National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter Two - Technology Transfer Overview and Application
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Successes." 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 31

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.

In research we seek the truth and share it with others. Depending on how well we share, the people are served. The world changes, and the future opens up to us. (New Mexico Department of Transportation Research Bureau Brochure) STRUCTURE AND ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER The highway transportation community has three major tech- nology transfer operating styles or approaches. The approach for each can generally be described as research-unit-led, operating-unit-led, and LTAP/TTAP-center-led. There is overlap in techniques and services; however, each of these three approaches addresses different needs for technology transfer. The two most common approaches are those led by the research unit and the LTAP/TTAP centers. However, tech- nology transfer is occurring in greater degrees within the state DOT operating divisions, especially through FHWA and organizations such as AASHTO, with its sponsored activities, committees, and technical peer groups. The research-unit-led technology transfer is primarily com- prised of facilitating the implementation of research results from its own program or successful research venues includ- ing FHWA, AASHTO, or others. For research results pro- duced by its own program, research unit staffs provide or enlist the expertise, identify necessary resources, and work in partnership with operating units to do what is needed to put an innovation into practice. For programs that contract for research, research units have the added role of being a liai- son between the external researcher and the operating unit user. For technologies or innovations originating outside the agency, the research unit will perform these same functions, but will also act as a magnet and filter to pull those innova- tions into the organization. The research unit will then act as a catalyst to get the operating units to adopt the innovation. The LTAP/TTAP-center-led approach is based on the LTAP/TTAP mission: “foster a safe, efficient, environmen- tally sound transportation system by improving the skill and knowledge of local transportation providers through training, technical assistance, and technology transfer.” Core services to clients provided by the centers are training programs, new and existing technology dissemination, personalized technical 18 assistance, website information, and newsletters. The vision developed in the strategic plan for the program includes a focus on interactive relationships, information exchange, and the ability to enrich the knowledge base of the stakeholders (see: http://www.ltapt2.org/about/program.htm). There is an LTAP/TTAP center in all 50 states and in 7 regional areas for Native American governments. As a group, the LTAP/TTAP centers have the highest concentration of trained or experi- enced technology transfer professionals in the transportation community. The centers are typically very familiar with their constituencies. They pull into their operations the technologies or knowledge (innovations) suitable for transfer. They find the right packaging or develop it for the needs of their customers, and they use a broad array of tools and mechanisms to deliver the innovation. The centers are particularly experienced in communication and outreach activities, such as instructional activities by means of: • Conferences and symposia, • Training and short courses, • Demonstrations, • Technical assistance/communications, and • Print and web-based publications and materials. A detailed list of these activities was prepared for the TRB Committee on Technology Transfer and is contained in Appendix D. The style or approach used by the LTAP/TTAP centers is one of a central go-between—the transfer agent. Transfer agents, because of their expertise in identifying tech- nologies and their thorough knowledge of their constituents, can link the technologies with the users. The third approach, operating-unit-led, focuses on the technology transfer that is pulled into the organization by operating units or through the influence of senior manage- ment who have been exposed to an external technology push (e.g., a colleague or peer recommending adoption of a tech- nology, an organizational endorsement of an innovation, or being enlisted to support an innovation and to be instrumen- tal in the adoption and deployment decisions.) This tech- nology transfer is more ad hoc; it occurs most frequently with professionals through communications among technical committees, peer person-to-person discussions, and other gen- eral word of mouth. The technology transfer happens when a viable innovation is brought to the attention of prospective users within these networks. Generally there is no assigned responsibility or defined position within operating units for CHAPTER THREE SUCCESSES

19 managing this type of technology transfer, although aware- ness of this function is growing. Although this approach is not as formal as the other two, it is very effective because it is uniquely user- and needs-driven. The technology would not be pulled into the operating unit unless it had a high potential for successful adoption. To more effectively assist in the implementation of research results, research units are striving to be more inte- grated with the operations of their respective agencies. There is a shift in some of the state DOTs to work more closely with the research units when an operation-unit-led opportunity appears. This is a helpful trend, because it can provide more technology transfer expertise to the imple- mentation effort and add some additional structure to that effort. The following sections of this document primarily address the research-unit-led and LTAP/TTAP-center-led technol- ogy transfer activities. Where appropriate the operating-unit- led efforts will be addressed; however, the ad hoc nature of their technology transfer can make the processes difficult to record in any systematic manner. FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER The following factors all strongly correlate with successful technology transfer or implementation of research results. These factors were identified through a review of the literature, interviews, and particularly from the survey responses. The literature highlighted marketplace forces as being an influ- ential factor for private-sector technology transfer. Although the technology marketing and technology push factor has its origins in the marketplace, it is included because of its applicability to public-sector practice. The literature and the practice of the organizations and programs reviewed for this synthesis support the concept that use of any of these factors is a positive move toward success. Additionally, using multiple factors for each technology trans- fer or implementation project is better than using only one or two. The factors discussed are: • Technology Push • Champions • Pilots Projects and Demonstrations • Senior Management Support • Early Involvement of Users • Technology Transfer or Implementation Plan • Qualified Technical Personnel in Lead Roles • Partnerships • Progress Monitoring and Committed Funding • Focus Area for Technology Transfer Effort • Marketing and Communications • Benefits of the Technology—Meeting Users’ Needs. Technology Push One significant factor affecting successful technology trans- fer is the push that technology exerts on prospective users. This technology push occurs often in the new product devel- opment area when vendors seek to sell an innovation to a state DOT or local government. States have formal processes for new product introductions and the assistance of the Na- tional Transportation Product Evaluation Program sponsored by AASHTO. However, there are other avenues for technol- ogy to be brought into an organization. One of the primary routes is through the AASHTO Technology Implementation Group (TIG). TIG is a combination of technology market- ing by transportation experts within AASHTO and the push of the actual technologies—that is, the attractive or com- pelling benefits exhibited by the technologies are sufficient to gain notice by a prospective user organization. Very often TIG activities are operation-unit-led, because they involve technologies outside the results produced by the agency’s research unit. The following Technology Application Note on AASHTO TIG is an example of a mechanism that pushes technology out from one successful user to other potential users. Technology Application Notes are short narratives providing an illustra- tive example of the various factors that positively affect the success of technology transfer or implementation. AASHTO TIG AASHTO created TIG to identify high-payoff, ready-to-use technologies and to champion the use of the technologies throughout the country. The group works with the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research and the Research Advisory Committee to identify new technologies. Gary Hoffman, TIG Chair, Deputy Secretary of Pennsylvania DOT notes that: “One of the criteria is that at least one state has used the tech- nology and is willing to champion it.” TIG considers whether the technology meets a need or solves a problem in the trans- portation system, how effective the technology is, what costs are involved, and the ease of widespread implementation. Once TIG has selected a technology for fast-track treatment, a lead state team develops and carries out a strategic plan for delivering the technology to users. Activities are tailored to each technology and may include the development of training pro- grams and materials, as well as sending out teams to help agen- cies learn how to apply the technology (Schweppe 2003, p. 25). The TIG process is relatively new and there are lessons being learned such as the critical role of the champion and the need for fully ready-to-implement technologies. TIG introduced three technologies each year from 2001 to 2003. Three of these technologies stand out as particularly successful for imple- mentation in the states: • Fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) repair of overhead sign structures, • Air void analyzer, and • Prefabricated bridge elements and systems. TIG originated from the successful AASHTO Strategic High- way Research Program (SHRP) Implementation Task Force, which instituted the lead state concept and successfully fos- tered implementation of SHRP products. Some of the items that facilitate success for the TIG program are the success of the innovation in the original application,

