National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13923.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND— HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Technology transfer is a topic that has drawn the attention of innovators in the highway transportation community for more than 40 years. For all of this time, technology transfer has been closely identified with the implementation of research results. Documents describing what today is termed “tech- nology transfer” were then primarily concerned with moving research findings into practice (Watkins 1974, p. 1). “In 1967, an American Association of State Highway Officials Special Committee on Utilization of Research (known as the Stevens Committee) noted that there was an undesirable and unneces- sary time lag between the completion of research and the uti- lization of that research” (Hodgkins 1989, p. 3). The commit- tee’s findings led to substantive changes in the public sector highway arena. Among the changes was the reorganization of FHWA in 1970, which resulted in the creation of an Imple- mentation Division, whose mission was to accelerate the uti- lization of research findings. Reflecting the interest of the states, the FHWA work grew to include programs focusing on experimental projects, testing and evaluation, demonstrations, and implementation projects. All of these activities had technology transfer as their founda- tion. In 1973, FHWA established a Technology Transfer Pro- gram that positioned FHWA personnel in regional and divi- sion offices to provide assistance to the states (Burke 1984, p. 21). At this time, the state DOTs were actively working at transferring technology to enable use of innovations. The Michigan DOT regularly published a Testing and Research Newsletter, produced a Research Laboratory Annual Report, sponsored workshops to introduce new specifications, and capitalized on opportunities to meet with contractors to intro- duce new or experimental features. Arkansas issued newslet- ters, distributed its research documents, prepared presentations on its innovations, and circulated brief summaries of technical literature. The Virginia Research Council (now the Virginia Transportation Research Council) conducted an active tech- nology transfer program, participating in FHWA programs and serving as an agency clearinghouse for technology trans- fer information, with the council director as the Technology Transfer Coordinator for the department. Libraries were important mechanisms for transferring technology and many states supported a library associated with their research offices (Burke 1984, pp. 22–28). Highway and transportation depart- ments each addressed technology transfer and implementation of research results through varying processes from internal 10 organizations such as Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Bridge and Roadway Technology, charged with implementation of inno- vations, or external partnerships such as the Joint Transporta- tion Research Program of the Indiana DOT (INDOT) and Pur- due University. There was a need for technology transfer of highway inno- vations for municipal governments as well. In 1982, the Rural Technical Assistance Program (RTAP) [now the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and the Tribal Tech- nical Assistance Program (TTAP)] was created as a cooper- ative effort between FHWA and state DOTs. FHWA admin- istered the RTAP activities. RTAP Technology Transfer Centers provided technical assistance to communities with a population of 50,000 or less. In subsequent years, through changes brought about by the Intermodal Surface Trans- portation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), RTAP broadened its mission to serve larger communities, DOTs, and Native American tribal governments. FHWA continues to administer both LTAP and TTAP activities. FHWA continued to strengthen its commitment to tech- nology transfer, when in 1989 its Implementation Division became the Office of Technology Applications. This office housed the broad array of FHWA programs that encouraged adoption of innovations through technology transfer practices. Significant efforts were also occurring through AASHTO to transfer to highway users the research results and products produced by the Strategic Highway Research Program. The AASHTO Lead State program set a standard for transferring technology in state DOTs. States with expertise and experi- ence with new technologies shared the knowledge and use of new technologies with other states not yet possessing the expertise or experience. Currently, FHWA is organized to provide expertise in close proximity to the users through the Resource Center and the division offices. In addition, pro- gram offices and the Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center provide technical expertise for technology transfer to the state DOTs and others. An important player in the current context is the TRB Committee on Technology Transfer. The committee is con- cerned with information exchange and research on the pro- cesses and methods for technology transfer. It assists TRB and other TRB committees by serving as an agent for tech- nology transfer. The committee is an effective resource for networking among peers. CHAPTER TWO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OVERVIEW AND APPLICATION

