<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Supervisor's Handbook</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2701239</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Supervisors at the State Highway Administration (SHA) play an essential role in ensuring the continuity and effectiveness of daily operations. They enforce policies, mentor staff, evaluate performance, and uphold compliance with safety and procedural standards. Despite their critical responsibilities, many supervisors operate without a centralized, reliable, and up-to-date knowledge resource. Instead, they depend on fragmented intranet pages, institutional memory, email threads, and informal peer networks. This
patchwork approach often leads to inefficiencies, inconsistent interpretations, and frustration among staff. Because there is no robust process for curating, linking, and maintaining policy knowledge, supervisors spend valuable time searching through repositories or verifying outdated manuals. Decisions become inconsistent, fairness and compliance are compromised, and confidence in institutional processes weakens.
Over time, these inefficiencies not only hinder operational performance but also erode supervisors’ ability to coach and support their teams effectively. Despite the critical role supervisors play, SHA lacks a unified, authoritative, and maintainable knowledge
system to support them. Existing resources are fragmented, outdated, and inconsistently connected, leading to misinterpretation, wasted effort, and diminished trust. Supervisors often must interpret policy on their own, resulting in variations in implementation and uncertainty about compliance. The absence of a structured, well-maintained knowledge system represents a systemic challenge for SHA—one that undermines efficiency, workforce engagement, and institutional learning. Lack of compliance and proper
employee management also places the organization at risk for litigation. i.e., mismanaged employee performance issues expose SHA to litigation risk. Supervisors lack central and authoritative knowledge resources. Current resources are fragmented, outdated, and inconsistently applied leading to policy misinterpretation, inefficiency, and diminished trust. A structured, maintainable system is critical to ensure consistent implementation, reduce legal exposure, and strengthen workforce engagement and organizational success. National workforce research underscores the urgency of addressing these challenges. According to the 2025 Retention Report, 75% of employee departures are considered preventable, with management and communication deficiencies among the leading causes (Work Institute, 2025). Similarly, the 2025 SHRM State of the Workplace Report finds that nearly half of turnover intent is linked to weak engagement and workplace culture, with organizations that invest in management capacity achieving markedly higher retention (SHRM, 2025). For SHA operating under tight budgets, stringent regulations, and increasing workloads, the cost of fragmented knowledge is not merely administrative—it affects workforce stability, operational consistency, and public trust. To address this gap, this research proposes a structured knowledge management architecture grounded in Garfield’s (2022) knowledge management principles. The Curate → Connect → Cultivate (C3) framework translates these principles into an actionable model tailored for supervisory environments within SHA. It envisions a digital ecosystem that curates authoritative resources, connects users through accessible pathways, and cultivates continuous learning and collaboration. The following section introduces the framework and its three integrated phases, illustrating how each supports a more coherent and resilient
supervisory knowledge system. 
● Curate: the systematic gathering, validation, structuring, and versioning of policy and procedural
knowledge
● Connect: enabling supervisors to find, navigate, and relate to relevant content via search,
recommendations, linking, and social features
● Cultivate: establishing governance processes, review cycles, feedback loops, and incentives to
keep the system current, trusted, and sustainable

By mapping each stage to the known pain points in SHA supervisory practice, this framework guides both the design and evaluation of a “Supervisor’s Knowledge Hub.” The research will prototype, deploy, and assess features corresponding to each stage, measuring outcomes such as time to find authoritative guidance, user satisfaction, accuracy of interpretations, and frequency of contributions. For the purposes of
this study, supervisory competencies emphasize people leadership, team management, communication, performance feedback, and consistent policy application across SHA rather than technical engineering or design skills.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 09:22:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2701239</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Behavioral and psychophysiological responses of initial pilots in collaboration with an experienced but risky captain: A flight-simulation study based on the social facilitation</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2525442</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Appropriate hierarchical rank and role assignment contribute to an optimal crew configuration in the cockpit. However, the impact of hierarchy on crew performance and flight safety, particularly when cooperating with a ‘risky’ captain under varying role assignments, remains underexplored. This study, under the social facilitation framework, examined how hierarchy and pilot role influence initial pilots’ behavioral and psychophysiological responses during flight-simulation experiments with 57 participants in a full-flight simulator. An experienced, pre-trained ‘risky’ captain collaborated with them during low-visibility approaches under varying crew configurations (single vs. dual) and role assignments (pilot flying vs. pilot monitoring). The results revealed that initial pilots not only followed the captain’s risky decisions but also continued landing without visual references in single-crew configurations, likely to demonstrate their competence. Pilot flying was associated with higher mental workload, while pilot monitoring resulted in increased stress and strong