20 the credibility of the initial users who bring the success expe- rience to the attention of peers, the willingness of the state DOT that proposes the innovation to spend time and resources to replicate the success alongside other state DOTs, the re- view of the innovation and acceptance by a national program sponsored by such a trusted organization as AASHTO, use of the network established within AASHTO to further com- munications about the innovation, and more. (See: http:// www.aashtotig.org/tig/.) (K. Kobetsky, personal communication, Dec. 2, 2004.) The technology transfer process for the AASHTO TIG is contained in Appendix E. A second program influencing the successful transfer of technology is FHWA’s Priority, Market-Ready Technolo- gies and Innovations initiative. FHWA selected 20 technolo- gies and also included 9 identified by AASHTO TIG as its Market-Ready Technologies. The criteria for selection of these technologies and innovations were: • Do they support agency priorities, including strategic goals? • Is there a user need and likelihood of implementation? • Are they developed to the point of being truly market- ready, with tool(s) available for the field to market? • Is expertise available to support deployment and imple- mentation? A list of the Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Inno- vations is provided at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rnt4u/pti.htm. FHWA, through its Resource Center and division offices, is strongly promoting these technologies. Technical resources and guidance from FHWA are available to facilitate the tech- nology transfer of these innovations to transportation agen- cies. This process of identifying market-ready technologies is new and still developing. Currently, not all of the tech- nologies have been implemented and some may require addi- tional development. As with TIG, this program is identifying promising technologies and partnering with states to produce a more streamlined and effective mechanism to introduce innovation to the highway system. Marketing of technologies and the push of the techno- logies increase the opportunity for successful technology transfer. Marketing alone will not guarantee success; how- ever, the information and knowledge it conveys assists a potential user in making the decisions necessary for deter- mining whether a technology should be considered for adop- tion and deployment. The push of the technology—primarily its benefits—is an important booster of success. The bene- fits of the technology create added perseverance in those who perform technology transfer. Users will work harder at the technology transfer to realize the benefits. (See also the discussion in Benefits of the Technology—Meeting Users’ Needs later in this chapter.) Although marketing is important, there are two factors of success used by the TIG program and the FHWA Priority, Market-Ready Technologies initiative. For both of these technology transfer activities the technologies are screened and determined by peers to have a likelihood of successful implementation. Second, the vehicles that convey the tech- nology, particularly evident in the TIG process, are tried and tested. That is, the process to get the technology transferred has been done successfully before. Both of these factors, peer-reviewed innovations and proven technology transfer vehicles, substantially enhance the opportunity for success. Additional success factors were addressed by questions in the surveys conducted in conjunction with this synthesis. The responses highlighted a number of strategies and tactics that are considered factors influential in promoting success in technology transfer. Survey respondents were asked to iden- tify successful techniques, practices, or processes that their organizations used for accomplishing technology transfer. The respondents were also asked to provide insight to suc- cesses based on a recent experience in technology transfer or implementation of research results (see Figures 3 and 4). For each of these success factors rated by the state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers there is a section that discusses the factor and provides additional information about its 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Other Dedicated Funding for T2 Progress Monitoring Qualified Technical Leader Implementation Plan User Involvement Senior Mgmt. Support Pilot Projects/Demos Champion Support Fa ct or s Number of Responses n = 38 FIGURE 3 Success factors for technology transfer—State DOT. (Multiple responses were permitted.) T2 = technology transfer.

21 characteristics. These discussions are contained later in this chapter. In addition, several of the state DOT respondents indicated that partnerships with other agencies was a success factor for their activities, as well as were benefits of the inno- vation and the flexibility of the technology transfer process to accommodate issues such as changes to the budget or staff losses during the project. The LTAP/TTAP respondents also mentioned that an adequate supply of materials (resources to perform the project) were a necessary success factor as were client endorsements of the technology, strong communica- tions, and a venue conducive to learning. Because partner- ships, communications, and benefits of the technology were identified as success factors in the literature and through the interviews and elsewhere in the survey responses, these factors are also discussed in this section. Champions An empowered inventor is an invention’s best advo- cate. (R.J. Goldman, “Technology Transfer Rehabilitation: A Personal Account” 2003, p. x) For research-unit-led technology transfer, the most success- ful strategy or factor in a technology transfer situation was the presence of a champion. Champions were seen as critical participants in the successful outcome of the transfer. Cham- pions were drawn from the practitioners, from management, and from within advisory committees. If champions had not been identified, respondents advised finding them and involving them directly in the project. Champions facilitate technology transfer in a number of ways. Survey respondents stated that: • They (champions) would not give up until the project succeeded. • The bureaus involved each had a champion that promoted and demonstrated the effectiveness of the equipment. • Champions at the district level fostered user “ownership.” • The champion recognized future benefits. • Champions provided needed impetus for introduction to change. • Champions create a faster buy-in with management and workers. On average, LTAP/TTAP centers considered the presence of champions a less important factor than did the state DOTs. Champions are recognized as facilitators for technology trans- fer, and 60% of respondents considered champions important to the success of the technology transfer. However, many of the examples of successful technology transfer projects reported by the centers rated other factors such as training, demonstrations, and workshops as more critical. (See also the discussion on Partnerships in this section for an example of an effective technology transfer champion.) Pilots Projects and Demonstrations Pilot projects and demonstrations are another factor for suc- cess and are considered a valuable addition to the strategies for facilitating technology transfer. More than 80% of respon- dents from the research units indicated that pilot projects and demonstrations were important success factors. LTAP/TTAP centers rely heavily on workshops, demonstrations, and pilot projects; however, they did not rate pilot projects and demon- strations as highly as the state DOTs. However, 50% of the LTAP/TTAP centers considered pilot projects and demonstra- tions a factor for success, which is also a strong endorsement. One center respondent summed up the importance of this fac- tor by noting that, “People learn best by problem solving and hands-on applications.” The following Technology Application Note describes a program specifically designed to demonstrate products. It is an example of how important demonstrations are to the transfer of technology. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180 Other Progress Monitoring Dedicated T2 Funding Pilot Project Use, Field Demos T2 Champion Early User Involvement Senior Management Support T2 Plan Qualified Technical Personnel Fa ct or s Number of Responses n = 22 FIGURE 4 Success factors for technology transfer—LTAP/TTAP. (Multiple responses were permitted.) T2 = technology transfer.