11 In addition to the LTAP/TTAP centers and their national LTAP organization, the LTAP Clearinghouse provides pro- gram support to LTAP. The American Public Works Asso- ciation operates the clearinghouse through a contract with FHWA. The clearinghouse provides technical, publication, and program support for the LTAP/TTAP centers. A number of other players have had a significant influence on transportation technology transfer. In 1970 Congress cre- ated the National Highway Institute, an FHWA organization that provides training, resource materials, and educational opportunities to the surface transportation community. At about the same time, TRB instituted TRIS. The TRIS data- base is the most comprehensive bibliographic resource for transportation information. Additionally, AASHTO, TRB, and other professional organizations such as ITE, ASCE, and ITS America have created forums for the exchange and transfer of information critical for applying innovation to transportation. CURRENT CONTEXT—TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION Today the transportation community benefits from the expe- riences of the past four decades that included creating a foun- dation for technology transfer and building on it. However, change is increasingly more rapid and technologies can be vastly more complex and sophisticated. The need still exists, and may be more acute, to transfer research results and other new, or new-to-the user, technologies into useful processes, products, and practices. Two Primary Changes Two changes that occurred in the past decades significantly influenced the current environment for technology transfer in highway transportation. Foremost, both the resources and expertise applied to technology transfer have increased dra- matically. These increases come from greater amounts of legislated funds for research and related activities, includ- ing implementation of research results and LTAP/TTAP activities, and from the resources put forth through exter- nal partnerships—committing technical expertise, facilities, equipment, and in some cases additional funding. The sec- ond primary change is that there are more people involved in technology transfer, especially within state transportation departments, and they are more broadly distributed throughout the departments. In the past, those interested in technology transfer were most likely to be located in the research offices. Now, participants come from within operating divisions and regional or county offices of the agency, and also more fre- quently include senior managers who support the efforts. Moreover, others often involved are the partners in academia and the private sector, and FHWA or other federal-level orga- nizations (Harder 2003b, pp. 9–12). Another substantial change reflected in the current high- way transportation community is the higher level of exper- tise for accomplishing the task of technology transfer. There is now a cadre of technology transfer and implementation experts available to close the gap between innovation and practice. Many of these professionals have acquired their expertise from involvement in LTAP/TTAP. Others, espe- cially in state DOTs, have increased their knowledge through years of experience in fostering the application of research results. In addition to those knowledgeable about technology transfer, other professional disciplines have been brought into the technology transfer process. Expertise in information services, organizational management including the forming of alliances and partnerships, and marketing and communi- cations is being brought to bear on technology transfer and implementation of research results. Additional Characteristics of the Current Environment For the most part, technology transfer is now recognized as an important part of state research programs. However, recog- nition of the relationship between technology transfer and achieving agency goals is relatively recent. State DOT research units are continuing to develop this concept. Also, in general, the state research programs are using the term “implementation of research results” nearly synonymously with the term tech- nology transfer. Such dual usage appears in this document as reflecting state DOT practice. There is a general acknowledgement that specific resources are required for accomplishing technology transfer and imple- mentation activities and that providing these resources facil- itates the adoption and deployment of innovations. State DOTs are beginning to budget funds and human resources for tech- nology transfer and implementation of research results. This is very different from past practices of relying on the opera- tional environment to supply all resources for any implementa- tion or technology transfer activity. Moreover, there is an awareness of the research units being the focus for expertise in technology transfer whether the innovation under consid- eration is a result of the program’s research activities or from some other source. Another characteristic of the current environment includes not only the more common practice of pushing technology out to users, but users seeking innovations and existing solu- tions to problems by pulling technology into the operational setting. Technology transfer no longer is solely the responsi- bility of the research group trying to get its results put into practice. Increasingly, operational units are lead participants in bringing innovations to transportation practice. There is growing recognition that technology transfer now is both the practitioner’s responsibility and the researcher’s responsibility. The collaborative nature of technology transfer is becoming more accepted. In several states, cross-disciplinary