regulation. These findings support the social facilitation in hierarchical teams, offering insights into optimal crew configurations and providing a foundation for training protocols to enhance flight safety, especially for less experienced first officers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 16:10:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2525442</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Externality Problem Based on Collusion Theory</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2283027</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In externality problem, administrator, supervisor and enterprise who release pollution construct three-tier hierarchy of principal, the third part and agent construction. In this paper, the model of that-under situation of supervisor is honest or not, as a principal, according to the information which was supplied by supervisor, administrator allows or not allows enterprise to collusion between the other two parts-is established. And, through analysis and demonstration of related cost and model, the optimal range of the collusion was got. At last, simulated calculation and conclusion were achieved.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:15:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2283027</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SPR-4900:  Attracting and Retaining the Transportation Workforce and At-Risk Targeted Areas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2434107</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Attracting and retaining a skilled workforce at Departments of Transportation (DOTs) poses significant challenges. Public sector agencies often struggle to retain mid-level supervisors and managers, who are critical due to their experience and leadership roles. This project takes a broader, more strategic approach to addressing workforce challenges such as retention, diversity, and skill gaps. Beyond just training, this project will enhance workforce retention through professional development, promote diversity to better reflect community demographics, and identify critical skills needed for emerging technologies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:34:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2434107</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Key performance indicators of aggregate base course waste management during the construction phase of a road project from the contractor’s perspective</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2310369</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Aggregate base course is one of the most significant and bulky material used in road construction projects. Literature on the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that can be used to control the of aggregate base course waste generation during the construction phase of a road project, especially from the contractor’s perspective, is scarce. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the KPIs for managing the aggregate base course waste in road projects from the perspective of a contractor. A quantitative research approach comprising three Delphi rounds was used to collect the empirical data, which were analysed using statistical data analysis tools. The study revealed that the use of the wrong construction method is the most significant waste generation factor, while proper supervision is the most significant strategy to overcome the generation of aggregate base course waste. The experience and qualifications of technical staff related to the handling of aggregate base course waste is the most significant KPI for controlling the aggregate base course waste generation in road constructions. The study contributes to knowledge and the industry by minimising aggregate base course waste while reducing cost and time overruns and enhancing the performance and sustainability of road construction projects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 16:43:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2310369</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Learning With a Supervisor Who has Traffic Offences and Young Driver Crashes: The DRIVE Study 13-Year Follow-Up</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2286668</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Young learner drivers commonly must record substantial supervised practice driving before independent licensure. Supervisory driver requirements can be limited or highly regulated, yet research is lacking on the effectiveness of different approaches. The current objective was to explore whether young drivers who were mostly supervised by someone who they perceived had traffic offences versus no offences had different crash records over a period of 13 years postlicensing. DRIVE is an Australian prospective cohort study of more than 20,000 drivers who were aged 17-24 years and newly licensed during 2003-2004. They completed detailed baseline questionnaires, including whether the person they identified as supervising their learner driving the most had perceived traffic offences in the past 12 months. Responses were linked to their state crash, hospitalization, and death records to 2016. A parametric survival model was created to calculate hazard ratios of time to crash for those reporting that their supervisor had 0 versus 1 and 0 versus 2+ perceived offences, adjusting for the participants' prior crash history and other covariates. After adjusting for covariates, 369 participants reporting supervisory drivers with 2+ perceived offences, compared to 15,451 participants reporting no such offences, had up to 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.10-2.53 at 6 months) times the rate of any crash for the first 2.5 years and up to 2.01 (95% confidence interval 1.26-3.19 at 3.5 years) times the rate of crashes resulting in injury for 5.5 years. Although overall supervision by a driver with two or more perceived offences was low, further attention is needed to ensure improved supervised driving experiences, with mentoring programs and professional instructor partnerships worthy of exploration.