the behavior or right before it will occur again. Raise issues when the environment is conducive to discussion and when there is time to adequately conduct the discussion. Don't give or allow yourself to receive feedback, that is important to you, on the run.

• Non-Verbal Behavior - be cautious not to convey a different message physically, than you do verbally.

• Understanding - check to ensure that the message you receive is in response to the message you sent, and that your response to a message corresponds to the message sent to you.

Delivering honest feedback is not easy. Though you

may react strongly to a person’s behavior, it is seemingly easier to hide behind polite phrases and words. Do not compromise. Clear, honest, straightforward feedback is valuable information.

It helps a person learn how their behaviors are perceived by others.

NOTES

2-67


The key to delivering feedback effectively is to be:

• Non-judgmental - comment on behavior without judging its worth or value.

• Focused - keep your comments focused on the person's behavior rather than on attitude, personality, or other inappropriate dimensions.

• Specific - describe specific actions to which you are reacting.

• Sincere - state clearly what you mean.

• Clear and Simple - give feedback about behavior that can be changed. Avoid emotion-laden or biased words (i.e. “always” or “never”).

Being the recipient of feedback can be difficult. You

may receive unpleasant information. However, soliciting feedback provides invaluable information for self development.

When you solicit or receive feedback from others:

• Request Feedback From People Who Know You Well - people with whom you work closely will be able to report on your behavior. Ask for feedback only if you believe you can accept it.

• Be Specific - state specifically the behavior or performance about which you want feedback,why you want it, and what you will do with the information.

• Remain Open And Objective - listen carefully to what the giver is saying. Respond with a thank you; do not try to defend your behavior.

• Focus On The Future - ask the giver, "What can I do to keep that behavior from happening again?"

NOTES

2-68


• Ask For Clarification - say, "Could you give me an example?", not "What did you mean by that?".

• Review The Feedback (Honestly) - decide what part of the feedback you feel ready to accept. Sort out information which you do not think will be helpful to you.

2-69


NOTES

2-70

References

Technical Process

American Association of Dam Safety Officials and the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety. Peer

Program Review Manual for State Dam Safety Agencies. January 1992.

American Consulting Engineering Council. Expanded Discussion of Management Issues. 1990.

American Consulting Engineering Council. Preparing For Your Peer Review. 1990.

American Consulting Engineering Council. Reviewers Manual. 1990.

American Consulting Engineers Council and American Society of Civil Engineers. Project Peer

Review. 1990.

American Society of Civil Engineers. Program Manual for Peer Review for Public Agencies,

Practices and Procedures. Third Edition, 1993.

American Society of Civil Engineers. Quality In the Constructed Product, A guide for owners,

designers and constructors. Volume 1, 1990.

American Society of Civil Engineers. Standard for Independent Peer Review of Civil Engineering

Projects. Draft. September 10, 1994.

American Society of Foundation Engineers. A Guide to Establishing Quality Control Policies and

Procedures for Professional Firms Practicing In the Geosciences. Third Edition 1994. First Edition

1980.

American Society of Foundation Engineers. A Peer Review Program Manual for Peer Reviewers

and Participating Firms and Offices. 1994. First Edition 1980.

Eschmeyer, Ken, and David L. Huft. Training In Peer Exchange Techniques For RD&T. Critique

of FHWA Peer Review Proposed Training, Task B. Pierre: South Dakota Department of Transportation.

Consulting Process

Bellman, Geoffrey M. The Quest for Staff Leadership. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company,

1986.

Block, Peter. Flawless Consulting, A Guide to Getting Your Expertise Used. San Diego: University

Associates, 1981.


Duman, Seymour, and Norman M. Bradburn. Asking Questions, A Practical Guide to Questionnaire

Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1982.

Lawrence, Paul . How To Deal With Resistance To Change. Boston: Harvard Business ReviewClassic, May-June 1954.

Sherman, John. “Traditional Approaches to Consulting Versus a Collaborative Approach.” The1982 Annual for Facilitators, Trainers, and Consultants. San Diego: University Associates,

1982.

Steele, Fritz. The Role of the Internal Consultant, Effective Role-Shaping For Staff Positions. Boston: CBI Publishing Company, Inc.

Tilles, Seymore. Understanding the Consultant's Role. Boston: Harvard Business Review, November-December 1961.

Turner, Arthur N. Consulting is More Than Giving Advice. Boston: Harvard Business Review,Sept.-Oct. 1982 (reprint #82510).

2-74


Peer ExchangeWorkbook

Peer Exchange of State DOT RD&TManagement Processes

Name:

TEAM MEMBERS:

Name:Phone Number:

Name:Phone Number:

Name:Phone Number:

Date:

2-75


1. Entry Into The Organization

What are the agency’s defining issues?

What is your role on the exchange team?

2. Entrance Meeting

Who will be attending the meeting and what is their role in the exchange?