12 teams of practitioners, researchers, and technology transfer agents exist as formally structured mechanisms rather than as a hit-or-miss team-forming, ad hoc process. Currently, technology transfer is a more planned and delib- erate process than ever before. The planning of technology transfer activities and tracking and monitoring of performance are becoming necessary components of technology transfer and particularly of research results implementation. 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 to documents, reports, newsletters, brochures, and summa- ries to training, demonstrations, showcases, and the Inter- net. Information dissemination and its availability by means of the Internet is a remarkable phenomenon for technol- ogy transfer. Opportunities are increasing to create valuable resources such as user group communities and best practices collections. The state of the practice of technology transfer also is becoming more strategic. States and FHWA understand that deployment of innovations can be a key to maximizing the value of transportation assets. Using technology transfer as a strategic tool to speed innovations into the transportation sys- tem is becoming an important management lever. Although increased resources are being applied to tech- nology transfer and with greater sophistication, there is much yet to be done. Within the state DOTs there are varying degrees of application of technology transfer practices. Incon- sistencies abound and the change that technology transfer promotes may be difficult for even the most forward-thinking agencies. Successes follow on the heels of difficult and lengthy “not quite successes.” Processes are not yet recog- nized as best practices and significant challenges still need resolution. Profiles of Respondents from Surveys To better understand the perspectives from the synthesis survey respondents, some general characteristics about the respondents are included in this section. Table 1 contains a listing of the years of experience of respondents from the state DOT and LTAP/TTAP surveys. Within the DOTs, the distribution shows a sizeable group of individuals who are new to the technology transfer area within the past 5 years. It also shows that there is a very expe- rienced group that has been involved with these activities, with an average tenure of more than 19 years. A key to main- taining a knowledge and skills level for technology transfer in state DOTs will be to encourage building on the basic experience of those relatively new to technology transfer activities and to retain the expertise of those who are in the middle experience level group (6 to 14 years). Retirements will occur among the most experienced group, and creating opportunities to share and document their expertise could contribute to a collection of successful practices for technol- ogy transfer and implementation of research results. Information from the responding LTAP/TTAP centers noted that they are better positioned to retain the current level of knowledge and skills for technology transfer. The distri- bution of years of experience has a balance of the new and the most experienced, with a strong group in the middle experi- ence level group. Five of the seven LTAP/TTAP centers with respondents having 5 years or less experience are operated by state DOTs. This may be an indication of the generally high turnover rate in the state DOT-operated centers or that states are showing high levels of retirement in this area and efforts have recently been made to replace this talent. Experience matters when considering program invest- ment for technology transfer and implementation of research results. Both state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers showed substantially larger technology transfer program investment for respondents having 15 years or greater experience. For those state DOTs, the investment amount was more than three times that of respondents having 6 to 14 years experi- ence and more than double the investment being made by those with experience of 5 years or less. LTAP/TTAP center technology transfer investments for the respondents with the most experience were nearly twice that of the respondents’ programs with 6 to 14 years experience and greater than twice the investments of programs for those having experience of 5 years or less. Respondents have carried out or conducted technology transfer in a variety of capacities. Thirty of 38 state DOTs, almost 80% of the respondents, were (or are) research man- agers, because they performed technology transfer or the implementation of research results activities (see Figure 1). Technology transfer or implementation duties were also done as these people worked in other areas of the department, such as other central or field offices. Most of the respondents’ activities in technology transfer or implementation of research results was found in the research unit whether one was a researcher or research manager. State DOT LTAP/TTAP Years of Involvement No. No. Average Tenure (years) Average Tenure (years) 0–5 3.4 7 2.4 6–14 6.3 9 11.1 15 and over 13 8 17 19.3 6 17 TABLE 1 RESPONDENT’S YEARS OF INVOLVEMENT AND AVERAGE TENURE—TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER/IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH

