Managing Technology Transfer: A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administration -- Special Report 256 (1999)

Widespread implementation of technologies is an important outcome of research and development (R&D) programs, and technology transfer is therefore essential to the technology delivery mission of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). A previous report prepared by the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC), a special committee convened by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council and funded by FHWA, describes research, development, and technology transfer in the highway industry (TRB 1994). The report reviews the changing priorities of the nation’s highway program and urges FHWA and state and local highway agencies to find ways to ensure that research products are implemented, recognizing that innovation does not occur unless new products, processes, and methods are put to use.

The committee uses the term technology transfer to describe a range of activities that involve researchers, technology users, and technology transfer specialists. These activities include (1) identifying innovative technologies from numerous sources, such as FHWA R&D programs, state highway agency research programs, university research, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, foreign laboratories and research institutes, and other government agencies; (2) selecting and prioritizing technologies to be promoted to state and local highway agencies and the highway industry; (3) determining, developing, and applying effective technology transfer methods; and (4) continually modifying the technology transfer process in accordance with feed-

back on which technologies and which methods of technology transfer have been successful.¹

Public agencies are particularly reliant on technology transfer programs for several reasons. The large volume of R&D under way and the dispersion of R&D agencies serve to deter many of these seeking useful information. Research reports are often highly technical, with little information to aid potential implementing agencies. And the information provided in professional and trade journals often lacks important technical details. Technology transfer programs can provide information at different levels of detail for different audiences, as well as technical assistance, user training, and financial support for implementation efforts.

Despite its stated mission of technology delivery, FHWA has underemphasized the importance of technology transfer management in its recent reorganization. As part of the reorganization, the Office of Technology Applications (OTA), until recently the focal point for FHWA’s technology transfer activities, was eliminated. Technology transfer is now a staff function in each of FHWA’s five new core business units and its research, development, and technology service unit [the Office of Research, Development, and Technology (ORDT)]. Although this arrangement can facilitate a closer connection between the individual business units and the potential users of technology, it also spreads FHWA’s technology transfer expertise across many offices. The risk is that FHWA’s technology transfer competence will be dissipated, and the advantages of locating the agency’s technology transfer capability in a single management unit, such as ease of monitoring agencywide technology transfer activities and evaluating what does and does not work, will be lost. In addition, FHWA has not articulated how the flow of knowledge and information between researchers and technology transfer specialists in the five core business units, ORDT, the four resource centers, and the division offices will be managed.

The FHWA reorganization plan does not identify an office with agencywide management responsibilities related to technology transfer, and responsibility for several important management requirements remains unassigned. Questions that need to be resolved include how a core business unit will learn from the technology transfer successes, or perhaps even failures, of another core business unit; who will be responsible for maintaining technology transfer communication channels among the core business units; and how technology transfer specialists from outside the agency (i.e., from state highway agencies, universities, and Local Technical Assistance Program [LTAP] centers) will be included in FHWA’s technology transfer process. More specifically, the management requirements that need to be addressed in the FHWA reorganization include the following:

• Authority and responsibility for setting agencywide technology transfer priorities;

• Coordination of technology transfer activities across the core business units;

• Maintenance of internal expertise in the process of technology transfer;

• Identification of what works in the long run, in terms of both new technologies and technology transfer methods, for research products and FHWA’s customers; and

• Means for monitoring and measuring the performance of tech nology transfer and progress toward goals.

The RTCC found OTA’s organization, process, and materials for technology transfer to be based on a good intuitive grasp of information exchange and technology transfer. Nevertheless, the committee believes FHWA’s technology transfer activities lack a strategic focus and reflect inadequate recognition of how technology transfer promotes innovation in the highway sector.

Many factors interact to make innovation difficult in the highway sector. Public-sector consumers of technology are not interested in cre-

ating new products or making a profit. Competition for highway construction projects is usually based on cost but seldom on innovation. When public works decision makers seek performance improvements or cost savings through innovation, they are frequently confronted with certain higher initial costs and uncertain future benefits in an environment that does not reward risk taking. In addition, highways and bridges are generally large, complex, and long lasting, so innovation must be assessed in terms of initial costs, expected performance, and projected maintenance costs. Procurement is often legally bound to a low-bid approach in which the emphasis is on design specifications rather than performance specifications, an approach that discourages bidders from offering innovative alternatives.

