Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
11
In addition to the LTAP/TTAP centers and their national tise for accomplishing the task of technology transfer. There
LTAP organization, the LTAP Clearinghouse provides pro- is now a cadre of technology transfer and implementation
gram support to LTAP. The American Public Works Asso- experts available to close the gap between innovation and
ciation operates the clearinghouse through a contract with practice. Many of these professionals have acquired their
FHWA. The clearinghouse provides technical, publication, expertise from involvement in LTAP/TTAP. Others, espe-
and program support for the LTAP/TTAP centers. cially in state DOTs, have increased their knowledge through
years of experience in fostering the application of research
A number of other players have had a significant influence results.
on transportation technology transfer. In 1970 Congress cre-
ated the National Highway Institute, an FHWA organization In addition to those knowledgeable about technology
that provides training, resource materials, and educational transfer, other professional disciplines have been brought
opportunities to the surface transportation community. At into the technology transfer process. Expertise in information
about the same time, TRB instituted TRIS. The TRIS data- services, organizational management including the forming
base is the most comprehensive bibliographic resource for of alliances and partnerships, and marketing and communi-
transportation information. Additionally, AASHTO, TRB, and cations is being brought to bear on technology transfer and
other professional organizations such as ITE, ASCE, and ITS implementation of research results.
America have created forums for the exchange and transfer of
information critical for applying innovation to transportation.
Additional Characteristics
of the Current Environment
CURRENT CONTEXT--TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
IN HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION For the most part, technology transfer is now recognized as
an important part of state research programs. However, recog-
Today the transportation community benefits from the expe- nition of the relationship between technology transfer and
riences of the past four decades that included creating a foun- achieving agency goals is relatively recent. State DOT research
dation for technology transfer and building on it. However, units are continuing to develop this concept. Also, in general,
change is increasingly more rapid and technologies can be the state research programs are using the term "implementation
vastly more complex and sophisticated. The need still exists, of research results" nearly synonymously with the term tech-
and may be more acute, to transfer research results and other nology transfer. Such dual usage appears in this document as
new, or new-to-the user, technologies into useful processes, reflecting state DOT practice.
products, and practices.
There is a general acknowledgement that specific resources
are required for accomplishing technology transfer and imple-
Two Primary Changes
mentation activities and that providing these resources facil-
Two changes that occurred in the past decades significantly itates the adoption and deployment of innovations. State DOTs
influenced the current environment for technology transfer in are beginning to budget funds and human resources for tech-
highway transportation. Foremost, both the resources and nology transfer and implementation of research results. This is
expertise applied to technology transfer have increased dra- very different from past practices of relying on the opera-
matically. These increases come from greater amounts of tional environment to supply all resources for any implementa-
legislated funds for research and related activities, includ- tion or technology transfer activity. Moreover, there is an
ing implementation of research results and LTAP/TTAP awareness of the research units being the focus for expertise
activities, and from the resources put forth through exter- in technology transfer whether the innovation under consid-
nal partnerships--committing technical expertise, facilities, eration is a result of the program's research activities or from
equipment, and in some cases additional funding. The sec- some other source.
ond primary change is that there are more people involved
in technology transfer, especially within state transportation Another characteristic of the current environment includes
departments, and they are more broadly distributed throughout not only the more common practice of pushing technology
the departments. In the past, those interested in technology out to users, but users seeking innovations and existing solu-
transfer were most likely to be located in the research offices. tions to problems by pulling technology into the operational
Now, participants come from within operating divisions and setting. Technology transfer no longer is solely the responsi-
regional or county offices of the agency, and also more fre- bility of the research group trying to get its results put into
quently include senior managers who support the efforts. practice. Increasingly, operational units are lead participants
Moreover, others often involved are the partners in academia in bringing innovations to transportation practice.
and the private sector, and FHWA or other federal-level orga-
nizations (Harder 2003b, pp. 912). There is growing recognition that technology transfer now
is both the practitioner's responsibility and the researcher's
Another substantial change reflected in the current high- responsibility. The collaborative nature of technology transfer
way transportation community is the higher level of exper- is becoming more accepted. In several states, cross-disciplinary
OCR for page 11
12
teams of practitioners, researchers, and technology transfer TABLE 1
agents exist as formally structured mechanisms rather than as RESPONDENT'S YEARS OF INVOLVEMENT AND AVERAGE
TENURE--TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER/IMPLEMENTATION
a hit-or-miss team-forming, ad hoc process. OF RESEARCH
State DOT LTAP/TTAP
Currently, technology transfer is a more planned and delib-
erate process than ever before. The planning of technology Years of Average Average
Involvement No. Tenure (years) No. Tenure (years)
transfer activities and tracking and monitoring of performance
are becoming necessary components of technology transfer and 05 17 3.4 7 2.4
particularly of research results implementation. 614 8 6.3 9 11.1
15 and over 13 19.3 6 17
Today virtually every state DOT uses some of the com-
mon tools for technology transfer. These include myriad
communications processes from person-to-person venues
middle experience level group (6 to 14 years). Retirements
to documents, reports, newsletters, brochures, and summa-
will occur among the most experienced group, and creating
ries to training, demonstrations, showcases, and the Inter-
opportunities to share and document their expertise could
net. Information dissemination and its availability by means
contribute to a collection of successful practices for technol-
of the Internet is a remarkable phenomenon for technol-
ogy transfer and implementation of research results.
