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

This chapter examines the technology transfer activities of the highway industry. The context for these activities is first described. The activities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other major highway industry organizations are then reviewed. Next, the factors that support successful implementation of innovations are identified. The chapter ends by presenting the committee’s findings as guidance for future FHWA technology transfer efforts.

The context for technology transfer within the highway industry is defined by FHWA’s major role in identifying and developing research products for use by others. Essentially, FHWA does not implement technologies; it transfers them to state and local highway agencies, materials and equipment manufacturers and suppliers, contractors and consultants, and other users of highway research results. Within this

context, successful technology transfer must include recognition of the organizational boundaries between FHWA’s technology transfer staff and the technology users, the nature of the technology, and the technology transfer techniques involved. Since FHWA does not implement technologies, its technology transfer staff does not necessarily have a full understanding of the needs and abilities of user organizations, their potential for acceptance of innovations, or the capabilities and responsibilities of their technical staff. Furthermore, cultural, geographical, and procedural boundaries can exist between FHWA and the users of highway technology. Factors such as the historical relationship between FHWA and state and local highway agencies and between FHWA technology transfer staff and potential users also make a difference.

The nature of the technology—as indicated by the range of potential applicability, the degree of hardware dependence, and the adaptability of the technology—can affect its implementation by the highway industry. Adaptability is important because highway technologies must be compatible with local conditions, standards, and expectations. Characteristics of users and user organizations—such as size, available resources, organizational rigidity, familiarity with technology, and what part of the organization adopts a new technology—have an impact on successful implementation. Technology transfer activity is also affected by FHWA’s organizational structure, program goals, and incentives, and the ability of its staff to perform technology transfer and provide technical assistance.

Another important factor affecting technology transfer is the technology transfer mechanisms used. Technology transfer activities include workshops, seminars, and conferences; technical assistance; peer exchanges; cooperative research and development (R&D) projects; information dissemination centers; newsletters and fact sheets; technical reports; news releases; journal and magazine articles; and electronic bulletin boards. A technology transfer program usually involves a mix of such mechanisms (see TRB 1998). Success depends on segmenting user audiences and tailoring strategies to different audiences at various stages of the technology development process (EPA 1991). Farhar et al. (1990) suggest that selecting a technology transfer method involves characterizing the audience, identifying the appropriate information for that

audience, and performing an initial comparison of methods based on such factors as those shown in Table 4-1. Addressing these factors early in the technology transfer effort can lead to more effective technology transfer and more appropriate implementation of technology.

Technology transfer at FHWA is aimed at informing potential users about the benefits of innovative technology and helping state and local highway agencies overcome the various barriers to implementing innovations (see Chapter 3). From October 1990 to October 1998, most of FHWA’s technology transfer activities were consolidated in the Office of Technology Applications (OTA) under the Associate Administrator for Safety and Systems Applications. OTA identified and assessed research products that could address problems, improve performance, or reduce costs in the highway industry. A significant recent effort involved assisting in the implementation of technologies that resulted from research conducted for the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) from 1987 to 1992.

Much of the discussion in this section is focused on how OTA carried out its technology transfer function from 1990 to 1998. The com-

mittee recognizes that the recent FHWA organizational changes will affect future technology transfer activities (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of those changes and their potential impact on future FHWA technology transfer). Yet the committee believes these activities, at least in the short term, will continue to be strongly influenced by the strategies and techniques developed and used by OTA because of the expected continuity of the technology transfer staff.

FHWA’s technology transfer mission is to ensure timely identification and assessment of innovative research results, technologies, and products, and the application of those products and processes determined to be of potential benefit to the highway community.¹ Much of FHWA’s technology transfer program was consolidated in OTA and encompassed almost all areas of highway technology, including asphalt and concrete pavements, structures, hydraulics, geotechnology, environment, safety, motor carriers, and traffic operations and management. OTA’s program targeted the following:

• Preparing user manuals and implementation packages for technologies developed in the FHWA R&D program;

• Sponsoring field tests in selected states to verify laboratory developments;

• Displaying new technologies in the field for workshop and open house demonstrations;

• Installing/applying technologies on local highway segments for further demonstration and evaluation; and

• Incorporating and evaluating innovative products in federal-aid highway construction projects.

