LIBRARY

VOLPE JOURNAL

HIGHLIGHTS

PUBLISHED AND
PRESENTED

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

TRANSPORTATION
STRATEGIC PLANS

LINKS

Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section

II.What are PPPs, and Why Do They Need a Paradigm?

"paradigm \PAIR-uh-dime\ (noun) 1: example, pattern; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype 2: an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms 3: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated." - Merriam-Webster

Although much of what determines a successful partnership is simply the execution of good business practices, good management, and reliable resources, PPPs as an entity still possess a number of characteristics unique to their members and to their individual goals. Outwardly, prospects appear hopeful for continued growth and value of PPPs. Favorable factors include tightening fiscal environments, increasingly complex administrative processes, and more trusting relationships among potential partners.

Why Partnerships? Setting the Tone and Gaining Perspective

Addressing the audience in opening remarks, Edward Brigham, Acting Deputy Administrator of RSPA, described his agency as a catalyst for research, technology development, and deployment within DOT and other agencies. He elaborated on how RSPA has promoted PPPs as a means to enhance the goals of science and technology projects. As a general rule, Brigham stated, Federal support for PPPs has been based on the view that we can profit from public investments through the exchange of resources, people, and ideas among Federal agencies, state and local governments, industry, and academic institutions. Concluding his remarks with a question emblematic of all PPPs, Brigham posed the question, "...How do we achieve the right balance, the right incentives, and the right goals to usher in future successes?"

Moderating the roundtable discussion, Dr. Richard John (Volpe Center) and Robert Knisely (transportation consultant) set the tone by posing a series of questions designed to elicit discussion and to navigate the spectrum of PPPs as gleaned from speaker presentations. In his opening remarks and later in his luncheon talk, Knisely spoke of developing a new paradigm for PPPs, asking the audience if there should there be a model program for PPPs.

Definitions, Paradigms, and Other Utopian Visions

Speaking in the roundtable discussion, Steve Lockwood, Richard Norment, and Sam Williamson offered their thoughts on PPPs from the perspectives of a private sector firm, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas (PBQ&D), a national nonpartisan organization (National Council For Public/Private Partnerships), and a Federal agency (NOAA’s Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology), respectively. Expressing general agreement on the difficulty of defining a PPP, panelists emphasized the need to think of different classes of partnerships. Each should serve specific functions, developing common goals, working through obstacles from well designed plans of action, and possessing the commitment and vision to last the duration of the project.

Asserting that there is no paradigm for PPPs, Bob Knisely, in both his roundtable and luncheon remarks, cautioned participants that, as yet, there are no handles on this issue. "It is as challenging to define what a PPP is, as what it is not." What one has now is the absence of a defined model. PPPs can cover everything from day care to toll roads to water projects. What is it that defines a PPP so that at least its sub-categories are known? Some characteristics include assigning and taking on risks, the need for additional capital, and the value of having motivated management.

Confusion and imprecision over definitions makes it difficult to present a case for funding before a Congressman. PPPs are not loans. PPPs are not loan guarantees. How can one design a PPP instrument that effectuates policy, and one that can be sold to legislators? Whether the innovation is the partnership itself, or the technology it represents, it must be communicated – simply and effectively.

There is extensive literature on the communication of innovation, and PPPs are very early in that innovation process. Everett Rogers, in his work on the subject,⁹ discussed the use of S-curves (see Figure 1) as a barometer of an innovation’s life cycle. Over a given time span, a successful innovation is marked by a takeoff phase that leads to its rapid adoption by society. Later, the adoption rate slows as the innovation matures and market saturation occurs. As examples, the audience heard two presentations on innovative partnerships that may be candidates for takeoff technologies. Jack Sheehan (AGATE Alliance) discussed the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS). Bob Hallowell (MIT/Lincoln Laboratory) reviewed the development and adoption of the Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS).