13 Eight of the state DOT respondents were in agencies that operate an LTAP center. All eight had respondents that were researchers or in research management when performing technology transfer or implementation of research results. The survey results did not specifically identify the degree to which LTAP was associated with the research unit, but sug- gested that a direct connection existed among these states’ research units and the technology transfer activities of the LTAP center. Additionally, having a role assigned in the DOT for agency-wide coordination of technology transfer or imple- mentation of research results showed a strong relationship to larger investment in technology transfer activities. For pro- grams with a person or group assigned to coordinate the tech- nology transfer activities the investment in technology trans- fer was 10 times that of agencies that had no such coordination. Eight DOTs indicated no coordinating function in their agen- cies. Certainly, if an agency commits resources to a coordi- nating function it might be expected that greater investment would occur; however, the difference of a factor of 10 is per- haps more dramatic than one might anticipate. A brief analysis of all LTAP/TTAP centers shows that most of the centers are located in organizations apart from the state DOT that funds them. Approximately 25% of the LTAP centers are operated by state DOTs and 75% are operated by others. Outside of the state DOT, universities are the preferred choice for LTAP/TTAP operators, and all TTAP centers are operated by organizations other than the state DOT. LTAP/TTAP center respondents had a somewhat different experience than the state DOT respondents (see Figure 2). Many of the LTAP and TTAP respondents had functioned in the role of technology transfer program manager or staff. They had not participated in technology transfer or imple- FIGURE 1 Respondent’s role when carrying out technology transfer (state DOT). Thirty-eight respondents, multiple responses permitted. Researcher Research Manager Field Office StaffCentral Office Management Central Office Staff Senior Management Field Office Management 30 11 56 6 1 3 Tech Transfer Program Staff Research Mgmt./Admin. Senior Management Researcher Central Office Staff Central Office Management Field Office Staff/Mgmt. Tech Transfer Program Manager 14 15 7 4 3 2 5 4 FIGURE 2 Respondent’s role when carrying out technology transfer (LTAP/TTAP). Twenty-two respondents, multiple responses permitted.

14 Indian Affairs and tribal government funds. Approxi- mately 35% of the LTAP/TTAP centers reported receiv- ing university funds and 41% receive funds from local governments. Only 5% of the centers reported receiving funding from the private sector. CURRENT CONTEXT—TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN OTHER VENUES APPLICABLE TO HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION—PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR There are several mechanisms in the public and private sec- tors that are relevant to transportation technology transfer practices. This section highlights a few of these mechanisms and relates them to their usefulness for the transportation community. Technology Transfer and Commercialization in the Private Sector The private sector has very different reasons for its interest in technology transfer, most based on the process of bring- ing a product to market; that is, commercialization. How- ever, the origins of private-sector technology transfer and its subsequent maturing have application for public-sector highway transportation. Although private-sector companies bring about technology transfer within their own organiza- tions and among private-sector partners, the most relevant private-sector technology transfer activities for this study are those between the private-sector and public-sector agencies. In particular, the private-sector technology transfer process, especially as it emerged with public-sector defense applications, provided a foundation for technology transfer practices within other areas in the public sector, including highway transportation. As background, a short synopsis of the development of technology transfer in the private sector is included from NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 312: Facilitating Partnerships in Transportation Research (Harder 2003b). This synopsis shows the rapid development of the mecha- nisms for partnerships, which increased the opportunities for technology transfer, facilitated technology transfer activi- ties, and also fostered the development of technology transfer methodologies. During the late 1980s and 1990s, competitive advantage became one of the forces behind the collaboration of industry with its suppliers and within distribution channels. . . . Interests centered on decreasing the time for research and technology development as a means to speed products to the marketplace. Global competition began to pose a significant threat, particu- larly for science and technology applications. U.S. anti-trust laws were seen as too restrictive for meeting these broad eco- nomic challenges. Starting in 1980 federal laws were enacted beginning with the Stevenson–Wydler Technology Innovation Act, which ‘required Federal laboratories to facilitate the trans- fer of Federally owned and originated technology to state and mentation of research results through research activities or research management to the same extent as the state DOT respondents. Seventy-five percent of the LTAP/TTAP cen- ter respondents were from centers funded by