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:39:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2286668</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Participant Characteristics in Human-in-the-Loop Studies with Multiple Unmanned Vehicles including Aircraft</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2052251</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The characteristics that a supervisor of multiple autonomous and semi-autonomous systems should possess remain unclear. Determination of these qualities would support job performance as well as recruiting and training. To evaluate the human characteristics currently being considered by human-in-the-loop experiments, a review of the multiple remote vehicle supervision literature was conducted. The human characteristics addressed included: gender, domain relevant experience, working memory, supervisory relevant skills and abilities (e.g., visual skills, spatial ability, attentional control, vigilance), and traits related to multi-tasking (e.g., stress, resilience). The discussion identifies gaps in the current state of the art with respect to the consideration of human characteristics for multi-autonomous and semi-autonomous systems supervision where at least one vehicle is an aircraft.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:59:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2052251</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Revisiting Vulnerability: Comparing Young and Adult Workers’ Safety Voice Intentions Under Different Supervisory Conditions</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1675750</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In this study, the authors test the widely held belief that young workers (aged 15–24) are less likely than adults (aged 25 and over) to speak up about safety concerns. Counter to this belief, and in line with age-related resource selectivity theory, the authors hypothesized that older workers would actually be less likely than younger workers to speak up about workplace safety concerns (“safety voice intentions”) when their supervisors are unclear about their own commitment to safety. To test this, the authors created two realistic scenarios in which the authors manipulated clarity of supervisor commitment to safety: (1) it is clear the supervisor clearly cares about/is open to hearing suggestions about safety (the “clear commitment” condition) and (2) it is unclear whether the supervisor cares about/is open to hearing suggestions about safety (the “unclear commitment” condition). The authors randomly assigned participants (N = 80; 58 % women; 40 % over the age of 24) to one of the two scenarios and measured their safety voice intentions. In the face of clear supervisor commitment to safety, younger and adult workers did not differ on their safety voice intentions. However, compared to younger workers, adult workers were less likely to speak up about safety in the face of unclear signals about the supervisor’s commitment to safety. These findings have implications for the understanding of young and adult worker safety voice, and the importance of how supervisors signal commitment to safety.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:57:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1675750</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reasonable Suspicion Training for Supervisors</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1671406</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Reasonable Suspicion Training for Supervisors is a National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) eLearning course intended for front line supervisors and others responsible for making reasonable suspicion drug and alcohol testing referrals of employees who perform safety-sensitive job functions for transit agencies that receive Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding under Sections 5311, 5307, 5309, and 5339. This technical brief describes the objectives, topics, and format of the course, and explains how to access the training.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:47:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1671406</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supervising High Degree Automation in Simulated Air Traffic Control</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1624748</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Implementing high degree automation in future air traffic control (ATC) systems will be crucial for coping with increased air traffic demand and maintaining safety. However, issues associated with the passive monitoring role assumed by operators in these systems continue to be of concern. Passive monitoring can lead to a range of human operator performance problems when overseeing automation. The performance cost when human operators are placed in a passive monitoring role has been conceptualized as the out-of-the-loop (OOTL) performance problem: where adding more automation to a system makes it less likely that the operator will notice an automation failure and intervene appropriately (Endsley & Kiris, 1995). The OOTL performance problem has been attributed to numerous factors including vigilance decrements, fatigue, task disengagement, and poor situation awareness. This study tested two different approaches to addressing the OOTL performance problem associated with high degree automation in a simulation of en-route ATC (ATC-labAdvanced; Fothergill, Loft, & Neal, 2009). Following a 60-min training and practice session, 115 university student participants completed two 30-min ATC scenarios; one under manual control and one where they supervised high degree automation (counterbalanced order). The automation performed all acceptances for aircraft entering the sector of controlled airspace, handed off all departing aircraft, and resolved all conflicts between aircraft pairs that would otherwise have violated the minimum safe separation standards (except for a single automation failure event). Participants were instructed that the automation was highly reliable, but not infallible. The first aim was to confirm that while high degree automation can reduce workload, it can also lead to increased task disengagement and fatigue when compared to manual control. Furthermore, to determine how well participants supervised the automation, the conflict detection automation failed once late in the automation scenario. This failure involved two aircraft violating the minimum lateral and vertical