Florida LTAP Center Product Demonstration Showcase, “Experience Technology” Mission of the Product Demonstration Showcase (PDS) Program—Advance the implementation of roadway and bridge technology in the municipal arena by providing decision mak- ers a total, start to finish, unbiased, real-time project experi- ence of field-applied technologies and processes. The PDS is an information exchange mechanism that can reduce or eliminate the financial, professional, and political risk public agencies face when committing hard-to-come-by funds implementing technology when little or no practical field experience exists. The process allows hands-on experiences for the participants who interact with knowledgeable peers and others experienced in the technology application. Each PDS must include these five elements: • A neutral sponsor (LTAP) • A user agency host participant • Industry/contractor/consultant participant • In-use site visits, for real-time evaluations • A complete live demonstration. These elements are requirements for the PDS to occur. The LTAP Center acts as the facilitator, only when the other play- ers agree to be active participants. Each PDS focuses on new or upgraded solutions to local road and bridge problems. Researchers, end users, and contractor/vendors all partici- pate in the showcase information exchange process. Profes- sional and elected decision makers gain practical, hands-on experience with new or upgraded products and services in a setting where the perception of bias has been eliminated. Prior to 2003 six showcases were conducted, such as a pave- ment management program implementation solution, a cost- effective solution for paving unpaved roads, and an asphalt pavement rejuvenation solution. In less than 3 years, nearly $250 million in local agency improvements and resulting impact occurred as a direct outcome of conducting the six showcases (Peaslee 2003). Senior Management Support Both research units and LTAP/TTAP centers considered the support of senior management a significant factor for suc- cess. When asked to explain why, responses provided some additional insight: • Deputy Secretary previously served as the Director of Materials Research. • Senior management has to make the investment deci- sions. • Senior management mandated use of the innovation. • Received support from the legislature. From these responses, it is clear that decision makers are influential in the technology transfer process. They are uniquely different from the technology champion, although they may also endorse the innovation. They provide resources and guidance, and they lead by example. They are account- able for the outcomes and, in some cases, through personal experience, readily identify with the technology transfer pro- cess. Senior management support was ranked the third most influential for success of those factors ranked by both research units and LTAP/TTAP centers. 22 The following Technology Application Note on the Ore- gon DOT LTAP Center discusses the influence and impact of senior management on the success of technology transfer. The Oregon LTAP Center used its Roads Scholar Program as an example of a successful technology transfer effort. The pro- gram is a structured training curriculum in highway construc- tion, preservation, and maintenance technology leading to a skills level certificate for maintenance and operations employ- ees. There was strong support from the Technology Transfer Steering Committee and the Association of Oregon Counties. Because of the lead and interest of these organizations’ senior managers, many initial participants for the program were employees from the steering committee’s organizations. The training program enhanced skills of the employees, thus enabling them to be more effective in their respective work roles. The support of the senior managers drew attention to the program, provided additional program credibility for munic- ipal governments not familiar with the training opportunity, and heightened the priority for organizations considering the train- ing. Implementation of the training program occurred more rapidly because of the senior mangers’ influence. Additionally, the success of the initial training built trust in the program and assisted in bringing others to the program. Other success fac- tors noted were that champions appeared through the steer- ing committee’s involvement, a technology transfer plan was created, and that substantial benefits were anticipated as the result of other successful programs. Early Involvement of Users A tenet of research results implementation success is to involve the user early in the process of the research (Bikson et al. 1996). Participants in technology transfer include this factor in their practice whether it is transferring the results of research or an existing technology or innovation transfer. For both state DOT research units and LTAP/TTAP centers, this factor ranks fourth in importance, and is considered a factor for success by nearly 80% of respondents from state DOT research units and 60% from LTAP/TTAP centers. As reported in the following Technology Application Note, the early involvement of bicycle advocates (users) was a primary success factor for the implementation of a safety device for Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) highways. PennDOT—Bicycle-Friendly Shoulder Rumble Strips Shoulder rumble strips reduce run-off-the road vehicle crashes on urban and rural freeways. Because of the potential for reductions of crashes, PennDOT considered installing shoul- der rumble strips on non-freeway facilities. However, as shoul- der rumble strip installations were extended to non-freeway facilities, bicyclists would encounter rumble strips more fre- quently. Understandably, bicyclists were concerned about maneuverability problems while traversing rumble strips. The strips are very uncomfortable to ride over and may cause loss of control of the bicycle. The department’s rumble strip configurations were evaluated for their potential to be bicycle friendly, yet still retain the alert- ing properties for drowsy/inattentive drivers in motor vehicles. Volunteer bicyclists were invited to participate in the study. They rode different types of bicycles over the rumble strip con- figurations at different speeds and at different angles. The bicyclists’ perspectives were incorporated into the research

