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

Among the many issues associated with technology transfer in the highway industry, three will strongly affect the future success of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) efforts aimed at accelerating the adoption of innovations: (1) the decentralized and largely public-sector nature of the highway industry (see Chapter 3), (2) the contingent¹ nature of technology transfer, and (3) the need for an underlying strategy for FHWA technology transfer activity. Of these the last is an area in which the agency has an opportunity to take action that would enhance the success of its technology transfer efforts.

Although FHWA’s organization, process, and materials for technology transfer reflect a good intuitive grasp of information exchange and technology transfer, the agency needs to articulate a strategy for its technology transfer activity—one grounded in empirical data and the experience of agency staff. Such a strategy would assist FHWA in accelerating innovation by focusing on the why of technology transfer, especially in view of the wide range of technology topics to be addressed, and thereby overcome some of the effects of highway indus-

try fragmentation. A strategy would also help avoid repeatedly using the same methods because they “usually work,” rather than changing or adapting methods as appropriate for particular circumstances. Moreover, it could help FHWA optimize the use of available methods, respond to unusual situations, and communicate better with the stakeholders involved in the technology transfer process.² In addition, a strategy would provide guidance for resource allocation, aid in making choices about specific activities and target groups, help monitor progress to goals, and provide guidance in determining when a specific technology transfer activity should be scaled back or concluded. Regardless of its organizational structure, then, FHWA can accelerate innovation in the highway industry by adopting a specific technology transfer strategy and basing its technology transfer activities on that strategy.

The following sections describe the primary components of the committee’s proposed strategy. The strategy is a conceptual framework for FHWA’s technology transfer activities. Its four components form a basis for carrying out technology transfer activities and provide a mechanism for managing those activities. While there is evidence that FHWA currently addresses some of these components some of the time, innovation could be accelerated if the agency were to systematically address all of the components all of the time. Adoption of the proposed strategy will require some refinement by FHWA to reflect its recent organizational changes and its relationships with technology users. FHWA also needs to develop specific procedures and practices to carry 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 (NCHRP), and the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). Technologies from these sources can be identified through research reports and contact with researchers and technical specialists involved in their development, as well as Trans-

portation Research Board (TRB), professional associations and journals, and the private sector. In addition, through its international technology scans and continuing reviews of emerging technologies in other fields, FHWA is in a position to identify a broad range of technologies that can help meet highway industry needs (see Box 5-1 for more information about international technology scans).

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 equipment 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 influential in its implementation is critical to FHWA’s technology delivery mission. 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 (see Chapter 4). Such involvement familiarizes users with the products being developed and helps researchers define the problem more clearly. It 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 selecting appropriate technology transfermethods.

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 both to carry out the process and to monitor progress toward goals.³ Priority-setting guidelines form a framework for decision making. Factors such as the strategic goals of FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), expected technology benefits, the extent of user interest, the need for financial incentives,

potential product commercialization, and opportunities for private-sector partnering form the basis for setting priorities (see Box 5-2). The responsibility for setting of technology transfer priorities in the restructured FHWA is at present unclear. Nevertheless, FHWA should establish a formal process for priority setting that includes the proposing of priorities, means of obtaining input from representatives of potential users, and executive review of the proposed priorities.

Technology transfer is a complex process for which no standard methodology is available; the process involves a wide range of variables that cannot easily be identified or accounted for (Eveland and Tornatzky 1990). Yet knowledge of the research product and its users is always an important first step. 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 is helpful as well. And early involvement of potential users helps in the selection of appropriate technology transfer tools.

Tactics and tools can be chosen, adapted, and designed to emphasize specific questions or assistance issues related to implementation. For example, consider a research product related to bridge construction that could reduce the susceptibility of bridge decks to salt corrosion. Technology transfer for such a product would require direct contact with state bridge engineers because they make the critical choices on bridge design issues. If the product were the result of a lengthy research and field testing and demonstration effort to reduce salt corrosion, state bridge engineers would be likely to be aware of the nature, value, and cost of the product and might have been involved as reviewers or participants in the work. Such a situation might require tactics and tools focused on details of technology implementation.

If, however, the research product stemmed from an unexpected breakthrough in another research area or industry and needed further testing and evaluation prior to implementation, another set of tactics and tools might be required. For example, considerable introductory and explanatory material would have to be provided for breakthrough technologies. State bridge engineers would still need to be directly involved. In this latter case, however, it might be useful to initiate involvement with a small number of engineers known for their interest in innovation and concerns about salt corrosion. For example, FHWA could form a technical working group to help develop appropriate tests and demonstrations that would address the engineers’ primary concerns.