Highway technology includes products from FHWA-sponsored research, as well as research by universities, research institutes, and transportation agencies in the United States and abroad. OTA estimated that approximately 25 to 30 percent of its recent efforts involved research results stemming from FHWA-supported R&D. The range of technologies promoted by OTA parallels the range of topics addressed by FHWA’s eight Research and Technology Coordinating Groups (RTCGs) (see Box 4-1).² As noted earlier, the primary customers (or users) of FHWA’s technology transfer services are the state

transportation agencies; local highway agencies, materials and equipment manufacturers and suppliers, and contractors and consultants are also major users of highway research results (Griffith 1990). Furthermore, FHWA’s technology transfer services extend to highway transportation communities in countries throughout the world (Harder 1995).

The OTA program focused on four broad project categories: demonstration, application, test and evaluation, and special projects (Harder 1995). Technical activities were assigned to one of these project categories on the basis of the degree of application readiness of the technology, and which technology transfer or marketing approach FHWA chose to use for reaching the intended users. The four categories were defined as follows:

• Demonstration projects—nationwide efforts to promote a proven material, process, method, equipment item, or other feature targeted by FHWA for adoption by the highway community.

• Application projects—individual efforts to assess, refine, or disseminate an emerging technology. Technology transfer methods used include regional or national seminars or workshops, specification recommendations, notebooks or pamphlets, instructional materials, open houses, and focused clearinghouses.

• Test and evaluation projects—aimed at evaluating innovative or emerging technologies identified as having a great potential for nationwide use.

• Special projects—evaluation efforts by industry and FHWA, in conjunction with state transportation agencies, to evaluate a material, process, method, or other feature. Such projects usually involved several control experiments (or operational tests), leading to a closeout evaluation. Special projects could lead to a demonstration project, a test and evaluation project, or a combination of the two.

Harder (1995) describes the paths followed in 12 technology areas from research through technology transfer to implementation. Those 12 technology areas were selected on the basis of suggestions from FHWA staff, a panel of highway professionals, and a literature search to demonstrate the role played by FHWA in technology transfer and to estimate the value of that role. Each area incorporated a variety of products and processes with significant roots in the FHWA R&D program; each was also the subject of prominent FHWA technology transfer efforts during the period 1984 to 1993. The 12 areas are listed below; more detailed descriptions of these areas and the specific technology transfer activities associated with each are provided in Appendix C:

• Scour monitoring and instrumentation,

• Geotextile engineering applications,

• Pavement management systems,

• Bridge management systems,

• Protective coatings,

• Seismic design of highway bridges,

• Work zone traffic control,

• Bridge inspection techniques,

• Highway drainage design,

• Driven piles/pile foundations,

• Avoidance/handling of construction contract claims, and

• Computer models for traffic engineering and operations.

A number of technology transfer activities were associated with almost all of these areas. These activities included courses developed

for the National Highway Institute (NHI) (see below), demonstration projects, application projects, engineering circulars and manuals, technical advisory bulletins, training of FHWA technical specialists, computer programs, and coordination with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to modify design specifications. Given the many individual and undocumented actions taken to transfer technology and the general lack of record keeping associated with technology transfer activities, Harder was unable to identify every technology transfer activity associated with each technology area. However, other methods were also identified, including brochures, fact sheets, newsletters, news releases, and journal and magazine articles; electronic bulletin boards; technical reports, papers, and presentations; workshops, seminars, conferences, and peer exchanges; and contacts with information dissemination centers.