23 and were a significant contribution to the research findings. Implementing the research results and transferring the tech- nology was facilitated through a primary success factor— involvement of the user early in the implementation process, in this case, directly in the research effort. The user involve- ment not only assisted in determining which rumble strip con- figuration was best for both types of roadway users, it provided credibility for PennDOT with its bicycle riding customers, and it reduced resistance from bicycle advocates to this roadway improvement. Technology Transfer or Implementation Plan As indicated in the survey results, research units and LTAP/ TTAP centers consider having a plan for the conduct of the technology transfer or implementation activities an impor- tant factor for success. Nearly three-quarters of those respond- ing to the surveys in both groups endorsed preparing a plan as a technique that enhances the likelihood of a positive out- come. Many state DOT research units are now requiring implementation plans at various stages of the research process. A number of states require an implementation plan as a deliv- erable product accompanying the research results. States also require implementation plans to initiate the process for fund- ing implementation or technology transfer efforts associated with adoption of an innovation. Additionally, implementa- tion plans become working documents that are used to guide the implementation process. For the most part the imple- mentation plans are short and relatively easy to prepare. Many state DOTs indicated that ease of completing the plan was a primary factor. If the plan is easy to complete, it has a higher likelihood of being done. Committing to planning up front saves later problems that arise in the form of costs, delays, and rework. There is additional discussion on implementation plans in chapter five. A well-constructed plan is an important success factor for implementation of research results and technology transfer. The Technology Application Note here provides an outline of the plan used by the Minnesota DOT (Mn/DOT) for the successful implementation of the many results of its research program. Mn/DOT—Implementation Plan Outline Mn/DOT has emphasized implementation of research results for many years. Its plan outline allows varying degrees of detail. Their Implementation Plan Outline is as follows: 1. Evaluate the results of the research a. Do the results solve the problem? If not, why? b. Are the results implementable? If not, why? c. Can implementation of the results yield benefits? If not, why? 2. Identify each task necessary for implementation and develop a step-by-step scenario describing the implementation process. a. Task description (What?) b. Task purpose (Why?) c. Task responsibility (Who?) d. Task resources and cost (How? How much?) e. Detailed schedule of tasks (When? Where?) 3. Develop a measuring system that will evaluate the benefits derived from implementing the research results. Whenever possible, express the benefits in terms of current Mn/DOT per- formance measures. a. Measure(s) description (What?) b. Measure(s) purpose (Why?) c. Measure(s) responsibility (Who?) d. Measure(s) resources and cost (How? How much?) e. Measure(s) schedule (When? Where?) Accompanying this outline for an Implementation Plan is a Research Implementation Guide, which lists ten steps for implementation. The guide also explains the purpose of each step and asks clarifying questions to aid in documenting the appropriate strategies. • Think about the end results • Understand the environment • Find the opportunity • Know thy customers • Involve the right players • Explore the most appropriate tool • Make strategic use of resources • Bring in the experts • Define, define • Evaluate and celebrate. A number of organizations use implementation or tech- nology transfer planning aids. The FHWA RD&T Technol- ogy Facilities Action Plan is used to finalize action plans for the delivery of research products from the Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center. The form is used by FHWA pro- gram offices as well as the researchers to foster more effec- tive technology transfer. The Indiana DOT (INDOT) Research Project Implementation Plan is a one-page form that names the person(s) who will implement the innovation, identifies the items to be implemented, and requires details of resources needed for the implementation. The Kansas DOT implemen- tation plan form requests an assessment of the implementa- tion potential, asks for a description of the implementation strategies, and includes task scheduling and budget estimates. The PennDOT form particularly highlights communications actions to be taken and asks for identification of other actions that will further the implementation process. These imple- mentation planning tools are contained in Appendix F. LTAP/TTAP centers also emphasize the need for plans and consider planning essential for their technology transfer efforts. The centers use many different experts to conduct their activities. Additionally, the centers have a variety of venues as well as a wealth of types of transfer options. There are a host of details and planning is critical for the success of the trans- fer opportunity. Similarly, when the AASHTO TIG initiates a technology transfer in a state DOT an implementation plan is the primary guide for adopting the innovation. Qualified Technical Personnel in Lead Roles Top ranked among the success factors for LTAP/TTAP cen- ters is qualified technical personnel in lead roles. Without technical expertise little transfer of knowledge and under- standing of an innovation would occur. The existence of LTAP/TTAP centers is based on qualified technical staff or

contracted expertise. Without them, workshops, showcases, demonstrations, training, road shows, and technical assis- tance would not and could not take place. The credibility of LTAP/TTAP centers is based on the quality of the expertise and the ability to convey to the prospective user sufficient knowledge and information for decision making to affect change. The South Dakota LTAP Center considers as a pri- mary success factor its “large body of knowledge . . . [its technology transfer] field staff have 150 years of experi- ence.” Other LTAP/TTAP centers clearly link success with “qualified instructors,” “qualified people assigned [to] the lead role,” and “a dedicated team of instructors/assistants who are available for technical assistance.” The research units and programs such as TIG have often identified the technical expertise in the researcher or through a lead state technical expert. They are already associated with the innovation. Furthermore, in the case of research results implementation, the users are brought into the research at an early stage, thus beginning the technology transfer process. The research units determined that such qualified technical capacity was an important success factor, although other fac- tors such as champions, pilot programs and demonstrations, and senior management support had higher rankings in the synthesis survey. The Technology Application Note that follows illustrates the value General Motors assigns to having well-qualified people in lead roles for technology transfer. This company specifically trains employees to be the lead as well as be a communication channel for facilitating technology transfer Transferring Technology at General Motors General Motors Research Laboratories (GMR) developed a program to facilitate transferring innovations generated by GMR to key corporate locations within the GM Corporation. Its primary methodology was to move critical technical expertise from research into other GM staff and operating units. The pro- gram focuses on transferring the capabilities of people rather than of products. Approximately 10% to 15% of GMR’s newly hired engineers and scientists receive intensive training at the research laboratories with the knowledge that they will be transferred to an operating division. These entry-level employ- ees (technology transfer engineers—TTEs) are provided with a complex and challenging assignment that is a collaborative project with an operating unit. The TTEs have a technical men- tor within GMR and build expertise in a specific technical area. The transition of the TTE occurs after up to 18 months in the research unit. During the last 4 to 6 months of the project the TTE begins transitioning to the operating unit. To ease the tran- sition, the TTE has office locations in the research unit and the operating unit and develops relationships with the new organi- zation as well as continues ties to GMR. The TTE in time fully transitions to the operating unit and arrives at that position with viable research effort experience and the potential to lead future research efforts. The last element of the technology transfer process is that GMR maintains close contact with TTEs and uses them as a conduit through which it can channel its sub- sequent innovations. “TTEs become ‘centers of technology’ at the divisional unit and [share their expertise] through consult- ing or formal training [of others in the unit].” The TTEs also pro- vide a direct link from the operating unit back to GMR, which allows the research unit to be more informed about operating needs and current activities (Ezzat et al. 1989). 24 Partnerships As with qualified technical personnel, the participants in tech- nology transfer are a factor for success. The team or partner- ship formed must have the right skills and abilities to positively affect the effort. For LTAP/TTAP centers, the participants with the highest average involvement are state DOT program/ operations personnel, local or municipal experts, university educators or researchers, and state field office personnel. In this Technology Application Note, the key to success was the selection of the various participants to form a part- nership to facilitate technology transfer. This example also shows the benefits of a qualified person in a lead role, the value of a champion, and the assistance of identifiable bene- fits to facilitate technology transfer. Northern Plains Tribal Technology Transfer Program Gravel Road Maintenance and Heavy Equipment Mainte- nance Training “We couldn’t do this without our Tribal Government Partners” The Northern Plains TTAP serves one of the largest land- based tribal reservations and is located in the north-central United States. The area is economically depressed, having at times an unemployment rate in excess of 80%. The TTAP Center, in conjunction with the Tribal Employment Rights Office and the Tribal transportation department, conducted a gravel road maintenance and heavy equipment mainte- nance training course and pilot project. The training efforts began with classroom work to enable the tribal participants to qualify for becoming certified flaggers and included the proper procedures for setting up work zones. The second step of classroom training prepared participants for passing commercial driver license testing and operating and main- taining heavy equipment. (Often heavy equipment operators are required to drive their equipment to the project site.) The classroom work positioned the participants for the field pilot, rebuilding a section of road in the reservation. Practical expe- rience took over and the participants learned in the field how to stake out a road rebuilding project, protect themselves and motorists through appropriate work zone safety, ensure their safety in equipment operations and maintenance, and learn hands-on cost-effective and correct equipment main- tenance procedures. Several success factors are noteworthy in this experience. Foremost was the selection of the various participants for the program. Without the partnership between the TTAP Center and the tribal government, the program would not have suc- ceeded. The tribal cooperation brought funds to the project, as well as solved one of the hurdles for the technology transfer effort, finding equipment for the pilot project. Additionally, the TTAP Center identified a technically qualified person to be the technical trainer, a former heavy equipment operator and a tribal member. The trainer established immediate credibility for the technology transfer project as well as being a champion for it. This champion allowed faster buy-in with the transportation director and the workers from the transportation office main- tenance crew. The overall project was very successful because it produced a section of rebuilt roadway, provided workers with marketable skills, and set a standard for safer equipment operations and maintenance within the Tribal Transportation Office. “We always try to make sure what we do has relevance” (D. Trusty, personal communication, Sep. 2, 2004).