PPPs as Instruments of Policy

There is no PPP paradigm per se – no overall program design to set foundations and guide new initiatives. While this is not necessarily an insurmountable problem in the near term, the lack of program design, from a societal point of view, may hamper PPPs from achieving their full potential and maximum usage going forward. The problem is not a new one. Thirty years ago, commenting on the mechanics and effectiveness of Federal loan guarantees as instruments of public policy, the Congressional Research Service criticized the manner in which these loan programs

seemed to evolve more on idiosyncratic concerns than according to some well planned framework. "There have been no overall guidelines or framework within which these programs are created.

Figure 1. Innovative Adoption Curve

Will PPPs suffer the same fate and endure the same criticisms? An internet search quickly reveals that PPPs now cover the gamut of public projects from day care to health care to toll roads. From a Washington perspective, this is a distinct disadvantage. Quoting Abraham Maslow, Knisely emphasized that "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."¹² According to Knisely, there are no handles on PPPs right now. Despite "taxonomy being the lowest form of science," we still need to know how to define a PPP so that at least we could have sub-categories. Endorsing this view, Richard John stated that the current definition of a PPP is too generic; "it has to be more definitive than cost sharing."

Program Structure and the Behavior of Organizations

Simplicity in program structure is highly important. Calling attention to the earlier work of Pressman and Waldovsky,¹³ Knisely stressed that the only programs that work with any frequency are extraordinarily simple in their design and execution. "If they are not simple, they get screwed up somewhere." By their nature, however, PPPs are oftentimes complex and highly changeable entities, not given to simplicity in either design or execution. Disciplined management, innovative financing, and a solid master plan can help to overcome such complexities, as evidenced by several presentations, but Knisely’s point is a valid one. Efforts to streamline the roles of the partners, financing mechanisms, and institutional hurdles generally lead to the most favorable outcomes.

Writing in 1990 about learning organizations,¹⁴ Professor Peter Senge asked the questions – What makes a firm inquisitive about its environment? How can you get an organization to learn? Those who came to Senge’s classes on the subject were CEOs from the private sector; government officials were not represented. The CEOs came because they had a strong desire to make their firm work better. They had the ability to make changes in their organization, and whether those changes were good would be determined in the marketplace. According to Knisely, the big difference between the public and private sectors is the requirement to learn. The public sector does not have the requirement to learn, but does have the ability to perpetuate itself. Twenty-five years ago, Herbert Kaufman¹⁵ even inquired – are governments immortal?

The Ethereal Level: Selling PPPs as a Budget Item

From a program perspective, this lack of definition makes it hard to package a PPP budget request or garner support from a Congressman – he will say, "What is this [PPP]? I don’t know how to do this…it’s not a loan… it’s not a loan guarantee." Realistically, one cannot expect a lawmaker or his staff to write 35 pages of definitions to accompany a specific PPP program. Clearly, successful budget requests require a general structure and design within which any PPP or derivative concept may be understood. A legislator also needs to know the places where he could have problems with any bill on the subject. Risks must be specified beforehand to discern what possible frauds might be perpetrated on the government.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) is a government-wide compendium of Federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public.¹⁶ It contains financial and non-financial assistance programs administered by departments and establishments of the Federal government. The current catalog contains 1,458 assistance programs administered by 63 Federal agencies, ranging from Agriculture, Arts, Natural Resources, Domestic Terrorism, Education, Employment and Training, Environmental, Fire Protection, Health and Human Services, Indian Services, International, and Housing and Urban Development.

Federal Roles and Federal Inaction

In terms of understanding the state and direction of PPPs, Steve Lockwood is a leading thinker. Both as a PBQ&D officer, and earlier with the FHWA, Lockwood has made major contributions to the PPP arena, particularly in the realm of innovative financing techniques. Commenting on Knisely’s talk, Steve Lockwood remarked, "In an endeavor to develop improved public infrastructure and related services, there are probably some social goals that are more effectively achieved by changing the arrangement and roles of risk and reward required between public and private entities in the transportation arena – whether it’s by accessing capital or managerial expertise or technology.