While past studies report good practices and key characteristics of successful technology transfer, there appears to be no simple, universal recipe for successful innovation in the highway sector. Past successes in technology transfer confirm the potential for innovation, but the best approaches are often context or technology driven. Because the highway industry is highly diverse, the participants and processes in the various technical areas differ significantly. Achieving innovation in pavement or bridge design is quite a different task from achieving innovation in planning. In addition, the highway industry consists of many entities that are public and private, large and small, simple and complex, independent and interconnected, and always changing. Successful technology transfer in this environment involves hard work, team effort, creativity, and commitment on the part of all participants.

Despite the challenges it presents, innovation is critical to meeting increasingly complex and interrelated highway system needs, especially as travel demand grows much more rapidly than system capacity. Yet if improvement is to be achieved through technology, innovation must occur at a more rapid pace than in the past, and will require considerable effort and an improved strategic focus on the part of FHWA. Faced with a reduced technology transfer budget, FHWA must give considerable attention to developing a workable strategy for technology transfer. (A later section presents the committee’s proposed strategy.)

On the basis of a literature review, the committee identified a number of key characteristics of successful technology transfer that should guide the execution of any technology transfer strategy adopted by FHWA. Although these characteristics may appear obvious, there is evidence that they are often overlooked.

Early involvement of potential users in the research planning phase helps ensure that research products respond to user needs. Researchers and research managers should ask potential users what they need and then develop products with user assistance and input.

Inclusion of field tests, demonstrations, and pilot projects as part of R&D activities helps potential users decide whether to implement new technology and helps developers refine the technology prior to widespread implementation.

Incentives such as implementation funds or other financial and technical assistance designed to support early implementation of new technology are favored by implementing agencies. Since early adopters of new technology are often closely watched by others, sufficient funds are needed to complete initial or pilot installations so that early implementation activities do not fail because of a lack of funds.

Successful innovation always requires senior management support and sometimes specific agency management action to organize that support. Previous technology transfer efforts have shown the value of having a champion for a new technology within the user agency; thus early attention should be given to establishing and supporting champions among the user agency decision makers.

Most new technologies require technical training, especially if in-house staff do not have the required expertise. Although user-friendly innovation is a worthy goal of R&D, the problems being addressed often require technologically complex solutions. In many cases, extensive staff training is needed for both implementation and operation if a new technology is to succeed. Such training may also address potential internal resistance to change.

Changes to standards and specifications may be needed to accelerate the implementation of certain technologies. Because so much of public-sector procurement is closely governed by standards and specifications, researchers, technology transfer staff, and potential technology users need to identify and work closely with the relevant standards-setting bodies so that if changes to standards and specifications are needed, they can be made quickly and efficiently.

Finally, technology transfer programs must include careful monitoring of acceptance, adoption, refinement, and satisfaction among users of the technologies being promoted. Such information is needed for managing technology transfer activities and for successfully assessing progress toward the goals of those activities.

As suggested above, FHWA needs to articulate a strategy for its technology transfer activities. A strategy provides guidance for resource allocation, aids in making choices about specific activities and target groups, helps monitor progress toward goals, and provides guidance in determining when a specific technology transfer activity should be scaled back or concluded. The following proposed strategy has four components that can form the basis for future FHWA technology transfer activities. Together these components represent a conceptual framework identifying the key issues FHWA must address to foster more innovation in the highway industry. Within this framework, FHWA needs to give full consideration to the many participants and activities involved in technology transfer within the highway industry. The agency also needs to develop specific procedures and practices for carrying out the strategy.

Much of FHWA’s technology base originates in research conducted or sponsored by FHWA, state highway agencies, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, universities, and the Strategic Highway

Research Program. Technologies from these sources can be identified through research reports and contact with researchers and technical specialists involved in their development, as well as TRB, professional associations and journals, and the private sector. In addition, through its international technology scans and continuing reviews of emerging developments in other fields, FHWA is in a position to identify a broad range of technologies that can help meet highway industry needs.