25 The research units also noted that the involvement of cer- tain types of participants is associated with successful tech- nology transfer efforts. The participants with the highest average rated involvement with the research units were their own office personnel, and personnel from headquarters pro- gram and operations and regional and district offices, along with outside research organizations. A partnership among these types of participants is a common occurrence for tech- nology transfer. Well-chosen participants for technology transfer in many cases are found in county and municipal governments. The Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Technology Application Note is an example of having the right partici- pants for the job of technology transfer. Minnesota LRRB—Program Description The Minnesota LRRB was established in 1959 and has oper- ated as a means to involve the state’s county and city officials in research and technology implementation efforts. The LRRB has sponsored more than 150 projects on topics dealing with materials and methods used in constructing and maintaining pavement, drainage systems and other utilities under the pave- ment, management of the roadside environment, and bridge construction and maintenance. Local engineers submit ideas to the LRRB that selects and approves proposals. Mn/DOT provides administrative support, and researchers from the DOT, universities, and consulting firms conduct the research. The LRRB is funded by state moneys specifically legislated for its research and technology transfer and implementation activities. The LRRB budget has grown from approximately $86,000 in 1960 to $2.3 million in 2004. A key to the success of this program is the high level of involvement of the local officials in setting the agenda for research and the strong participation of these officials in implementing the results of the research. A notable function in the LRRB is its Research Implementation Committee (RIC). RIC makes information available and transfers research results into practical applications for local officials. RIC uses a variety of methods to reach engineers and others with new develop- ments and innovations, such as videos, reports, pamphlets, seminars, workshops, field demonstrations, CD-ROMs, web systems, and on-site visits. Members of RIC are drawn from cities and counties, including county engineers, city directors of public works, and city engineers. Representatives from Mn/DOT research and state aid offices are also RIC members. In addition, individuals submitting a problem that is funded by the RIC may be asked to serve on the technical panel over- seeing the conduct of the research. Special care is taken to involve potential local users to facilitate the implementation of the research results whether they serve on the RIC, guide research, or are involved with outreach efforts. In every aspect, the LRRB seeks to select the appropriate local participants for its activities. The LRRB has been remarkably successful in transferring technology and implementing its research results. It uses a number of the success factors discussed in this chapter and, importantly, it uses well-chosen partners as a factor for its success. The respondents to the survey provided a look at the types of participants that are involved in successful technology transfer or implementation of research efforts (see Figures 5 and 6). The respondents were asked what types of partici- pants were involved in successful efforts. For state DOTs, the participants from the agency and a research organization were the most highly involved. For LTAP/TTAP a variety of participants were active, such as state DOT program and operations personnel, local experts, university researchers, and state maintenance personnel, among others. These sur- vey results show what type of participation (each with an implied expertise) contributed to the success of the effort. The survey results showed that there were four main participants in the state DOT process of technology transfer or implementation of research results: the research office personnel—often contributing the research administration and technology transfer expertise, the program or operations staff—often responsible for the change in specifications or policy that the innovation must include before being deployed, the field office staff that will be governing where the inno- vation will be put into practice, and the outside research orga- nization that performed the research. A majority of the state 0.00 0.50 1.50 2.502.00 3.001.00 Local/Municipal Expert T2 Contractor Trade/Prof. Association Expert Other State Peers Federal Agency Experts Field Maintenance Office Staff Outside Research Organization Region/Dist. Office Staff HQ Program/Operations Staff Research Office Personnel Ty pe o f P ar tic ip an t Average Involvement Rating 3 - high involvement 2 - moderate involvement 1 - low involvement 0 - no involvement n = 38 FIGURE 5 Average involvement of participants in successful technology transfer efforts—State DOT. (Multiple responses were permitted.) T2 = technology transfer.

26 research units conduct research through contracted research services, and the ranking of the participation of outside re- searchers confirms that practice. Others that were involved in technology transfer activities with the state DOTs partici- pated at less involved levels owing to the nature of the spe- cific project or, as with FHWA, their role would require less involvement considering that it is an oversight function. The LTAP/TTAP centers however show the involvement of many types of participants, all at no more than moderate levels. The state DOT program or operations office and a local or municipal expert were most often involved in the technology transfer activities of the centers. Nearly all of the other participants for the technology transfer effort were cho- sen because of the unique skill that person could bring to the technology transfer activity. Additionally, the LTAP/TTAP centers often had a wide variety of individuals involved in the technology transfer activity, each contributing in some impor- tant aspect. The collaborative nature of the LTAP/TTAP cen- ters’ activities showed a more diverse group of participants, perhaps reflecting more of an outreach function than the tech- nology transfer activities of the state DOTs. For both groups, state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers, experts in technology transfer, contracted to perform services, had a relatively low involvement. Progress Monitoring and Committed Funding Progress monitoring and committed funding have influence on success; however, both research units and LTAP/TTAP centers considered them less important than most other fac- tors. Only slightly more than one-third of the centers and approximately two-thirds of the research units believed that progress monitoring was a factor for success. The lower rat- ing by the LTAP/TTAP centers may reflect the notion that the technology transfer activities may not be as long term as those facilitated by the state DOT research units. The require- ment for progress tracking is somewhat less critical when sponsoring, for example, a one-time event. The implementa- tion or technology transfer efforts of research units can extend from the inception of the research to several years beyond completion of the research as efforts proceed to put the inno- vation into practice. As discussed in chapter five, the infor- mal survey on needs to the RAC showed that having a better process for technology transfer or implementation tracking and scheduling is desirable. Partly owing to the long-term nature of the implementa- tion or technology transfer, and considering the variety of deployment locations across a state DOT, there often is a sep- aration of the research and its implementation efforts. It is common for research to be done in state DOTs without an adequate ongoing supply of funds for implementation. Some federal-aid State Planning & Research (SP&R) funds may be used for implementation and technology transfer; however, they are generally not sufficient to complete all of the work. Often funds are not committed until an innovation is ready to be deployed and, as with the LTAP/TTAP centers, the part- ner organizations share the cost of the technology transfer. Of the 38 state DOTs providing information in the synthesis survey, their best estimate was that on average they spend approximately 9.3% of their Research Part II, SP&R federal- aid funds on technology transfer and implementation activi- ties. (This figure is a component part of the total expenditure figure for technology transfer and implementation activities discussed later.) Dedicated funding has traditionally been a primary booster for technology transfer activities (Bikson 1996). The past two federal transportation acts have increased research funding, and many states have committed a portion of these funds to implementation and technology transfer (Harder 2000). However, more needs to be done, and state 0 1 2 30.5 1.5 2.5 Outside Research Organization State DOT Research Office University Administration State DOT Region/District Office Federal Agency Experts T2 Contractor Other Peer with Technology Experience State DOT Maintenance Field Office Trade/Professional Association Expert University Educators/Researchers Local or Municipal Expert State DOT Program/Operations Office O rg an iz at io n Average Involvement Rating 3 - high involvement 2 - moderate involvement 1 - low involvement 0 - no involvement n = 22 FIGURE 6 Average involvement of participants in successful technology transfer efforts—LTAP/TTAP. (Multiple responses were permitted.) T2 = technology transfer.