"The public policy debate in regard to PPPs may be at a stage where inside the beltway discussions, from a national perspective, are not the productive venues. Federal policy and programs can be helpful, but are by no means essential, to the solution. The action players at this level in terms of infrastructure are the owners. The feds don’t own control much beyond the incentives of capital grants. If you are looking for innovation, it is at the state and local level. However there is very little imitation; the state and local scene is characterized by tremendous variation and fragmentation, as well as a lack of dialog and discussion among the real-world stakeholders."

Knisely replied that "there are central roles that are not Federal roles. You can come up with definitions and try to talk them up (as in Rogers’ Communications and Innovation). There is also a downside to too narrow a definition at this stage because you restrict innovation after that, because you have what fits for today. There is also a negative – you could have things that you want changed in Fed rules and regulations (Lockwood spoke about this) which would make it easier for people to do things at the state and local level. This gets back to the same definition problem – but it’s a problem in the negative as opposed to the positive."

Lockwood noted the low state of transportation thinking at the national level. "This is a trillion-dollar sector that is basically brain dead…There are no new policy or programs, minimal sectoral leadership, and no big issues. There is never a crisis, so there is never a solution. We live in a boiled frog world of fragmented problems and no customer feedback. Agendas never surface to identify where we are going at the national level. There are a few small places in the U.S where innovation exists, but nobody knows about it. There is no journal on PPP innovation, no transportation think tank devoted to promoting dialog. The issues do not come to the attention of peers. We have a retrograde arena here. There is a fundamental meta-problem – an institutional problem."

Surface Transportation as the Last Great Socialist Monopoly?

With a focus on infrastructure development during his roundtable presentation, Steve Lockwood provided some context based in part on PBQ&D’s experience as an engineering firm, as part of turnkey project teams for public owners, and even as a private owner. The company has been active in transportation partnerships that involve the highway and railroad industries. PBQ&D is now the principal developer and owner of what will soon be only the third fully private road development in the United States since World War II. This perspective "from many positions around the partnership table" has provided a useful point of departure from which to consider the state of play in PPPs.

PPP Trends at the Project Level for the Last 15 Years

Lockwood pointed to a number of finance-related developments that have altered the nature of partnerships over the past 15 years. As PPPs evolve and mature, they have exhibited more reliance on project revenues and mixes (tolls, etc.) as sources of capital. Externally, we have also observed greater access to capital available through financial markets. Supportive public actions, states Lockwood, include Federal legislation offering loans and credit support, along with parallel state-enabling legislation and programs.

Evolution in Increased Private Sector Roles, Risk, and Rewards

Emerging new mechanisms further attract the private sector to partnerships. As noted by Lockwood, these comprise new fee services to specification (e.g., outsourcing of programs, management, and operations); performance contracts for fee (outsourced asset management); shadow tolls; combined services for fee (design/construct contracts); cost and revenue sharing (PPPs in roads, Intelligent Transportation Systems [ITS]); and full privatization.

Project Partnership Arrangements and Models

Lockwood pointed out numerous issues in partnership models. Under structured, formal arrangements, these may affect the basic objectives of program, including partner-specific roles, responsibilities and rights, resource contributions, rewards allocation, commingling of resources, and remedies for non-performance or conflict. There are many arrangements for different purposes, with good and bad examples. Current models are defined by the "what and how" of resource relationships (see Table 1). They include:

• Technology development and testing via cost sharing (e.g., operational tests in the ITS arena).
• Customer revenue-driven service delivery via franchise or cost sharing (e.g., PPP toll roads).
• Shared infrastructure development via resource sharing, bartering, or mingling of assets (not necessarily cash).
• Consolidation of a market via interjurisdictional "brokering" fees.
• Cooperative agreements to develop technology via joint allocation of licensing and royalty rights.
• Consumer product or infrastructure coordination via informal coordination, or standards.
• Outsourcing services with fee contract for operations and management.

The governmental model of PPPs result in a very conventional process, with the private sector role very limited. Turnkey projects, on the other hand, are the first step of devolution of roles and responsibilities between the public sector and private sector, and produce a "fast track" approach. Warranty models build in a private sector role for life-cycle asset quality of the physical product itself. The last frontier is the profit-sharing model – a pure private sector archetype, where development, operational, and finance decisions are all based on motivations of the private sector firm. While they often expose challenging barriers to PPP formations, these diametrical motivations between the public sector and the private sector still leave space for a negotiated and interdependent solution to the problem. Reasoned understanding and concessions will prevail (see Table 2).