separation standard and being missed by the automation. The authors expected to find that participants would fail to detect this conflict more often, or be slower to detect it, when under automation conditions, compared to a comparable conflict event presented when under manual control. The authors' second aim was to investigate whether these costs of automation could be ameliorated by techniques designed to improve task engagement. Participants were assigned to one of three automation conditions, including automation with (1) no acknowledgements, (2) acknowledgments, or (3) queries. In the no acknowledgements condition, automation failure monitoring was the only task performed. In the acknowledgements condition, similar to Pop et al. (2012), participants were additionally instructed to click to acknowledge each automated action, thereby potentially improving engagement by adding an active component to an otherwise passive monitoring task. In the queries condition, participants were queried regarding the past, present, and future state of aircraft on the display. The goal was to help participants maintain an accurate mental model (aka. situation awareness) when using automation. The authors found that automation reduced workload, increased disengagement and fatigue, and impaired detection of a single conflict detection failure event compared to manual task performance. Consistent with previous research, this shows that as a higher degree of automation is added to a system, it becomes less likely that the operator will notice automation failures and intervene appropriately (e.g. Pop et al., 2012). The first intervention tested whether adding automation acknowledgement requirements to the task made it easier for participants to detect and resolve a single automation failure event. The results showed that there was no difference between automation with and without acknowledgement requirements on workload, task disengagement, fatigue, and the detection of the automation failure event. The second intervention tested whether adding queries regarding aircraft on the display would improve failure detection performance. The queries intervention successfully reduced task disengagement and trended towards reducing fatigue, while workload was maintained at a level similar to that of manual control. These findings suggest that the manipulation successfully reduced some of the subjective deficits associated with the passive monitoring of automation. However, there was a significant cost to participants’ ability to detect and resolve the automation failure event relative to manual performance, where half the participants in the queries condition missed the automation failure entirely, compared to 25% in the no queries condition. Response times to detect the failure event were also considerably longer when queries were included compared to no queries. One explanation is that the queries condition may have been engaging to the point of distraction. This is supported by qualitative information provided by participants, where 40% mentioned that they found the queries to be distracting. Future studies may wish to examine the effectiveness of auditory queries instead of visual queries, potentially with verbal instead of typed responses. This may allow queries to reduce task disengagement and fatigue while potentially improving participants’ ability to intervene to automation failures.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:18:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1624748</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>2018 GDOT Employee Survey</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1606100</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 10:23:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1606100</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Does talking the talk matter? Effects of supervisor safety communication and safety climate on long-haul truckers’ safety performance</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1514014</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study examines the distinct contribution of supervisory safety communication and its interaction with safety climate in the prediction of safety performance and objective safety outcomes. Supervisory safety communication is defined as subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisor provides them with relevant safety information about their job (i.e., top-down communication) and the extent to which they feel comfortable discussing safety issues with their supervisor (i.e., bottom-up communication). Survey data were collected from 5162 truck drivers from a U.S. trucking company with a 62.1% response rate. Individual employees’ survey responses were matched to their safety outcomes (i.e., lost-time injuries) six months after the survey data collection. Results showed that the quality of supervisor communication about safety uniquely contributes to safety outcomes, above and beyond measures of both group-level and organization-level safety climate. The construct validity of a newly-adapted safety communication scale was demonstrated, particularly focusing on its distinctiveness from safety climate and testing a model showing that communication had both main and moderating effects on safety behavior that ultimately predicted truck drivers’ injury rates. The authors' findings support the need for continued attention to supervisory safety communication as an important factor by itself, as well as a contingency factor influencing how safety climate relates to safety outcomes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2018 09:43:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1514014</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Is There Agreement between Worker Self and Supervisor Assessment of Worker Safety Performance? An Examination in the Construction Industry</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1512801</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Individual safety performance (behavior) critically influences safety outcomes in high-risk workplaces. Compared to the study of generic work performance on different measurements, few studies have investigated different measurements of safety performance, typically relying on employees' self-reflection of their safety behavior. This research aims to address this limitation by including worker self-reflection and other (i.e., supervisor) assessment of two worker safety performance dimensions, safety compliance and safety participation.   