27 DOTs are finding other sources of funds to help accomplish technology transfer. States are beginning to dedicate specific funds for imple- mentation, and three states, Georgia, Minnesota, and Wyoming, reported having legislation that specifically funded technol- ogy transfer or implementation activities. Although these states have dedicated funding for technology transfer, there was no indicator in this brief review of funding that this com- mitment affected the amount of the funds for technology transfer and implementation of research results. Such legis- lated funding however does provide a stable funding source for ensuring that innovations are put into practice. South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Kansas have committed the greatest percentages of their SP&R, Part II Research funds for implementation of research results or technology transfer (20%, 25%, 33%, and 75%, respectively). The state DOTs with respondents having 5 of fewer years of experi- ence in technology transfer was the group that committed a greater percentage of their SP&R research moneys to tech- nology transfer on the average than the other two groups. This group represented 34% of the respondents and 40% of the SP&R research moneys committed. The group with mid- dle level experience (6 to 14 years) committed on average the least amount, and those with the greatest amount of experi- ence (15 years or more) committed about the average of all respondents of their funds for technology transfer activities. Even with this average commitment to funding, the state DOT respondents having 15 or more years of experience had larger total program budgets from all types of funding including SP&R research funds. [The group with the most experience (15 or more years) in technology transfer was responsible for 62% of the total of all types of funding for research and research-related activities and represented 46% of all respondents.] Approximately one-third of the respondents to the state DOT survey reported that they receive funds other than SP&R moneys from other department unit’s federal-aid bud- gets, training course fees, other discretionary federal funds, state funds, and LTAP moneys. The state DOTs also reported that on average they spend approximately 6.5% of total agency funds committed to research and research-related activities on technology transfer and implementation activi- ties. (Note that without California’s large commitment to technology transfer through agency and other funds, in addi- tion to Research Part II, SP&R moneys, the average total for respondents would drop to 5.3%.) Of the LTAP/TTAP respondents, six centers indicated their states had legislation that provided funding to their pro- grams. Four of these centers have program budgets of more than $450,000 and have the largest LTAP/TTAP program budgets of the respondents to this survey. Although other LTAP/TTAP centers that did not respond to the survey may have large budgets, it is important to consider that legislated funding is a catalyst for success; it contributes to stable, sus- tainable programs. The level of experience for LTAP/TTAP respondents does not suggest any correlation with the size of the program budget. LTAP/TTAP centers reported that they receive funds from a variety of sources as well. All centers receive federal- aid LTAP program funds. In addition, the majority of the 22 LTAP/TTAP centers responding to the survey reported that they also receive funding from up to five other sources, includ- ing training fees, state funds, university funds, local funds, and private-sector funds. Often the funds, such as the SP&R research funds, require matches. The centers noted several additional sources of funding including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, tribal governments, and other federal agencies, such as the National Transportation Safety Administration. Table 2 shows the types of funding and the percent of respondents that receive moneys from these various sources. Focus Area for Technology Transfer Effort Respondents to the surveys for this synthesis were asked about the area of focus for a successful technology transfer or implementation project. Three areas were included in suc- cessful efforts; the most frequently cited for research units being knowledge transfer and for LTAP/TTAP centers train- ing and education (see Table 3). There was no clear indica- tion that any of these focus areas were a major success deter- minant, but that there was a focus to the project that tended to be a factor that promoted success. The concept of having a focus and a goal was beneficial for the projects. Table 3 also shows that knowledge transfer is a primary focus of technology transfer and implementation of research results for both state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers. Both groups considered transferring knowledge a critical element of their activities. Furthermore, LTAP/TTAP centers con- sider training and education an even more important focus area for their programs. Marketing and Communications Successful technology transfer programs depend on effec- tively segmenting user audiences, and tailoring strategies to those audiences and to different stages of the tech- nology development process (Special Report 256: Man- aging Technology Transfer: A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administration 1999, p. 23). Effective marketing and communications are key success factors of technology transfer. Every successful technology transfer activity in some manner involves the packaging or marketing of the innovation to suit the intended audience or user. Additionally, effective communications techniques are required to convey the knowledge and skills for users to pro- mote change in their respective settings. INDOT noted that