ogy transfer. Opportunities are increasing to create valuable
resources such as user group communities and best practices
Information from the responding LTAP/TTAP centers
collections.
noted that they are better positioned to retain the current level
of knowledge and skills for technology transfer. The distri-
The state of the practice of technology transfer also is
bution of years of experience has a balance of the new and the
becoming more strategic. States and FHWA understand that
most experienced, with a strong group in the middle experi-
deployment of innovations can be a key to maximizing the
ence level group. Five of the seven LTAP/TTAP centers with
value of transportation assets. Using technology transfer as a
respondents having 5 years or less experience are operated
strategic tool to speed innovations into the transportation sys-
by state DOTs. This may be an indication of the generally
tem is becoming an important management lever.
high turnover rate in the state DOT-operated centers or that
states are showing high levels of retirement in this area and
Although increased resources are being applied to tech-
efforts have recently been made to replace this talent.
nology transfer and with greater sophistication, there is much
yet to be done. Within the state DOTs there are varying
Experience matters when considering program invest-
degrees of application of technology transfer practices. Incon-
ment for technology transfer and implementation of research
sistencies abound and the change that technology transfer
results. Both state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers showed
promotes may be difficult for even the most forward-thinking
substantially larger technology transfer program investment
agencies. Successes follow on the heels of difficult and
for respondents having 15 years or greater experience. For
lengthy "not quite successes." Processes are not yet recog-
those state DOTs, the investment amount was more than
nized as best practices and significant challenges still need
three times that of respondents having 6 to 14 years experi-
resolution.
ence and more than double the investment being made by
those with experience of 5 years or less. LTAP/TTAP center
Profiles of Respondents from Surveys technology transfer investments for the respondents with the
most experience were nearly twice that of the respondents'
To better understand the perspectives from the synthesis programs with 6 to 14 years experience and greater than twice
survey respondents, some general characteristics about the the investments of programs for those having experience of
respondents are included in this section. 5 years or less.
Table 1 contains a listing of the years of experience of Respondents have carried out or conducted technology
respondents from the state DOT and LTAP/TTAP surveys. transfer in a variety of capacities. Thirty of 38 state DOTs,
Within the DOTs, the distribution shows a sizeable group almost 80% of the respondents, were (or are) research man-
of individuals who are new to the technology transfer area agers, because they performed technology transfer or the
within the past 5 years. It also shows that there is a very expe- implementation of research results activities (see Figure 1).
rienced group that has been involved with these activities, Technology transfer or implementation duties were also
with an average tenure of more than 19 years. A key to main- done as these people worked in other areas of the department,
taining a knowledge and skills level for technology transfer such as other central or field offices. Most of the respondents'
in state DOTs will be to encourage building on the basic activities in technology transfer or implementation of research
experience of those relatively new to technology transfer results was found in the research unit whether one was a
activities and to retain the expertise of those who are in the researcher or research manager.
OCR for page 12
13
Field Office
Field Office Staff
Central Office Management
1
Management 3
6 Senior
Central Office
Management
Staff
6 5
Research
Researcher
Manager
11
30
FIGURE 1 Respondent's role when carrying out technology transfer (state
DOT). Thirty-eight respondents, multiple responses permitted.
Eight of the state DOT respondents were in agencies that cies. Certainly, if an agency commits resources to a coordi-
operate an LTAP center. All eight had respondents that were nating function it might be expected that greater investment
researchers or in research management when performing would occur; however, the difference of a factor of 10 is per-
technology transfer or implementation of research results. haps more dramatic than one might anticipate.
The survey results did not specifically identify the degree to
which LTAP was associated with the research unit, but sug- A brief analysis of all LTAP/TTAP centers shows that
gested that a direct connection existed among these states' most of the centers are located in organizations apart from the
research units and the technology transfer activities of the state DOT that funds them. Approximately 25% of the LTAP
LTAP center. centers are operated by state DOTs and 75% are operated by
others. Outside of the state DOT, universities are the preferred
Additionally, having a role assigned in the DOT for choice for LTAP/TTAP operators, and all TTAP centers are
agency-wide coordination of technology transfer or imple- operated by organizations other than the state DOT.
mentation of research results showed a strong relationship to
larger investment in technology transfer activities. For pro- LTAP/TTAP center respondents had a somewhat different
grams with a person or group assigned to coordinate the tech- experience than the state DOT respondents (see Figure 2).
nology transfer activities the investment in technology trans- Many of the LTAP and TTAP respondents had functioned
fer was 10 times that of agencies that had no such coordination. in the role of technology transfer program manager or staff.
Eight DOTs indicated no coordinating function in their agen- They had not participated in technology transfer or imple-
Researcher
3
Research
Mgmt./Admin.
4 Central Office Staff
4
Central Office
Management
5
Senior
Management
7
Field Office
Tech Transfer Staff/Mgmt.
Program Staff 2
14
Tech Transfer
Program Manager
15
FIGURE 2 Respondent's role when carrying out technology transfer (LTAP/TTAP). Twenty-two respondents, multiple
responses permitted.
