Part 4

Next Steps

The workshop concluded with a hotwash session and discussion of next steps. Each participant responded to any combination of the following questions that they preferred:

1. Did you learn anything new this week? What did you learn?
2. What did you find particularly valuable about this week?
3. What should we do differently if we hold this type of workshop again?
4. Is there any new action you will take based on this workshop?
5. What next steps or additional activities would be most useful to you, your organization, and this overall process?

This part provides some general observations about the process and an overview of the next steps suggested by workshop participants through their responses to the questions above. Appendix C provides an overview of next steps to develop the prioritization framework based on best practices from the literature.

It was evident throughout the workshop that

• the approach was inclusive and can be broadened further to achieve consensus, when needed;
• there was a collective commitment to the workshop objectives and desire work toward effective implementation of infrastructure investment decisions;
• the knowledge and expertise of the participants in multiple domains was a critical element for success; and
• the process enables iteration and refinement, which provides a template for actions.

Circulate the Proceedings

Multiple participants expressed interest in reviewing the materials that are compiled as a result of this workshop, for their own reference, to share with colleagues, and to understand the action(s) the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will take next.

Communicate with the White House

Multiple participants urged that the National Academies leverage the work done during this workshop and follow up with the White House. Follow-up should take place in time to influence the execution of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). It should include the key themes and takeaways that emerged from this workshop or take the form of a detailed checklist of criteria to be used for project evaluation. It should emphasize that project development and prioritization must be interdisciplinary.

Conduct Follow-on Workshops

Some participants suggested that the National Academies hold another event to transition from the higher-level issues identified during this workshop to more concrete, discrete ideas and projects that might support infrastructure resilience. Others suggested that the National Academies hold this same workshop again with different groups of experts, particularly with more state and local officials. Additionally:

• Multiple participants commended the methodology that was implemented through this workshop, describing it as rigorous and well planned, and suggested the same methodology be replicated moving forward.
• Many participants believed the diverse group of well-informed and committed attendees helped make this workshop so successful—they learned from one another and gained exposure to work going on outside of their own fields. They commented that similar types of invitation lists should be developed for future workshops.
• Several participants offered to help get their colleagues involved or to provide followup information for future workshops.

Consider if the National Academies Should Take a More Active Role

One participant suggested that the National Academies may want to become an “active buyer” in infrastructure resilience, developing a research plan for review by workshop participants and shaping and guiding future projects, rather than playing a more passive role.

Move Beyond a Checklist

Another participant suggested that the National Academies turn the work done in this workshop—specifically, the prioritization criteria—into a useful algorithm, moving beyond development of just a series of checkboxes into something even more useful.