28 “a good marketing plan and public relations [communica- tions] to every level in the agency and local entities” was required for a brine tank technology transfer effort. When the Kansas DOT required technology transfer of issues sur- rounding the long-term probability of grain-dependent short- line railroads, the principal investigator of the research publicized results of the project through a widely distributed news release. The DOT and the users gained a broader aware- ness of the project, which assisted in the implementation of the research results. Also, results were made available to the Kansas State Legislature and other interested parties to help provide support and funding for further work. Another exam- ple is the research that the Ohio DOT is conducting to under- stand how to market and communicate its research results. Although this project focused on communicating the benefits of research, the findings have also provided an opportunity for the research unit to apply these methods to the imple- mentation and technology transfer process. The following four Technology Application Notes show the value of marketing and communications for three state DOTs, Indiana, Washington State, and Ohio, and the 3M Company. Marketing and proper packaging of information streamlines the approval processes, professional communi- cation tools assist in program effectiveness, and knowing the users and customers of the program is an important fac- tor for facilitating technology transfer and implementation of research results. Marketing and Technology Deployment Work Group The Technology Deployment Work Group is a partnership among FHWA, Indiana Division; INDOT; Purdue University; and the Joint Transportation Research Program. This work group identifies technologies for promotion and adoption within INDOT. In the past 3 years, 13 technologies have been imple- mented through this work group including Spread Footings for Bridge Abutments, Galvanized Steel Diaphragms for Concrete Beams, and Environmental Management of Winter Salt Runoff Problems. Marketing is an integral element for the technology deployment. The group prepares a marketing plan for its tech- nologies that are to be implemented and deployed throughout the state. These plans contain: • Needs assessment • Project and technology description • Technology analysis – Technology background, profile, and analysis – Description of current practice in Indiana – Market profile and segments – Technology support – Cost–benefit evaluation – Suggested funding sources • Short- and long-term goals and objectives for implemen- tation • Recommended implementation strategies and require- ments • Action items • Partners, personnel, task responsibilities • Success measures. Once this marketing plan is done, the Technology Deployment Group uses it as the basis for its communications about the deployment or technology transfer efforts. A marketing plan was created for a project on Emergency Generators and Elec- tronic Control Systems for Interstate Drinking Water Plants, Wastewater Treatment Plants, and Lift Stations. An executive briefing based on information developed in the marketing plan was prepared for the department’s executive and senior man- agement. On the strength of the briefing, the executive staff approved the project. Other promotion efforts distributed by the Technology Deployment Group are publications aimed at specific audiences, as well as business-card-size CDs (Pamplin and Arnold 2003; Pamplin 2004). Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Communications Toolkit The WSDOT has created a Communications Toolkit—avail- able on the WSDOT intranet and containing virtually everything a WSDOT employee needs to know about communicating internally and externally. The toolkit contains information on: • How to interact with the media, including press release guidance and examples, media kits, what to do when the media calls, interview guides, and more; • Planning communications and strategies; • Presentation guidelines and techniques; • Writing strategies and sample letters; and • Images for incorporating into communications vehicles. The Communications Toolkit provides a consistent and pro- fessional approach to communicating within the DOT as well as with customers and stakeholders. The research unit in WSDOT is a beneficiary of this department-generated tool. This example shows that those performing technology trans- fer and implementation of research results have options to find excellent tools necessary for their activities without having to possess the expertise or create the tool. This is especially important when dealing with a discipline not commonly found in a research unit. Ohio DOT (ODOT) Communication Strategies for State Transportation Programs Focus of Tech Transfer Marketing 65.8 50 Knowledge transfer 92.1 81.8 Training and education 55.3 90.9 Notes: Percent of total responses. Multiple responses were permitted. Group Research Unit LTAP/TTAP (%) (%) TABLE 3 FOCUS OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER EFFORT Source of Funding Centers Receiving Such Funds (%) Federal-aid/SP&R Local State Training and other fees 31.8 36.4 40.9 100 University Private sector 27.3 22.7 Notes: Multiple responses were permitted. SP&R = State Planning & Research. TABLE 2 SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR LTAP/TTAP CENTERS

29 ODOT recently conducted a project to develop a strategic communications plan for its research office that supports ODOT’s overall mission and goals, obtains feedback from selected ODOT constituents, and develops a communications template for use by other DOTs. The study was based on 12 comprehensive internal surveys and surveys of primary exter- nal constituents in academia, FHWA, contractors, county engi- neers associations, Ohio legislators, Ohio residents, and other state DOTs. The surveying purpose was to: • Assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the ODOT Research Office. • Develop recommendations to better inform and thereby better serve constituents. • Discover communications mechanisms used nation- wide. • Increase awareness of research through efficient two- way communications (Knott 2004). 3M Company Communications and Internal Technology Transfer The following Technology Application Note is based on a tele- phone interview with a 3M representative and an interview with Dr. Judith Benham, Technical Director of the 3M Pack- aging Systems Division, as reported in the University of Wis- consin–Madison School of Business Fall/Winter 2000 newslet- ter, Manufacturing and Technology Matters. 3M is committed to promoting excellent communications among its technical employees and has formal structures for facilitating such com- munications. One of its renowned functions is its Technology Forum, established in 1951 to “encourage free and active interchange of information and the cross-fertilization of ideas.” (See http://www.3m.com/us/about3M/innovation/firsts.jhtml.) Each technical employee is a member of the Technical Forum and is able to designate areas of interest for participation. The Technical Forum is organized into chapters similar to profes- sional technical societies. Chapters can be established when a core of interested employees can be organized. Chapters meet on a regular basis and sponsor speakers and other tech- nical knowledge events. Among the objectives of the Techni- cal Forum is to foster communications among the variety of technical disciplines In addition, communications among 3M technical employees also occurs through symposia conducted during the year, where researchers present papers or posters on their work. Furthermore, 3M conducts the Annual Event, which is an inter- nal technical trade show. For example, up to one-half of a major division’s knowledge workers participate annually. Indi- viduals present new technologies in their respective area that may lead to new product opportunities. Technical employees from throughout 3M can wander among the booths, talk indi- vidually with the researchers involved in the technology, and discuss how the technology might be applied. LTAP/TTAP centers possess considerable communica- tions expertise. LTAP/TTAP centers consider communica- tions to be a lifeline to their operations. The basis of tech- nology transfer for these centers is to use some form of communications to deliver the message to the audience, whether it is a technical road show by a circuit rider, a train- ing course for local maintenance employees, a video confer- ence for state DOT employees, or a showcase for an area’s transportation community. Refer to Appendix D for the var- ious forms of communication and outreach mechanisms used by LTAP/TTAP centers. Benefits of Technology—Meeting Users’ Needs In addition to the techniques and methods used to accomplish technology transfer, there is one essential success factor that should not be overlooked—the benefits of the technology to be transferred. Supplying what the user needs, when the user needs it, in a form that can be used, at a cost that is reason- able is a compelling success factor. Many of the survey respondents indicated that benefits of the innovation or the technology to be transferred were a significant success booster. They reported that: • “The innovation was cost-effective.” • “The project involved cost savings and was an environ- mentally friendly solution to a common problem.” • “We saved money.” • “The project involved an accurate identification of needs.” • “This was a safety project that we expect will reduce accidents, which is a top priority of the DOT.” • “The project involved the bicycle community and demonstrated an effort to address concerns.” EVALUATING SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Both state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers were asked whether they applied methods of performance measurement to the technology transfer projects. Questions regarding evaluation were asked about general practices and then about a specific technology transfer or implementation effort (see Table 4). Both state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers use perfor- mance measures, but they were not seen as necessary crite- ria for success. If performance measures were used, however, they were considered a success factor. The respondents to the surveys also identified the types of performance measures that were used. The LTAP/TTAP centers used surveys, feedback forms from participants, follow-up visits for determining Group Used Measures for Performance— General Practice Used Measures for Performance— Specific Successful Project State DOT 16 yes 20 no 18 yes 18 no LTAP/TTAP 17 yes 5 no 13 yes 9 no TABLE 4 USE OF METHODS FOR MEASURING PERFORMANCE