The state highway agencies that build, operate, and maintain much of the nation’s highway system are the primary users and purchasers of the products of highway research. Other users include local highway and transportation agencies, contractors, standards-setting bodies, consultants, and manufacturers. Also important are decision makers at the state and local levels who determine whether to fund the implementation of new technologies. Identifying the primary users of a technology and those who can be most influential in its implementation is critical to FHWA’s technology delivery mission.² This information is important because early involvement of potential users in R&D activity—even before a technology is ready to be implemented—has been shown to be a key determinant of successful implementation. Such involvement familiarizes users with the products being developed; helps researchers define the problem more clearly; and fosters a better understanding of the cost limitations, usefulness, and adaptability of new technologies. Early user involvement can also help FHWA identify potential initial implementing agencies that may become strong supporters or champions for specific technologies, as well as assist the agency in selectingappropriate technology transfer methods.

Faced with a wide array of both potential users and research products, FHWA must make critical choices about where and how its limited technology transfer resources will be used. The setting of priorities must precede the selection of technology transfer methods and the initiation of implementation. Setting and revising priorities are part of a continuing process that requires specific guidelines and procedures. Priority setting should be based on such factors as FHWA’s strategic goals,

expected technology benefits, the extent of user interest, the need for financial incentives, potential product commercialization, and opportunities for private-sector partnering.

Technology transfer is a complex process for which no standard methodology is available. Yet knowledge of the research product and its users is always an important first step in identifying appropriate technology transfer methods for various customers. The nature of the technology—as indicated by its range of potential applicability, degree of hardware dependence, and adaptability—affects technology transfer choices, as do user and user organization characteristics. FHWA’s program goals, incentives, and organizational structure for performing technology transfer and providing technical assistance also affect appropriate choices. Understanding what has worked in the past in specific technology areas from the wide range of available technology transfer mechanisms is helpful as well. Selecting a technology transfer method involves knowing the audience, identifying appropriate information for that audience, and evaluating the technology transfer task in terms of cost and schedule. As a result, choices among available approaches must be made in close coordination with the priority-setting process mentioned above.

The purpose of measuring the effectiveness of technology transfer efforts is twofold: to determine whether those efforts are making progress toward the goal of widespread implementation, and to determine and document which methods work best for specific product– customer combinations. Such measurements are necessary to achieve continuous improvement in the overall technology transfer program and to help satisfy agency performance requirements. In addition, they provide a basis for documenting accomplishments within the R&D program.

Measuring effectiveness is not the final step in the technology transfer program; rather, innovation is a continuous process that involves

many feedback loops. For a mission agency such as FHWA, it is also a continuous learning process. While technology transfer can help achieve a high level of technology adoption, it can also provide information that leads to changing or concluding a specific technology transfer effort because the potential benefits cannot justify the resources being expended. Such information and the decisions it supports are important to successful technology transfer programs. Better-informed decision making enables efficient resource allocation and supports the overall goal of accelerating innovation.

FHWA should assign agencywide management responsibility for technology transfer to one of its headquarters offices. That office should then prepare a management plan for future FHWA technol ogy transfer activities. The functions recommended here would differ significantly from those formerly carried out by OTA. OTA’s mission was to implement new technology. This recommendation is for an office with the mission of providing a strategic focus at the corporate level for technology transfer activities throughout the core business units. The recommended plan should describe how the office would coordinate future FHWA technology transfer activities across the core business units; the Office of Research, Development, and Technology service unit; and the field organization. Specific items that should be addressed in the plan include how FHWA will set agencywide technology transfer priorities, monitor individual technology transfer activities, and measure performance so it can learn what does and does not work.

FHWA’s technology transfer management plan should include a strategy for the agency’s technology transfer activities. This strategy should incorporate the key characteristics of successful technology transfer and the four strategy components outlined earlier. The committee believes FHWA needs such a fundamental strategy if it is to carry out its stated mission of delivering technology to the highway industry with the limited resources available.

Finally, FHWA needs to develop strong partnerships with those who use and implement highway technologies, as well as the deci-

sion makers who are responsible for funding related to innovation. The committee believes involvement of the user community is critical to the success of both R&D and technology transfer activities, and recognizes that FHWA has initiated efforts to identify and engage its technology partners. The agency should continue these efforts and bring its partners into the research phase of its technology development activities as early as possible to help define and direct the research effort. FHWA’s partners, particularly the states, are much closer to the operating environment in which technology must succeed and are essential to successful implementation.

TRB Transportation Research Board

TRB. 1994. Special Report 244: Highway Research: Current Programs and Future Directions. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 112 pp.