|
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Pipeline Safety Research and Development (R&D) Program has held annual structured peer reviews of active research projects since 2006 in accordance with mandates by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) to maintain research data quality. PHMSA holds these reviews virtually via teleconference and the Internet, saving time and resources. This execution is also working well with panelists, researchers, Agreement Officers’ Technical Representatives, and project co-sponsors. Most impressively, the PHMSA approach facilitates attendance from all U.S. time zones, Canada, and Europe.
The annual peer review continues to build on an already strong and systematic evaluation process developed by PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety R&D Program and certified by the Government Accountability Office. The 2015 peer review panel consisted of primarily retired government employees, some of which are now independent contractors. The panel also had an active government employee and one academic representative.
Fifteen research projects were peer reviewed by expert panelists using 11 evaluation criteria. These criteria were grouped within the following four evaluation categories:
- Project management.
- Approach taken for transferring results to end users.
- Project coordination with other closely related programs.
- Quality of project results.
The rating scale possibilities were “Ineffective,” “Effective,” “More than Effective” or “Very Effective.” During the May 2015 review, the average program rating between all the evaluation categories was “More than Effective.” For this year, 10 projects were rated “Very Effective” with 5 projects ranked as “More than Effective.” The average sub-criteria scoring were also rated very high and underpin these findings. The majority of peered projects and the overall program rating remained the same from the 2014 rating of “More than Effective.” Weakness in project management contributed to the no-change in the program average.
|
