The program’s management is complex because these business units are individually responsible, among other things, for identifying research needs, developing strategies to address transportation problems, and managing research and technology activities that support the agency’s strategic goals. FHWA Processes for Developing Research Agendas and Evaluating Research Outcomes Do Not Always Follow Best Practices for Federal Research Programs

Leading organizations that conduct scientific and engineering research, other federal agencies with research programs, and experts in research and technology have identified and use best practices for developing research agendas and evaluating research outcomes. As a result, this approach is used inconsistently. Similarly, the agency uses external stakeholders to provide merit review of research projects on an ad hoc basis. FHWA acknowledges that the agency lacks a consistent, transparent, and systematic approach for engaging stakeholders in setting research agendas. According to agency officials, the designations made by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and conference reports accompanying recent appropriations acts have represented significant proportions of the agency’s research budget. Conclusions

With millions of dollars for its research, FHWA’s research and technology program has the potential to significantly improve the nation’s highway system. In addition, because FHWA does not systematically evaluate its research and technology program, it is unclear whether the research is having the intended results or whether some refocusing of the research would be justified. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that FHWA’s research agenda and approach to evaluation are identifying research with the highest value to the surface transportation community and monitoring the outcomes of that research, we are recommending that the secretary of transportation direct the FHWA administrator to   develop a systematic approach for obtaining input from external stakeholders in determining the research and technology program’s agendas;   develop a systematic process for evaluating significant ongoing and completed research that incorporates peer review or other best practices in use at federal agencies that conduct research; and   develop specific plans for implementing these recommendations, including time frames and estimates of their cost. Since fiscal year 1998, the majority of the agency’s research and technology program funds have continued to support the intelligent transportation systems program as well as the surface transportation research program.
What GAO Found

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has received hundreds of millions of dollars for its surface transportation research and technology program during the past decade. For example, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, included over $447 million for fiscal year 2002 for FHWA's transportation research and technology efforts for six-year period of 1998 through 2003. FHWA's research and technology program is complex because each of the program offices within the agency are responsible for identifying research needs, formulating strategies to address transportation problems, and setting goals that support the agency's strategic goals. One business unit at FHWA's research laboratory provides support for administering the overall program and conducts some of the research. The agency's leadership team provides periodic oversight of the overall program. FHWA's processes for managing the research and technology program, and in particular for developing research agendas and evaluating research outcomes against intended results, do not always align with the best practices for similar federal research and technology programs. FHWA acknowledges that its approach for developing research agenda and involving external stakeholders in determining the direction of the program's research lacks a consistent, transparent, and systematic process. Instead, most external stakeholder involvement is ad hoc through technical committees and professional societies. The agency primarily uses a "success story" approach to evaluate its research outcomes. While this approach shows some benefits, it cannot be used as the primary method to evaluate the outcomes of the research because these stories represent only a fraction of the program's completed research projects. As a result of its relatively varied processes, it is unclear whether the organization is selecting research projects that have the highest potential value, or what is the extent to which these projects have achieved their objectives.