a state DOT, but operated by others outside the agency—mostly by uni- versities. Approximately one-third of the LTAP/TTAP cen- ters respondents had experience in technology transfer as senior management. Nearly one-fourth had experience as central office management or research management. The diversity of roles at the LTAP/TTAP centers as they partic- ipate in technology transfer or implementation of research results may be from the wide reach that the centers use in attracting personnel to their programs. For state DOTs there were a few noteworthy items that emerged from examining the agency-wide coordinating role and from determining whether it influenced any aspects of technology transfer. Four of every five agencies having a group or person in the coordinating role clearly reported that more funding was necessary for technology transfer, whereas those state DOTs without such a coordinating function were somewhat equally divided in their assessment of whether more funding was needed. Clearly, the coordinating function affects the perspective for funding needs. Other items to note are that the organizations with a coordinating function tended to recognize the positive influence of senior management sup- port more than the state DOTs without such a person or group filling the coordinating role. The state DOTs with technology transfer coordination also indicated a greater openness to including innovations into projects and were more accepting of management assistance as compared with their peers with- out a person or organization in the coordination role. Other general information about the respondents and their technology transfer operations includes the following: • A majority of state DOT survey respondents (approxi- mately 85%) were responsible for agency-wide coordi- nation of technology transfer activities, and most of these were associated with the agency’s research function. • More than half of the research units in state DOTs share the responsibility of technology transfer with other units in the agency, one-quarter are solely responsible, and two respondents reported that no unit in their department was specifically assigned responsibility for technology transfer. • The LTAP/TTAP centers that respondents represented have been operating for an average of nearly 20 years, with California DOT and INDOT centers having con- ducted organized technology transfer activities for 50 and 40 years, respectively. • The LTAP/TTAP respondents’ centers not including California’s have annual budgets that average $375,000. If California’s center is added, the average total budget is $495,000. • All of the LTAP centers receive federal-aid LTAP funds. In addition, TTAP centers receive Bureau of

15 local governments and to the private sector’ (Science and Engi- neering Indicators 2000). Other legislation such as the National Cooperative Research Act (1984); the Federal Technology Trans- fer Act (1986), which created Cooperative Research and Devel- opment Agreements (CRADAs); and the National Cooperative Research and Production Act (1993) each enhanced the oppor- tunities for partnerships, joint ventures, and other collaborative research and technology transfer activities between the public and private sectors. See Appendix C for a descriptive list of related laws foster- ing cooperative relationships for technology transfer. One result of the legislation in the 1980s (specifically, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986) was the formal chartering of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Tech- nology Transfer (FLC), a nationwide network of federal laboratories that provides a forum to develop strategies and opportunities for linking the laboratory mission technolo- gies and expertise with the marketplace. The FLC was orga- nized in 1974 to promote and strengthen technology transfer nationwide. Today, more than 700 major federal laboratories and centers and their parent departments and agencies are FLC members. The Consortium creates an environment that adds value to and supports the technology transfer efforts of its members and potential partners. The FLC develops and tests transfer methods, addresses barriers to the process, pro- vides training, highlights grass-roots transfer efforts, and emphasizes national initiatives where technology transfer has a role. For the public and private sector, the FLC brings laboratories together with potential users of government- developed technologies. The objectives of the FLC include, among others (Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer 2005): • Enhancement of efforts that couple federal laborato- ries with American industry and small businesses to strengthen the nation’s economic competitiveness; • Collaboration with local, state, regional, and national organizations that promote technical cooperation; and • Promotion of further development and adoption of effec- tive methods for federal laboratory domestic technology transfer. Interest in technology transfer in the private sector increased significantly as a result of these legislative solutions to foster competitive advantages for U.S. businesses. The laws made substantial progress in closing the gap between the univer- sity research community and the private-sector commercial community. There were strong incentives for universities to hold patents to their research products. Funds flowed into university research programs as partnerships for technology transfer grew. These partnerships were