To better understand FHWA technology transfer activities, the committee reviewed several examples of new technologies associated with FHWA research and technology transfer efforts. These examples illustrate the range of topics addressed by FHWA, the many steps and participants involved in technology transfer, some of the barriers to implementation, and the varying potential for commercialization. These examples are briefly summarized in Boxes 4-2 through 4-7.

FHWA supports the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), NHI, the Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program, and the Pan American Institute of Highways.

LTAP, the largest coordinated national transportation technology transfer activity, consists of centers in all states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as six Native American centers (TRB 1998). Federal funding for the centers is $100,000 per year from FHWA, plus an equal or greater local match. LTAP centers are operated principally through university continuing education offices, research centers, or

special units designated specifically to provide technical assistance to local officials. In some states, the LTAP center is operated by the state department of transportation.

The aims of the LTAP technology transfer centers are to transfer technology to local transportation agencies; improve communications among FHWA, state transportation agencies, local agencies, universities, and the private sector; encourage implementation of effective procedures and technology at the local level; and synthesize specific implementation experiences to serve as models for use elsewhere. The centers engage in a range of activities focused primarily on information exchange and dissemination, technical assistance, and training. They serve the more than 36,000 local highway agencies in the United States that range in size from single-person township departments to large city and county departments. The centers represent a large network for exchanging information and seeking advice. Associated with LTAP is the national LTAP Clearinghouse, operated by the American Public Works Association.

NHI provides comprehensive education and training programs tailored to meet the needs of surface transportation professionals at all levels of government—federal, state, and local. The NHI domestic program includes advanced courses in such topics as structures, hydraulics, ITS, pavements, safety, planning, environment, materials, geotechnology, traffic operations, construction, and maintenance. Internationally, NHI offers specialized courses addressing subjects such as technology transfer techniques, advanced pavement technology, and international bridge inspection.

In addition to providing specific courses, NHI makes training manuals and materials available to university professors for use in updating their courses. The Institute also conducts conferences, congresses, distinguished lecture series, seminars, symposia, and workshops; exhibits its services at World Trade Fairs; provides technical assistance to its international customers; administers an international personnel exchange program for FHWA offices; manages the programs of FHWA university transportation centers; and grants fellowships to students and faculty members who are pursuing or plan to pursue careers in transportation.

The Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program was authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

of 1991 (ISTEA). The program provides fellowships to transportation professionals and targets faculty and college students at various educational levels. Students from senior-year undergraduates through postdoctoral fellows are encouraged to pursue careers in fields related to transportation. From 1993 to 1996 more than 440 fellowships were awarded through the program at a total cost of $10.8 million.

The Pan American Institute of Highways was established in 1987 to promote the exchange of technology among the members of the highway community of the Americas. The Institute has a central headquarters located within FHWA in Washington, D.C., and 82 national technology transfer centers in Central and South America. The centers coordinate technology transfer activities, distribute information, and organize seminars and courses.

Universities are often closely identified with technology transfer activities, especially as educational, research, and public-service institutions. Many universities have well-established reputations in education and research focused on the needs of the transportation industry. In 1987 Congress established the University Transportation Centers Program (UTCP) by creating transportation centers in each of the 10 federal regions. When ISTEA reauthorized UTCP for an additional 6 years, 4 new centers were added. The 14 centers became focal points for addressing transportation issues and for attracting talent, resources, and facilities to promote individual initiatives and scientific innovation in a variety of transportation modes and disciplines. These centers have become important sources for research products and professional expertise, both of which are essential to successful innovation in the highway industry.

In 1998 in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Congress again reauthorized UTCP and also added 19 new centers. The act authorized $158.8 million in transportation research funds for the program, plus an additional $36 million in transit funds, for fiscal years 1998 to 2003. TEA-21 established education as one of the primary objectives of a transportation research center, institutionalized the use of strategic planning in university grant management, and reinforced the program’s focus on multimodal transportation. The act

created four classes of grants with different funding levels, competitive status, and life spans. See Box 4-8 for descriptions of the four grant classes.