Table 1. PPP Model Spectrum

Table 2. Harnessing Motives across the Sectors

Federal Finance Tools

Lockwood also spoke at length about the different programs available to finance partnerships. Classifying these investment tools into three broad areas – marketable revenue-based projects, revenue projects requiring credit assistance, and traditional non-revenue transportation projects – he went on to describe their use in the context of PPPs. Political problems have stalled widening Federal support for State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs), a once popular program among qualifying states authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Designed to complement traditional transportation funding programs, SIBs gave states significantly increased flexibility in project selection and financial management. As a type of revenue project requiring Federal assistance, SIBs used seed capitalization funds to get started and offered customers products such as loans, guarantees, and interest rate buy-downs. The grants management and streamlining initiatives provide several investment tools, including flexible match, credits/donations, Section 129 loans, and Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds.

Under the FHWA’s TE-045 initiative, flexible match can address immediate cash flow needs or obviate the need for states to use matching funds. Since 1994, the FHWA has had an initiative to introduce new flexibility into the financial characteristics of the Federal aid highway program. Using a test and evaluation research initiative known as TE-045, the agency has solicited state proposals for alternatives to conventional pay-as-you-go, grant-based funding strategies.

Flexible match projects are of the traditional non-revenue variety. Except for the flexible match option, states have generally exhibited less interest in and use of investment tools designed to leverage public funds. Prime examples of these under-utilized financing tools include Section 129 loans and bond reimbursement.¹⁷ Both involve traditional non-revenue projects. Section 129(a)(7)(A) of the National Highway System (NHS) Act allows states to make loans to a public or private entity which is constructing, or proposing to construct, a toll project that is eligible for Federal aid funding or a non-toll highway project with a revenue source specifically dedicated to support the project. An alternative to pay-as-you-go financing, a GARVEE bond is any bond or note repayable, either exclusively or primarily, with future Federal aid highway funds. A GARVEE bond does not mean the Federal government is guaranteeing the bonds.

Aimed at revenue projects that require credit enhancement, the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA)¹⁸ provides loans, guarantees and standby lines of credit. Relaxed requirements under TIFIA, reasoned Lockwood, permit $200 million in Federal money to leverage $12 billion in private sector investment. Designed to fill market gaps and leverage private investment, TIFIA programs provide supplemental and subordinate capital and credit rather than grants.

Definition of a PPP and Roles of the Sectors

Lockwood defines a (good) public private partnership as "an arrangement of roles and relationships in which public and private entities coordinate and combine complementary resources and share risk and rewards to achieve their separate goals through joint pursuit of common objectives." However, in the United States, our political and administrative traditions have left us with an arm’s length relationship between the public and private sectors. As Lockwood puts it, "We have a great free enterprise economy, but the surface transportation sector is the last great socialist monopoly. It is extremely difficult for the private sector to provide its full technical capacities – much less innovations in areas such as access to capital, new technology, and entrepreneurship; efficiency; and market-responsiveness."

The institutional structure of surface transportation leads inevitably to certain sectoral characteristics: a focus on capacity and safety; an emphasis on construction, not service; one size fits all solutions. Surface transportation is basically a low-tech sector with a pay-as-you-go based tax-based approach to financing. Lockwood argues that surface transportation is unique – unlike other public utility networks such as water, electric, and telecommunications.

Comparing it to those sectors – or to surface transportation in most of the rest of the world – shows fundamental differences among both institutional and service features (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).¹⁹ According to Lockwood, other networking sectors are trending from infrastructure production to service provision, and evolving toward delivering better performance for their customers. These other infrastructure-intensive sectors have more multiple products, prices, innovation and investments based on return on capital. Furthermore, the forces for change are also weak within surface transportation. There are no bulk buyers or organized consumers. The producer side (construction) is fragmented, has no national influence, and provides no pressures for reform.

