Never underestimate the benefit of compromising in the name of collaboration. This is a favorite saying of mine. The benefits of collaborating across agencies are so tempting: learning from your peers, building a more sustainable product, sharing risk. But the downsides are very real: you must compromise – on big, important decisions. This is difficult for program managers, like myself, who are used to steering projects – not co-steering projects.

In this post I talk a bit about what we’ve learned to date on the Fast-Trips project. I hope my words help at least one peer agency out there in a similar position.

Why did we decide to collaborate?

A pre-condition for successful collaboration is proper motivation. Our key reasons are as follows:

1. Each agency brings a unique and useful perspective, specifically:
   • SFCTA brings experience with dynamic network models generally and Fast-Trips specifically. They also operate in a jurisdiction with very real transit crowding problems.
   • MTC is a large, sophisticated MPO, with top-notch in-house contracting, legal, and travel modeling staff. Further, we want to better leverage travel model research done by SFCTA for the benefit of our region.
   • PSRC brings software expertise, a talented, diverse staff, and, of course, a non-Bay-Area-perspective.
   • University of Texas Network Modeling Center brings a key collaborator from the original Fast-Trips development work and a deep reserve of transportation research skills.
2. Shared risk: I often say that MPO modelers should not do anything they cannot convince two of their peers to go along with. Convincing others should prevent unwise investment decisions.
3. Shared contingency: things come up at public agencies, diverting resources from planned activities. We hope at least two of us will be fully engaged with the project at any given time.
4. More eyeballs: generally speaking, the more eyeballs you put on something, the more likely you are to find errors and improve ideas.
5. Peer-to-peer learning: we work in a small community and need to take every opportunity we can to learn from each other. Working directly with each other is more rewarding than listening to each other talk at conferences.

Applying for the grant

Getting through the grant process efficiently required a champion. SFCTA was our champion. They took the lead on creating and drafting the grant application. MTC and PSRC provided valuable input, but assumed a supportive role. This approach allowed our application to have a single, compelling voice.

One innovative aspect of the application was FHWA’s requirement for either a state DOT or MPO agency-lead as well as an explicit, executive-level commitment from the lead agency. This approach should facilitate a more efficient transfer of research into practice for two key reasons. First, agency-led research should more directly relate the need to the product. FHWA is not procuring a service or product that they think an MPO wants; the MPO is doing so directly. This should lead to us solving a problem, rather than FHWA offering a solution. Second, the executive-level commitment requires an agency to be on the same page internally: the technical staff and the executive staff explicitly recognize the importance of the work.

You can read our grant application here.

We won! Let’s get started!

Not so fast. Even though we were notified of our award in Summer 2014, our kick-off did not happen until January 2015. Bureacracies move slowly. Before getting started, we needed to:

1. Formally request the funds be obligated from our state DOT;
2. Formally get the funds into our budget and work program;
3. Get authority from our governing body to enter into contracts with SFCTA, PSRC, and the University of Texas;
4. Prepare and execute agreements with SFCTA, PSRC, and the University of Texas.

These processes are made much easier by a deep and talented team of contract specialists – something MTC is lucky to have.

Putting someone else in charge

A key decision we made early on was to hire an outside project manager and an outside technical lead.
This allows the agency leads to serve as principals-in-charge, or partners in a law firm, or some other analogy. This is expensive, but has already paid significant dividends, most notably: directing a third-party is easier than directing a peer.

At some point we’ll disagree, right?

With three cooks in the kitchen, disagreements are inevitable. When consensus fails, we thought it best to formally document how we will resolve the dispute. Our language is as follows:

Agreement should be made by consensus. If the majority of the Management Team reaches agreement at the end of the week time-frame, the proposal and any changes will be considered “accepted,” or “accepted, with adjustments.” If sufficient response has not been received, or there are areas of disagreement among the Management Team, the Technical Lead or Project Manager will convene a discussion in order to try and reach an agreement. If the Management Team fails to reach consensus at the end of this discussion, there will be a vote whereby majority of the Management Team (comprised of David Ory, Joe Castiglione, and Billy Charlton or their proxies) will rule.

Drawbacks

Collaborating is not easy. Putting contracts together is slow and tedious. Working on process is boring and often abstract. It took us months to put all the pieces in place. Our project manager must get feedback from three parties rather than one. We must agree on a host of technical matters as we progress.

Will it be worth it? We think so.