Name Role

What do you want from the agency? (This may include information, support, outcomes, resources, etc.)

Agency Contract Name

Address

City StateZip Code

Telephone Number Fax

2-76


Essential (must have):

Desirable (would like to have):

What skills and abilities are you offering to the exchange?

Technically

Personally

What do you think the agency will be looking for from you?

Technically

Personally

3. Project Parameters

What form(s) of resistance might you encounter?

How will you deal with resistance?

2-77


How would you describe the pressing issues?

How do you see your role in resolving issues? What limits do you want to set for your involvement?

What information do you need?

Hard data (figures, records, etc.).

Soft data (attitudes about the issue, clarity on roles and responsibilities, etc.).

What product do you plan to deliver (if any) and what form will it take?

What support and involvement do you want? From whom?

What is your time frame for this exchange?

2-78


What kind of feedback do you want? From whom? When do you want it?

How will success be measured in this exchange? This should be clearly understood and agreed upon by all parties involved in the process.

Who can/will make the decision to proceed with the exchange?

Who will be most affected by the exchange?

4. Debrief The Entrance Meeting

Describe the defining issues.

Are they different than the way you understood them earlier? How?

How would you rate the following?

2-79


Agency (%) Reviewer (%)

Balance of Participation

Who initiated?

Who had control?

Comments:

In answering the following questions, discuss whether you would change your influence strategy and use of influence style(s).

Did the initial wants and offers change in the meeting? If so, how?

Check off the resistance you encountered in the meeting.

Wanted more detail

Flooded you with detail

Time use issues

Questioned your credentials

"Impracticality" of consultants

I'm not surprised

Superficial compliance

Attack

Invisible confusion

Silence

Intellectualized

Moralized

Questioned your methodology

Flight into health

Pressed for solutions

Was there impasse? Over what issue(s)?

2-80


How did you support the research manager or senior executive?

In which areas did the agency participants have the most energy?

How would you rate your authenticity? The agency’s people?

What did you do that you really liked?

What would you do differently next time?

What agreements were reached?

5. Data Collection

2-81


Restate the defining issues.

What dimensions have you decided to explore in the collection of data?

Who will be involved in data collection?

Has agreement been reached regarding data collection methodology (interviews, questionnaires, doc ument analysis, etc.)?

2-82

If you are going to ask questions, here are areas upon which you may want to focus. Use this space to draft your questions:

Current state:

Goals: What is the agency trying to accomplish? Are people clear on the goals? Committed to them?

Procedures: What is the quality, quantity and effectiveness of present procedures and controls? Meetings, systems, etc?

Relationships: How is conflict managed? Are people's roles and responsibilities clear and reasonable?

Future State:

Goals: What would success look like? What would people's goal clarity and com - mitment be like?

Procedures: How would meetings be conducted, systems change, etc.?

Relationships: How would conflict be managed? How would roles and responsibil - ities be structured?

6. Structuring the Data Feedback

Based on the data collected, prepare your presentation, identify no more than seven areas upon which to focus.

Issue statement No. 1:

What happens if the issue is not resolved?:

In the short term:

In the long term:

Recommended Solution:

Expected benefits:



In the short term:

In the long term:


Expected benefits:



In the short term:

In the long term:


Expected benefits:



In the short term:

In the long term:


Expected benefits:



In the short term:

In the long term:


Expected benefits:

Issue statement No 6:


In the short term:

In the long term:


Expected benefits:



In the short term:

In the long term:


Expected benefits:

7. Planning The Feedback Meeting

What do you want from the meeting? Understanding? Agreement? Action? Further work?

Structure the meeting so you have at least as much time for discussion as for pre - sentation of results.

Exchange wording of feedback to make it as non-evaluative and descriptive as possible.

Which elements of your message are likely to generate defensiveness?

What form is the defensiveness or resistance likely to take?

What question can you ask to get the resistance expressed in the meeting?

Who might be missing from the feedback meeting who has a high stake in the outcome?

How can you ask for feedback on how this exchange is going?

8. Managing The Feedback Meeting

Steps:

Restate the original agreementState the structure of the meeting (5%)Present diagnosis (10%)Present recommendations (15%)Ask for reactions (30%)Halfway through the meeting, ask, "Are you getting what you want?"Decision to proceed (30%)Test for concerns of control and commitmentAsk yourself if you got what you wantedGive support (10%)

9. Reviewing the feedback meeting checklist

What was the outcome?

What was the final understanding of the issues or solutions? Was this differ ent than your initial statement of results or recommendations?

What form did resistance take?

How did you respond to the resistance?

Was there impasse? Describe it.

What nonverbal messages did you notice?

What connection can you make between the way the feedback meeting was man - aged and the way the technical/business issues are being managed?

To what extent did this meeting have an effect on relationships? With the research manager? With the Senior Executive? Particular agency employees? Others?

What would you do differently next time? Why?

Date post:	15-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times