Surface transportation infrastructure construction and preservation maintenance represent mature technologies and systems, contends Lockwood. "Since much of the basic network is already built, there are few opportunities for PPPs unless there is to be wholesale conversion of the existing publicly operated ‘free’ network to a privately operated ‘priced’ system."

"With a mature infrastructure, the major impact of future PPPs, as Lockwood sees it, will not be on new capacity projects. In the absence of structural changes in policy, enormous maintenance burdens and operations disruptions will continue to plague the highway system. Prospective focus areas for future PPPs include initiatives on infrastructure preservation, operations, and telematics.²⁰ Using them as test beds, we could enrich some of the current crop of PPP projects and their successors with new ideas and attainable actions going forward."

Lockwood presented a vision of the future based on what he terms "backcasting" from the year 2050. If you assume surface transportation will follow the same evolutionary path as other utility sectors, over the next 10-15 years you would expect to see efforts by a small number of private sector entities to capitalize on the need for more efficient asset management and operational management of existing congested network. Lockwood can envisage a number of private consortia contracting with state and local governments to provide a new form of transportation service – operating and maintaining the system based on peak prices and premium service options.

Various competing "Transcorps" might be formed as public/private commercial consortia — to operate consolidated networks on a multi-jurisdictional basis. For example, the California DOT could join with Microsoft, Motorola, and PacTel to form "Western Transcorp" whose shares might trade on the stock market to raise capital for highway automation.

With their long-term competitively bid franchises and financing improvements out of road prices, the Transcorps would have the capacity to embark on an aggressive program of improvements and innovation in major corridors."²¹ Presenting his final slide at the symposium, Lockwood challenged the audience to "imagine an upper level road system that could be delivered as a service, similar to what we now do in telecommunications."

PPP Frontier Challenges: An Agenda for Actions

Lockwood also laid out an action agenda for future advances in partnerships and financing. Each of these items will affect the ability and interest of the private sector in contributing to a "progressive" surface transportation sector:

• Overcome public resistance to looking at tolls as double taxation.
• Capitalize on life-cycle products (build a new industry in advanced materials) – there must be a business where there is none today.
• Focus on delivering operational performance improvements (won’t the public demand "decongestion"?).
• Provide premium service options pricing (such as guaranteed speed limit roads).
• Overcome sectoral fragmentation through mergers and acquisitions in the construction industry.
• Improve private access to patient capital (tax code, securitization).
• Provide opportunities for outsourcing and privatization at a scale to capitalize on network scale economies, etc. (a new business model).
• Ensure competition (serial franchising).

The National Council for Public/Private Partnerships (NCPPP)

Richard Norment, Executive Director of the NCPPP, described his organization as a forum for advancing the concept of PPPs as a means of improving the delivery of public services. Within the scope of Council, partnerships cover a range of activities, including outsourcing, "teaming" partnerships, private-public partnerships, and privatization. NCPPP is a (501)c(3) organization²² with over 200 members in both the public and private sectors of which 60 percent is from the public sector.

Organized in 1985 and based in Washington, D.C., the Council conducts conferences, seminars, publications and case studies of best practices to assist both public and private sector parties in creating and implementing partnerships. Examples of these partnerships are found in urban redevelopment, transportation, water/wastewater systems, defense base conversions, and a wide range of public services. Similar to Steve Lockwood’s assessment, Norment noted how transportation partnerships have not been as aggressive as those involving other public utility agencies have.

Fear Factors - Overcoming Change and Resistance

Some common elements in human nature include looking for the negatives, and fearing change. Norment identified "change" as the big problem in forming partnerships. Change is difficult, it is resisted, and it needs to be managed. Numerous opportunities to resist partnering arrangements are also part of the landscape. Labor unions often express fears of job losses, although these are usually unfounded fears. On other occasions, press inaccuracies are visited on the proposals; it is easy to get details wrong on a 500-page contract. Public misconceptions also prevail – the "profanity" of profit, and the diminution of public service. Agency misconceptions are another potential obstacle. Restrictive legislation and regulations are a fact of life, but as Norment counseled, "politics is not good or bad; it’s just the facts of the matter."