the primary vehicle for facilitating commercialization. Technology transfer in the private sector has changed dra- matically since the late 1980s. Commercialization has com- pletely overshadowed other technology transfer activities. The rush to get products to market and to create profit for a company is paramount. The literature today points most decidedly at commercialization rather than other functions of technology transfer in which private-sector companies may be engaged. Companies transfer technology within their own organizations and with partners and other peer organizations; however, the commercialization activities far outweigh other technology transfer functions and in these processes there are particularly valuable lessons for the public sector seeking to enhance its methods and practices. Commercialization has fostered a significant new infra- structure for technology transfer. “Concerned that it might be difficult for companies to locate promising technologies effectively in the complex government system, Congress cre- ated the National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC) in 1989. The NTTC works with [federal agencies such as the] National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . Depart- ment of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, and [others] to help identify promising technologies and match them with private-sector developers” (Allen 2004, p. 30). NTTC is a clear example of the support being given to foster commercialization. Not only did a new means to identify innovations appear that augmented the private sector’s efforts for commercial- izing innovations, but financial infrastructure developed as well. Venture capital firms and commercialization advisory organizations gained a strong foothold in the process of com- mercialization. These groups are experts at defining the use- fulness of a technology and matching the technology gener- ator with a commercialization organization. They also know where to get the money to fund the commercialization process and are very often the go-between or link between the uni- versity or developer and the business seeking innovations for the marketplace. Although NTTC provided a path for inno- vations that originated with federal funds, the process for commercialization of innovations from research laboratories is ofter similar for fully private-sector-funded efforts. With a broader source of innovations and added financial capability, the researchers and developers also created a more stable working structure. In particular, research uni- versities developed offices of technology transfer, which are well prepared to promote technologies suitable for commer- cialization that are produced by the universities. These offices are also equipped to deal with intellectual property and other legal hurdles, contracting and business arrangements, and they understand and use the laws designed to promote tech- nology transfer. Additionally, there is pressure to increase such commercialization activities: “state lawmakers are send- ing public research universities a clear message: its time to begin commercializing your discoveries to promote local economic development” (Schmidt 2002, p. 1). Several states have made changes in laws that reduce or eliminate barri- ers that prevent collaboration between university faculty and private companies. Also, more than one-third of the

states’ governors have requested additional funding for tech- nology transfer efforts leading to economic development (Schmidt 2002, p. 1). It is important to recap this type of private-sector experi- ence to highlight some of the successful developments that may be used by the public-sector highway community. The private-sector experience has shown the need for infrastruc- ture to help in identifying innovations, and to create finan- cial and economic capability, as well as human resource capacity for facilitating technology transfer. Furthermore, the private sector found a means to effectively close the gap between those who have an innovation and those who can put the innovation to use. The structure the private sector developed is lacking, in full measure, in public-sector tech- nology transfer efforts. The private sector now has highly experienced organizations (university offices of technology transfer) pushing the technologies out, and they have strong incentives for doing so. There are many companies ready to commercialize a new technology in hopes of it being the next success for its market. Also, the private sector consis- tently has organizations whose primary role it is to make the successful connection between the innovation generator and the innovation user. In transportation, the innovation generators, whether they are the state DOTs, consultants, research institutes, or uni- versities, generally do not have similar established offices (as with academia or the private sector) functioning with the sole responsibility to promote technology to be transferred. More- over, the users of the technology to be transferred do not have the profit motive to lend the same type of immediacy to the activities. TRB Special Report 256: Managing Technology Transfer, A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administra- tion, notes that “[U]nlike their private counterparts, public managers cannot look to the profitability of competitors as an indication of successful innovation . . .” (Jacobs and Weimer 1986, p. 139). However, the public-sector motivations