Each state highway agency is organized differently for research, development, and technology transfer. A survey of the states in 1989 indicated that 9 of 36 responding state highway agencies had designated technology transfer offices (NCHRP 1989).³ Since that time, LTAP centers have been established in each state, and the states look to them for assistance in disseminating research results; this is the case particularly in those states in which the LTAP center is operated by the department of transportation (DOT).

Through AASHTO, the states have created four regional Research Advisory Committees (RACs), comprising the state highway agency research directors. The RACs support the mission of AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), whose members represent executive levels of the state highway agencies. That mission is to formulate and advise on transportation research, development, and technology transfer programs of national interest. The four RACs serve as technology exchange mechanisms among the state DOTs.

Two other recent developments support efforts aimed at innovation and timely implementation of new products in the highway industry. The Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC) was created through the combined efforts of FHWA, AASHTO, TRB, the Civil Engineering Research Foundation, and other organizations. Using volunteer expert panels, HITEC provides central, independent screening and evaluation of innovative products for which no standard evaluation methods exist and assists innovators in gaining product acceptance.

The National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) was established within AASHTO to provide a single location for evaluation of standard products for which test methods or protocols have

already been developed.⁴ NTPEP activities in each AASHTO region are coordinated by participating states. Existing facilities, equipment, and personnel in state highway agencies are used for the evaluations.

The committee reviewed several studies aimed at identifying those factors that support successful implementation of innovations. One of these studies addressed innovation in building technologies, and three addressed innovation in the highway industry.

According to an assessment of the building technologies research program at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Building Technologies, the earlier manufacturers are aware of and become actively engaged in the research, development, and demonstration process, the more quickly building construction-related technologies can be produced and commercialized (Farhar et al. 1990). Findings about the

program’s technology transfer efforts were summarized in the form of the following basic principles:

• Early identification and segmentation of target audiences;

• Tailoring of programs to meet the needs and capabilities of the target audiences;

• Sufficient funding to permit continuity of effort; and

• Monitoring of utilization, coverage, and user satisfaction.

Farhar et al. (1990) also conclude that technology transfer programs should involve a clear statement of goals so the effectiveness of the program can be monitored and assessed. Because successful implementation of innovations is dependent on technology transfer efforts, assessments of the technology transfer process are as important as effective R&D in producing innovative products.

A second study reviewed was performed as part of SHRP. Under SHRP, a number of key products were delivered, including specifications, manuals, test methods, equipment, materials, and processes. As SHRP products became available for implementation, program staff identified common gaps or barriers that needed to be addressed before the products could be implemented by state highway agencies (SHRP 1990). These gaps included the following:

• Staff training needs—More than half of SHRP products require special training for state professional or technical staff.

• Internal investment—Most SHRP products require state invest ment in new laboratory equipment, field equipment, testing devices, or additional facilities.

• Demonstrations, field tests, and validation—Despite the testing performed on SHRP products, some states require additional testing and validation conducted at local sites, using in-state personnel and/or indigenous materials prior to implementation.

• Procurement—SHRP specification products are intended to yield higher-quality or longer-lived constructed facilities; they could result in higher initial costs for construction or some component material. Organizational policies or legal constraints can limit such options.

• Prerequisite state management actions—States must have information and management systems in place before several SHRP products can be implemented.

• Need for accelerated adoption of standards—Many of the key SHRP products are standards, specifications, or test methods designed to support specifications whose adoption rests with each individual state. The process of effecting change will be slow unless AASHTO, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and other standards-setting groups accept the SHRP standards and use their influence to accelerate adoption within the states.

• Other barriers—Product-specific barriers call for tailor-made solutions. Their significance could be far greater than that of the more general barriers mentioned above. For example, a new asphalt binder specification requires the cooperation of the asphalt supply industry, as well as state-mandated changes.