Are PPPs as New as We Think?

Under the Federal experience, PPPs are hardly a new concept. Evidencing this, Norment provided participants with examples from the distant past. "As long as there has been capitalism, there have been partnerships." Benjamin Franklin, in 1736, started the nation’s first fire department and first insurance company in Philadelphia. Franklin’s new fire department would extinguish any building fire, as long as the structure displayed an insurance medallion on its front door. The concept helped to increase public safety while boosting sales of fire insurance policies. The Erie Canal is another example. No tax dollars were involved in its construction. Economically, what New York City is today is due in large measure to the Erie Canal.

Norment went on to cite current examples of PPPs such as paratransit services under the Americans with Disabilities Act, some toll roads, commuter and light rail services, and transportation terminals. Union Station, in Washington, DC, presents an excellent example of a successful PPP. As part of the Bicentennial activities, the Federal government sought to make Union Station a National Visitors Center, but plans went awry, essentially leaving the District in effect with a $64 million homeless shelter. In the early 1980s, DOT (the owner of the property) organized a public/private partnership to rehabilitate the station.

Under this project, the City of the District of Columbia provided a new parking lot (paid for with revenue bonds supported by the parking fees), the railroads refurbished their ticketing and passenger areas, and a private developer recruited restaurants, shops, and theaters to complete the mix. The resulting arcades and restored public areas now make Union Station a genuine attraction for both tourists and the citizens of the national Capital. The entire project was done at no cost to taxpayers (either local or Federal) and generates a monthly rental payment to DOT.

Climate for Partnerships under the New Administration – A-76 Revision

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is now doing a review of Circular A-76.²³ A-76 is a process for all U.S. government activities to compete functions that do not have to be performed exclusively by government officials. The key to A-76 is competition. In simplified terms, the existing government workforce works to achieve its ‘‘most efficient organization’’ (MEO),²⁴ then competes to perform functions against private industry. Awards are based on who has the lowest cost with equal or better delivery. Current data suggest that in A-76 public/private competitions, the private sector wins about 60 percent of the time. According to Norment, those functions that remain in the public-sector are conducted with improved efficiency. The 1998 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act²⁵ requires agencies to annually review their work forces and derive lists of Federal jobs that could be performed by contractors. OMB reviews the lists, which are released each year in three rounds, before they go to Congress and the public. The General Accounting Office (GAO), which has recently set up a panel to evaluate A-76 issues, also is conducting studies to support partnerships. Norment believes that such development presage more growth in PPPs.

Congress is now reviewing partnerships for infrastructure in the water/wastewater industries, where there are some parallels to transportation. The tendency of governments to emphasize low-bid procurement has resulted in water and wastewater pipes of decreasing quality and life expectancy. Thus in the next decade or so, 85-90 percent of the U.S. water infrastructure will have to be replaced at great cost. Municipal water associations estimate that $27 billion is required to replace the water infrastructure, but Congress will only fund approximately $5 billion. PPPs represent a way to deal with the shortfall. Closer to the transportation sector, efforts to incorporate a private sector presence within air traffic control are long-standing issues in Congress. How far should one go with such PPPs? Along with the aforementioned institutional issues, air traffic also carries a number of safety and efficiency concerns.

Perhaps signaling a new attitude on Capitol Hill, there are now congressional discussions on how to incorporate private sector resources as part of the infrastructure replacement process. Norment lauds the change, stating that this "sounds like business." In the macroeconomic background, there are shrinking budget surpluses at all levels of government. Pressures like these will continue to act as a fulcrum and impetus for increased PPP activity.

Essential Components of PPP Success

Norment went on to observe the characteristics of successful partnerships. He specifically recommended the need for statutory basis and political leadership, declaring that "without this you won’t go anywhere…there will be no advance."

Of equal importance, there must be organizational responsibility, whether that responsibility rests with an individual contracts administrator or some other functionary within the organization. This responsibility must be continuous. People and the office need to be there for the duration. A detailed business plan is another requirement for success. The plan must define objectives and results, be included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and governing PPP contract. Hiring a good consultant also assists in smoothing out the process. Stakeholder support also is a critical aspect of PPP success. Among these people are public sector employees, private sector providers, labor unions, and end users.