A sample of 105 workers and 17 supervisors in 17 groups in the Chinese construction industry participated in this study. Comparisons were made between worker compliance and participation in each measurement, and between workers' and supervisors' assessment of workers' compliance and participation. Multilevel modeling was adopted to test the moderating effects on the worker self-reflection and supervisor-assessment relationship by group safety climate and the work experience of supervisors.   Higher levels of safety compliance than participation were found for self-reflection and supervisor assessment. The discrepancy between the two measurements in each safety performance dimension was significant. The work experience of supervisors attenuated the discrepancy between self- and supervisor-assessment of compliance. Contrary to the expectations, the moderating effect of group safety climate was not supported.  The discrepancy between worker self- and supervisor-assessment of worker safety performance, thus, suggests the importance of including alternative measurements of safety performance in addition to self-reflection. Lower levels of participation behavior in both raters suggest more research on the motivators of participatory behavior. The discrepancy between different raters can lead to negative reactions of ratees, suggesting that managers should be aware of that difference. Assigning experienced supervisors as raters can be effective at mitigating interrater discrepancy and conflicts in the assessment of compliance behavior.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:50:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1512801</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Multi-Perspective Study On Safety Performance at the Colorado DOT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1508346</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This is the second of a two-part research effort to determine how to improve the effectiveness of CDOT safety efforts. This effort focuses on the safety culture within CDOT and the effectiveness of the CDOT safety programs on improving safety culture. The study used a survey approach based on interviews with senior safety officials to determine the scope of the survey questions. The survey was distributed to all five regions and to job classifications that included both field crews and supervisory personnel. The survey received 470 responses including a distribution horizontally across the regions and vertically across the job classifications. The survey also received 341 open-ended comments concerning worker perspectives on the CDOT safety culture. The critical conclusions from the data showed that there exists a variation between regions in terms of the current safety culture and these variations exist between supervisory and field crew job classifications. Additionally, mixed opinions exist as to whether safety practices are changing within CDOT. Field crews believe they are provided with proper safety equipment and feel comfortable talking about safety, but these same crews do not necessarily believe that supervisory personnel will act on safety concerns. This leads to an overall perception of safety culture at CDOT that is consistent across the regions at about a 7 out of 10. Based on the survey results, it is recommended that CDOT continue to engage in culture enhancement activities. Of particular importance is the continued discussion of the Excellence in Safety program and the undertaking of a follow-up effort to understand why specific regions have a higher level of implementation and change than others. Additionally, the effort needs to focus on understanding the differences in perception between supervisory and field crew personnel.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2018 16:03:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1508346</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Disentangling the roles of safety climate and safety culture: Multi-level effects on the relationship between supervisor enforcement and safety compliance</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1448522</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Despite increasing attention to contextual effects on the relationship between supervisor enforcement and employee safety compliance, no study has yet explored the conjoint influence exerted simultaneously by organizational safety climate and safety culture. The present study seeks to address this literature shortcoming. The authors first begin by briefly discussing the theoretical distinctions between safety climate and culture and the rationale for examining these together. Next, using survey data collected from 1342 employees in 32 Italian organizations, they found that employee-level supervisor enforcement, organizational-level safety climate, and autocratic, bureaucratic, and technocratic safety culture dimensions all predicted individual-level safety compliance behaviors. However, the cross-level moderating effect of safety climate was bounded by certain safety culture dimensions, such that safety climate moderated the supervisor enforcement-compliance relationship only under the clan-patronage culture dimension. Additionally, the autocratic and bureaucratic culture dimensions attenuated the relationship between supervisor enforcement and compliance. Finally, when testing the effects of technocratic safety culture and cooperative safety culture, neither safety culture nor climate moderated the relationship between supervisor enforcement and safety compliance. The results suggest a complex relationship between organizational safety culture and safety climate, indicating that organizations with particular safety cultures may be more likely to develop more (or less) positive safety climates. Moreover, employee safety compliance is a function of supervisor safety leadership, as well as the safety climate and safety culture dimensions prevalent within the organization.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:27:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1448522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>