SHRP staff, together with FHWA and AASHTO, worked to address these gaps and thereby overcome potential barriers to implementation. One of the more successful efforts was the creation of AASHTO’s Lead States Program, which provides a means for state highway agencies to share with other agencies their early and extensive experience with the technologies developed or evaluated under SHRP (see Box 4-9).

A recent NCHRP project involved identifying and evaluating factors that influence the implementation of highway research findings and led to recommended strategies to facilitate the timely application of research results (Bikson et al. 1996). A broad definition of implementation was adopted that encompasses searching, testing, decision making, planning, procurement, contracting, training, modification, adaptation, and evaluation. Successful implementation was defined in terms of timeliness in putting research results to use, effectiveness in achieving desired results, and the proportion of potential users that have become actual users of the innovation. A workshop attended by representatives from state and local highway agencies and the private sector, together with a national survey of officials in state, county, and city transportation agencies, yielded information about what factors influence the successful application of research results in the highway industry.

State and local highway agencies stated that the availability of funds aimed specifically at implementation efforts is far more important than the availability of research funds in explaining positive outcomes. The survey revealed that jurisdictional level makes a difference: state-level participants reported more implementation of innovations than did their city and county counterparts. Moreover, it was found that many local agencies do not consider themselves to be in the implementation business at all.

Highway agency representatives also offered their opinion on the most important implementation boosters. Rated highest were having results from pilot projects in user settings and having innovations that match user needs (see Table 4-2). Other important boosters include a strong commitment from highway agency senior management; adequate funding; collaboration among users, researchers, and vendors; user participation in the vital stages of R&D; and a champion for the project at the highway agency.

The survey also identified specific user needs in implementing new technology. For example, despite evidence that bringing researchers

and users into closer and more frequent contact is an important tool for promoting implementation and users’ belief that they should be involved in all stages of R&D, budget and time constraints, coupled with limited agency expertise, make it increasingly difficult to apply these approaches. Users believe they have ample access to information about innovations; however, they lack a useful mechanism for sifting through increasing quantities of disseminated information for relevance and quality. Finally, the researchers concluded that highway agencies do not capitalize adequately on the organizational learning that takes place during implementation because they tend to treat implementation efforts as one-time events. As a result, the experience they gain does not benefit future efforts.

Similar results were found in the study discussed earlier in which the technology transfer process was documented for each of 12 technology areas from research through implementation (Harder 1995). The study team identified the factors that strongly affect the success of FHWA technology transfer efforts. Chief among these factors were the following:

• Responsiveness to user needs;

• High level of user participation in testing, experimental installations, demonstrations, and pilot testing;

• Funding to support implementation;

• Presence of technical expertise in house;

• Presence of product/project champions and opportunities for peer exchange; and

• High-quality information dissemination.

In addition to the above studies, earlier work by the RTCC revealed that successful implementation could be characterized in terms of the following (Diewald 1992):

• Implementing innovations in the public sector usually involves a considerable amount of hard work, which often must be undertaken by individuals with day-to-day operational responsibilities that already consume all their available time.⁵

• A successful innovation usually has a champion who will not quit on the concept; sometimes there is more than one such individual. Innovation seldom occurs without a champion.

• Successful innovations are usually based on well-defined user needs with specific payoffs.

• Institutional barriers are probably the most difficult and time-consuming impediments to change, having been put in place for specific reasons that may still apply.⁶

• Successful innovation requires education and training for staff who are responsible for implementation. People are usually uncomfortable with change and will resist it if they do not understand its value.

• Many innovations are not simple one-to-one replacements for existing technologies, procedures, or equipment; they are more likely to affect a system in many different ways, making it difficult to evaluate their performance.

• Bringing potential users into the research process early on helps accelerate the development and implementation of innovations.

• Much can be done to encourage innovation, but it cannot be forced on an organization.

• Demonstration projects provide initial practical experience that can establish the basis for more widespread adoption.