Norment is optimistic that PPPs can be cost effective, but they must have business-like operations that are contractually spelled out. They should also have increased financing options and predictability. By bringing the management skills honed by the competitive marketplace to the business of delivering public services and projects, partnerships can contribute to guaranteed quality of service and facilities. They can also offer a quicker response to a public need.

Partnership Roles within NOAA’s OFCM: Shared Responsibility for Tasks and Missions

The next roundtable discussant, Samuel P. Williamson, provided the symposium with a high-level perspective on weather partnerships connected with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM). Williamson, the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, noted how OFCM operates as an interagency organization agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and has a unique and well-defined division of responsibility. Its mission is to ensure the effective use of Federal meteorological resources by leading the systematic coordination of operational weather requirements, services, and supporting research, among the Federal agencies.

As weather and its impacts have become an increasing factor in many economic sectors, the OFCM has seen its outreach broaden in recent years to include many of the key constituents of its Federal partners. A sampling of its Federal partners include the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, State, and Transportation. Independent Federal partners include the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. Through its Federal partners, the OFCM has increasingly opened lines of communication with state and local government agencies, as well as private sector providers.

OFCM Scope and the Conceptual Basis of Partnerships

The OFCM has over 35 years of experience using and improving the weather infrastructure and processes. Williamson emphasized how public and private relationships – a certain type of partnership arrangement among the many discussed earlier – are key to its success. OFCM helps to define partnership roles in the Federal meteorological community and beyond, and acts as a catalyst for leveraging resources and sharing technology. OFCM also uses a number of proven processes including defining strategy and vision to guide the planning and implementation of programs, defining requirements, obtaining inputs from users and providers (public and private), and identifying capabilities and gaps compared to those requirements.

The OFCM organization carries out its mission through Federal coordinating infrastructure by convening standing Program Councils and Committees, by sponsoring national conferences, workshops, and forums; chairing joint action groups; and publishing an array of plans and documents designed to disseminate crosscutting meteorological activities and research. In so doing, it develops collaborative arrangements with agencies such as DOT, and ultimately promotes the transfer of technology to end-users. For the public sector, it provides mission-specific foundation support from the existing infrastructure. The OFCM also works with the private sector to ensure that Federal standards and requirements are integrated into the infrastructure. It uses a set of overarching guidelines. It has the capability to form specialized teams to work specific projects – assigned within the existing infrastructure. It may form Joint Action Groups (JAGs), working groups, and groups formed to satisfy specific needs. It interacts with the private sector and academia through national forums in order to obtain input and feedback critical to the Federal coordinating process.

Noteworthy activities include the publication of its annual Federal Plan, sponsorship of the Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, and leading a multi-agency joint action group for Weather Information for Surface Transportation. Among other roles, OFCM is involved in weather-observing capabilities, environmental information, information technology and communications, aviation weather, climate monitoring, cooperative research, modeling and prediction, and even space weather (such as the effects of phenomena like geomagnetic storms on the earth’s ionosphere and subsequent impacts on radio and satellite communications).

Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference

The Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference represents a successful partnership between Federal agencies and representatives from the user community to improve national hurricane forecasting and warning services. As the extent of exposed property along vulnerable coastline has increased in recent decades, the issue of landfall hurricanes and society’s response to them has gathered considerable momentum across a broad spectrum of economic sectors, including transportation. Effective response therefore requires the erection of reliable partnerships in advance of actual disaster.

Each year, OFCM reviews the nation’s hurricane forecast and warning program from end-to-end. It examines the hurricane research needed to improve the timeliness and accuracy of hurricane observations, forecasts, and warnings. It also develops generic models and processes for translating the results of hurricane research to operations through technology transfer and dissemination activities. OFCM is now examining additional ways to improve user-community coordination and hurricane response, and has recently published the 2001 National Hurricane Operations Plan.

Research and Special Programs Administration