for service excellence, wise stewardship of taxpayers’ dollars, and transportation safety are even more worthy causes for commitment to technology transfer. Although the streamlined structure seen in the private sector may not yet exist in the highway transportation community, transportation does have a growing number of technology transfer agents. Many of these trained experts are dedicated to LTAP/TTAP activities, are located in the FHWA Resource Center, or are distributed throughout the state DOTs. Stable Sources of Information A second element that the private and public sectors have strongly endorsed for technology transfer is information acces- sibility and availability through a well-supported national library system. Several examples of such resources that are instrumental in advancing innovation are the National Agri- 16 cultural Library (NAL) and the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Both NAL and NLM are legislatively mandated. NAL is chartered as a National Library, for public use, as well as the library for the Department of Agriculture. NLM serves the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. It is the world’s largest library for health sciences and was designed to serve medical professionals. Since 1999 it has allowed public access to services such as its free Med- line information system. NAL and NLM prepare and distribute summaries of tech- nical documents; provide reference services and document procurement; supply Internet accessibility to information experts; retain, preserve, and house unique documents and collections; and provide many other functions that are criti- cal to technology transfer. For example, one of the objectives of NLM is to promote the use of computers and telecom- munications by health professionals for purposes of improv- ing access to biomedical information for health care delivery and medical research. Also, NAL states that it is to cooper- ate with and coordinate efforts toward development of a comprehensive agricultural library and information network and to coordinate the development of specialized subject information for its users. The resources committed to these libraries, both human and financial, dwarf what transportation invests in its infor- mation access and availability. The existing information sources such as TRIS, the Research-in-Progress database, or TLCat, a catalog of the the holdings of many transportation libraries, do not approach the level of services that can be delivered by NAL or NLM. There is no full-service national library for transportation, and comprehensive national ser- vices for transportation information are not available, although these services are important to technology transfer (Harder and Tucker 2004, p. xi). Technology Diffusion Many of the private-sector technology transfer efforts have their roots in diffusion methods, and the private sector has made good use of the research in technology diffusion. Most research in this area originates in the social and behavioral sciences. Everett M. Rogers in his classic work, Diffusion of Innovations, describes diffusion as the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. He also states that diffusion is concerned with new ideas and includes social change. Rogers’ four main elements are the innovation, com- munication channels, time, and a social system. Mock et al. (1993), in Moving R&D to the Marketplace: A Guidebook for Technology Transfer Managers, discusses the diffusion process as developed by G.W. Hough. Hough’s diffusion process includes the following elements:

17 Transportation technology transfer and implementation of research results in large part have grown from the need to solve engineering problems. Technology transfer or imple- mentation of research results in transportation has often been a collateral function of those having engineering responsi- bilities. Consequently, the same engineering expertise has traditionally been used to perform technology transfer. The expertise needed for technology transfer however can be quite different than what has been used in transportation. To its advantage, the public-sector transportation community’s understanding of the unique expertise needed for technology transfer is growing. Of all the technology transfer activity that occurs in transportation, the LTAP/TTAP centers are most attuned to the diffusion models and change theory. • Current science and technology (is it possible?) • Culture (is it allowed?) • Market needs (economics—will it pay?) • Social needs (is it wanted?) From these elements come informing, innovating, and integrating processes. Outcomes of the processes are techni- cal, geopolitical, economic, and social developments. In contrast to the private sector, the public sector may not be availing itself sufficiently of the research and foundational methodologies about technology diffusion and technology transfer developed in other scientific disciplines, such as the social and behavioral sciences.

Next: Chapter Three - Successes »
Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 355: Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs explores the use of technology transfer practices in the highway transportation community. The report documents successful practices, discusses challenges encountered, and identifies the needs of those responsible for sponsoring, facilitating, and conducting technology transfer activities and processes.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!