Transition Plan
January 31, 2000

LESSONS LEARNED IN THE LEAD STATE PROGRAM EFFORT

The Superpave Lead State team members and supporters worked were successful in assuring team success. Key methods used by the group that facilitated success are as follows:

The Team started from the top and the bottom. Members from both management and technical working groups were involved from the Program's inception.

Key Contact people were identified in each State. The individuals were chosen for leadership and knowledge in their respective areas of expertise. Identification of these individuals facilitates communications and team interaction.

The Team members interfaced with their respective User/Producer groups. The User/Producer groups provided excellent forums. Members of the group were kept current at each meeting as to the goals and activities of the Lead-State Program.

The Team members enjoyed respect from their industry peers. They knew what they were talking about. Each Team member earned his/her expertise through academic and practical experience.

The binder and mix Expert Task Group has been reconfigured and will be under the auspices of the NCHRP. These groups will report to the TRB Superpave Committee. Their membership includes experts who know the technology and are committed to its improvements and development. Membership on both ETGs include representatives from the AASHTO Lead States Team, HMA industry, private research and academia.

A Superpave Lead-State Pool of Experts tabulation was published and distributed by means of the "Focus" newsletter, trade magazines and User/Producer newsletters. This concept proved an excellent forum for introducing our services to other governmental agencies, academia, and the private sector. Good visibility and marketing were achieved.

Progress of Superpave implementation, the major goal of the Team, was tracked through a comprehensive surveys sent out annually. The survey proved an excellent tool for making Team course corrections.

The Lead-State concept was successful to a great extent through strong staff support from AASHTO and FHWA. Without the financial support from AASHTO, no annual meeting would have taken place. It is an unfortunate fact of life that for most states, out of state travel is severely restricted. We need to continue to use States SP&R funds and Federal Aid to support the States purchase of new technology equipment and for maintenance and replacement of said equipment. If Superpave is to be fully implemented in its mature form, new partnerships and funding mechanisms must be developed among the States, AASHTO, TRB, FHWA, and private grants.

Members of the Lead-State team were supported by their respective managers. They were given time to travel to the workshop meetings. Resources required in fulfilling goal action items were also provided.

The annual meetings which included intense break-out session work provided means for each member to vent frustrations. Rules were established early on that encouraged each member to say what was on his or her mind. These meetings also provided reality checks and a means to measure goals.

Our team was made up members from State Agencies, the FHWA, Regional Superpave centers, and industry. There was a strongly committed attitude of partnering in our group. A significant number of members were involved with NCHRP research projects, held membership on the FHWA Expert Task Groups ( now the TRB ETGs). This involvement greatly facilitated communication.

Customers were identified. All workshop brainstorming sessions were focused on meeting the needs of those agencies and businesses adopting Superpave

A willingness to help other states (customers ) was evident from the start. Indeed, this willingness was required as a major strategy in fully implementing Superpave nationwide. Members volunteered to be listed on the pool of experts list and to avail themselves through User-Producer groups.

The group realized early on that the process was dynamic. We knew that processes and specifications had to be fine-tuned. The new technology had to be put through the paces in practical use. Identified deficiencies were then addressed.

Using facilitators was a key element to the group's success. Working break-out sessions remained focused on the many elements that led to goal development.

By 2000, all but a handful of States will have adopted the binder specifications and most will be using the design system. For 1999, the States will award more that 3000 Superpave projects, nearly ten times more than just two years ago. This represents 46% of the market share. In 2001, the market share is projected to grow more to more than 80%.

The States are in desperate need of a simple performance test that can differentiate between competing designs. The applicability of the aggregate consensus properties require verification. We need the tools for avoiding occasional mix tenderness during construction and which can be used to assist in predicting service performance.

Given the multitude of providers, customer/users, it was critical that a single entity assumed responsibility for coordinating the parties. Facilitating agreement and understanding among the shareholders, minimizing duplication of efforts, and insuring that goals are achieved is critical to success. Our team was fortunate in having a strong, dynamic leader who accomplished this.

What About Negatives? What Could We Have Done Differently?

Numerous action items were adopted during each meeting. All team members were very busy on their respective jobs. A method of getting all members of the team to communicate their respective progress periodically during the year would have insured more goals being fully met. This could easily have been done with E-mail. The computer e-mail list server could have served very well in this capacity. It was not used. As part of an integrated communication system, e-mail, or tele-conferencing would have greatly facilitated on-going team communication.

The Lead-States recognized the value of the new Superpave technology early on. Other states took a go-slow attitude to that of waiting until the system was perfect. Reasons for the reticence of other states and municipalities' slow adoption of Superpave were not fully addressed. A major goal of the team should have been to identify and address this resistance to fully adopting Superpave. We should have more fully focused on this problem during the early implementation phases.

Asphalt/pavement experts within each state should be directly involved and empowered in a Lead-State concept. States assigning the wrong people to teams will encounter numerous problems in adopting and implementing new technology.

Better Public Relation efforts could have been adopted. Some States, agencies, and mix producers undoubtably had unrealistic expectations. During the initial phases perceptions by a significant number of municipalities and contractors led to the belief that the technology was a "cook book" affair and that engineering wasn't allowed. This group believed that Superpave was being "crammed down their throats".

Probably the biggest threat to the success of any human endeavor is the lack of communication. That is certainly true and is applicable to Superpave. To be sure, many sources of information on the technology were developed. Newsletters and web sites abound, yet it remains difficult for those who require a certain level of information to find it. A definitive source of information, probably a redesigned and amalgamated web site with appropriate links needs to be agreed upon. This web site would obviously require funding and staffing. AASHTO and FHWA should cooperate to make it a reality.

The partners, including TRB, AASHTO, and the FHWA must cooperate in developing and executing plans to keep the technology on the radar screens of State DOT executive managers and Chief Engineers.