• Many innovations require technical expertise and capabilities that do not exist at the operating level. Successful implementation will gen erally proceed more rapidly for user-friendly technologies.

The above studies provided the committee with considerable evidence of specific factors that foster the implementation of innovations. These factors are summarized in the following section as guidance for future FHWA technology transfer activities.

Public agencies rely heavily on technology transfer programs for information, guidance, technical assistance, and even training. In particular, state and local highway agencies depend on FHWA for technical information and assistance in identifying and implementing innovative tech-

nologies. In addition, FHWA relies on these agencies for guidance regarding agency research needs. Although each of the studies reviewed by the committee examined different information and used different methods, they all generated conclusions—many very similar—about what is needed to accelerate innovation and technology implementation. The committee reviewed these conclusions and developed the following summary of keys to past success as guidance for future FHWA technology transfer activities. While some of this guidance may appear obvious, there is evidence that achieving a successful result requires attention to as many of these factors as possible (NCHRP 1998).

Early involvement of users: Research aimed at new highway technologies should be based on the needs of potential users/customers. Early involvement of potential users in the research planning phase thus assists researchers in understanding the problem being addressed and in developing products that respond to user needs. Moreover, continuing user involvement throughout the research activity can help ensure that research products will be implemented quickly. Researchers and research managers should work closely with technology transfer staff to identify and communicate with potential users and determine the nature and extent of user needs (see Appendix B for examples of how this is being accomplished in several research programs).

Field tests, demonstrations, and pilot projects: Potential users find these activities helpful in deciding whether to implement new technology; developers find them useful for refining technologies prior to widespread implementation.

Incentives: 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.

Senior management support: Successful innovation always requires senior management support and sometimes specific agency management action to organize that support. Experience has 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.

Technical training: 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.

Standards and specifications: 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.

User satisfaction: Technology transfer programs must include careful monitoring of acceptance, adoption, 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 these activities.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program

TRB Transportation Research Board

Bikson, T. K., S. A. Law, M. Markovich, and B. T. Harder. 1996. Facilitating the Implementation of Research Findings: A Summary Report. NCHRP Report 382, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 24 pp.

Diewald, W. 1992. Seeking Ways To Accelerate the Implementation of Innovation in Highway Transportation. TR News, No. 163, Nov., 4 pp.

Ducca, F., and E. Weiner. 1996. Upgrading Travel Demand Forecasting Capabilities. TR News, No. 186, Sept., pp. 2–6, 39.

EPA. 1991. Innovative Technology Transfer Workbook: Planning, Process, Practice; Draft Version 1. Prepared by Technical Resources, Inc., Washington, D.C., Aug.

Farhar, B. C., M. A. Brown, B. L. Mohler, M. Wilde, and F. H. Abel. 1990. A Planning Framework for Transferring Building Energy Technologies. Solar Energy Research Institute. U.S. Department of Energy. SERI/TP-260-3729, DE90000347. Washington, D.C., July.

Griffith, R. G. 1990. United States National Report. Appendix J in Technology Transfer in Selected OECD Countries, Orlando, Florida.

Harder, B. T. 1995. Stewardship Report Documenting Benefits of Research Technology Efforts. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-SA-96-044. Washington, D.C., Dec.

Mokyr, J. 1990. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford University Press, New York.

NCHRP. 1989. Synthesis of Highway Practice 150: Technology Transfer in Selected Highway Agencies. Washington, D.C., Dec., 44 pp.

NCHRP. 1998. Research Results Digest 225: Putting Research into Practice: A Synopsis of Successful Strategies and Case Histories. Washington, D.C., June, 18 pp.

SHRP. 1990. Memorandum on Gap Analysis to Ray Decker, Chairman of the SHRP Steering Committee, from Damian Kulash, SHRP Executive Director. February 21.

TRB. 1998. Transportation Research Circular 488: Transportation Technology Transfer—A Primer on the State of the Practice. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., May, 95 pp.