The purpose of measuring the status and performance 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.⁴

Since implementation is the primary goal of technology transfer efforts, the extent to which the user community implements research products is a key measure of the success of those efforts. However, successful implementation is generally measured by operational success, and limited time and resources are available to track research ideas to implementation. As a consequence, there are no standardized tools available for the purpose. One approach would be to record the number of highway agencies that adopted a technology, for example, how many highway agencies use the Superpave mix design. Using the same example, another measure could be the annual proportion of Superpave mix design contracted for by a highway agency. Other measures could address the broader implications of implementation in terms of FHWA’s strategic goals, such as lives saved and injuries reduced, or cost or time savings.

An important issue associated with performance measurement is the fact that technology implementation is not an end in itself (Eveland and Tornatzky 1990). Measuring performance involves determining what successful implementation of specific research products means when there are direct and indirect as well as long- and short-term consequences. Successful implementation might mean that design standards are changed to permit use of a product in some or all cases, or that an innovative design is used in a majority of states. Or, as in the case of Superpave, it might mean that a predetermined percentage of highway pavement is designed and constructed using the Superpave mix design. Since implementation is the primary aim of innovation, adoption of a technology is a useful surrogate for technology transfer. Some form of adoption rate can be used as part of an overall evaluation of the technology transfer effort.

Measuring effectiveness should not be viewed as the final step in the technology transfer process; 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 adoption for a research product, 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 as important to successful technology transfer as is widespread implementation. Better-informed decision making enables efficient resource allocation and supports the overall goal of accelerating innovation.

FHWA’s recent reorganization created a new operating environment for technology transfer. As noted in Chapter 1, effective October 1, 1998, FHWA closed its nine regional offices and established four technical resource centers to support the state division offices. The resource centers are located in Atlanta, Boston, Olympia Fields (Illinois), and San Francisco. The centers support the state-level division offices in their primary role of program delivery by providing leadership on strategic initiatives and expert assistance on technical process and program issues, training, technology transfer, intermodal and interagency coordination, legal services, and civil rights. Each resource center is assigned a group of states within a geographic area, but specific technical expertise is shared among resource centers and division offices as needed.

Also effective October 1, 1998, FHWA restructured its headquarters office, which now has five core business units: infrastructure, planning and environment, operations, motor carrier and highway safety, and federal lands highway. Eight service business units—policy; administration; research, development, and technology; professional development; corporate management; civil rights; public affairs; and legal counsel—support and coordinate across the business units. This matrix structure is designed to enable the agency to create integrated product teams as needed, with responsibility and accountability for the delivery of specific technologies, programs, or other products.

The Office of Technology Applications (OTA), which was the focus of FHWA’s technology transfer activities, has been eliminated. Each of the five core business units and the Office of Research, Development, and Technology (ORDT) are now responsible for technology transfer activities. These groups are to work closely with and support the four new resource centers in their technology transfer efforts.

FHWA’s reorganization poses significant challenges and opportunities for the agency’s technology transfer efforts. Technology transfer is now a staff function in each of the five core business units and 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, the FHWA reorganization plan does not articulate how FHWA will manage the flow of information between researchers and technology transfer specialists in the core business units, ORDT, the four resource centers, and the division offices. Moreover, FHWA has not identified which of its offices has agencywide management responsibilities related to technology transfer, and responsibility for several important management requirements remains unassigned.⁵ 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 LTAP centers) will be included in FHWA’s technology transfer process. More specifically, the man- agement 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

• The means for monitoring and measuring the performance of technology transfer and progress toward goals.

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Downs, Jr., G., and L. Mohr. 1976. Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovations. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 21, pp. 700–714.

Eveland, J. D. and L. G. Tornatzky. 1990. The Deployment of Technology. Pp. 117-147 in The Processes of Technological Innovation (L. G. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer, eds.). Lexington Books. Cambridge, Mass.

FHWA. 1998. Setting Goals and Measuring Performance for Transportation Research and Technology Programs. Washington, D.C., Jan.

NCHRP. 1996. NCHRP Report 381: Report on the 1995 Scanning Review of European Bridge Structures. Washington, D.C., 36 pp.

Rogers, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, The Free Press of Glencoe.