effectiveness, testing of skills acquired, and peer exchange. Approximately 60% of the LTAP/TTAP centers used the information for input to annual reports, accountability to senior management, and program justification. Other uses for the outcomes of the measures were to modify programs and manuals, as justification for more activities, and for various forms of information dissemination. For the types of methods used for measuring performance, state DOTs mentioned measures such as the number of research findings implemented, tally of outcomes that result in change, quantification of savings, relationship of project to priority needs, and number of organizations that changed methods. The most frequently cited means for evaluation were benefit–cost and return-on-investment determinations for quantitative data and surveys for qualitative data. Only about 25% of the state DOT survey respondents used the information generated from measuring performance in their annual reports or for program justification. Approximately 35% of responding agencies used the information for account- ability to senior management. (Note that only half of the respondents used measures for performance.) State DOTs also reported the information on their web pages and pub- lished it in research newsletters, received additional funds for programs, and, for specific projects, used the performance data for facilitating implementation. State DOTs with a role defined to coordinate technology transfer tend to use or not use performance measures equally. However, when there is no coordinating function, there is a two times greater likelihood that the agency will not use per- formance measures for technology transfer and implementa- tion of research results activities. Furthermore, the experi- ence level of the respondent has little influence on whether performance measures are used. According to the LTAP/TTAP respondents, performance measures were used at approximately the same rate whether the LTAP/TTAP center was operated by a state DOT or by others. Such measures were used about three times more frequently than not used. REPLICATING SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Of the successful technology transfer projects reported on in the LTAP/TTAP survey, respondents indicated that they were moderate to easy to replicate in another agency. This is an important factor for enhancing the content and increasing the number of technology transfer activities. Representative projects include: • Statewide workshops; • Training and technical assistance for the new Highway Capacity Manual; • Summer intern program management; • Product demonstration/showcase; 30 • Maintenance resource guides, training modules, and CD-ROM files developed, produced, and distributed nationally; and • Roads Scholar Program. LTAP/TTAP centers identified elements of their technol- ogy transfer projects that were either easy or difficult to repli- cate. Examples of those easiest to replicate are: • Basic course design and curriculum, • Classroom presentations, • Convening stakeholders, • Finding training locations, • Core program of slides, and • Setting up a program. Whereas examples of those hardest to replicate include: • Dedication and knowledge of lead team; • Getting committed group willing to help; • Private-sector involvement; • Securing funding (about one-quarter of respondents highlighted this item); • Field demonstration—owing to the need for equipment, operator, and good weather; and • Interagency communications. State DOTs were also asked if the successful project they reported on would be easy to replicate in another agency, with responses spanning the range from easiest to hardest with little consensus. The degree to which the technology transfer effort could be replicated had little relationship to the various technology transfer processes conducted during these efforts. The state DOTs provided some insight to the elements that were easiest or hardest to replicate. Examples of the easiest to replicate are: • Marketing efforts, • Partnership with transportation association, • Mechanics of the training process, • Cooperation among DOT sections, • Arranging the workshop, • Having training manuals and modules available on DOT website, and • Showing benefits through demonstration. Whereas examples of the hardest to replicate include: • Finding a champion; • Staffing for technology transfer; • Policy and legislative changes; • Tailoring the system to a state’s specific needs; • Finding resources, expertise, time, and funds; • Overcoming opposition of contractors; and • Technical expertise to sustain production.

31 Reviewing these elements will prepare an individual who is considering incorporating the element in his or her own environment. The elements hardest to replicate were those that presented particular hurdles to some of the respondents. SOURCE AND RESULTS OF SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER EFFORTS Knowing the source of the innovation and the results of its technology transfer or implementation efforts helps to gain a more complete understanding of successful projects. Note in Figure 7 that for the LTAP/TTAP centers the source of the majority of innovations comes from either (1) innova- tions being “pushed” by others; that is, others outside the center are providing influence and assistance in some form to have the technology transferred to the center for its use; or (2) technologies that are available from others and “pulled” into the center by its program personnel. There are consid- erably fewer technologies that originate as research funded by the LTAP/TTAP center organizations and fewer still from research performed by another organization. This is a reasonable picture of the operation of the LTAP/TTAP cen- ters. Most do not perform research and most bring in tech- nologies and innovations that have been recommended by credible sources or that are requested by a user organization. For the state DOTs, the source of the technologies is more frequently research performed by another organization (either another state DOT or a contractor to the state DOT that is implementing the research results) or by its own research unit. State DOTs are reaching out to locate technologies for implementation or getting technologies from others through AASHTO TIG, FHWA, and other organizations such as Indiana’s Technology Deployment Group. For LTAP centers that are operated by the state DOTs there was a small difference in the source of innovations. For the most part, the centers pulled in technology or used tech- nology brought to their attention by others; however, these centers drew a greater number of innovations from the state research activities than the centers that are operated by others. This shows that some state DOTs are using the LTAP centers as outlets for deployment of their research products. What happened as a result of the technology transfer efforts for the successful projects identified by the survey respondents? Figures 8 and 9 show the disposition of the 0 5 10 15 20 Org. Funded Research by Others Research by Organization Technology "Pulled" from Others Technology "Pushed" by Others So u rc e o f I nn ov at io n Number of Responses State DOT LTAP/TTAP State n =36 LTAP/TTAP n = 22 FIGURE 7 Comparison of source of technology—LTAP/TTAP and state DOTs. (Multiple responses were permitted.) 0 5 10 15 2520 Policy Change Mgmt./Financial or Admin. Change Specification/Standard Change Cost Savings-Labor, Materials, Equipment Safety Enhancement Effectiveness/Efficiency Enhancement Training Knowledge Transfer Fr eq u en cy Outcome n = 22 FIGURE 8 Result of the successful technology transfer—LTAP/TTAP. (Multiple responses were permitted.)

innovations, with respondents asked to identify the out- comes. LTAP/TTAP centers showed that their successful technology transfer activities corresponded with their mis- sion and objectives—providing knowledge transfer, train- ing, effectiveness, and efficiency enhancements. The top state DOT outcomes were effectiveness and efficiency enhancement, specifications or standard change, resource savings, and safety enhancements. These items also are common strategic goals of transportation organizations. A successful technology transfer project can be viewed as one that meets the strategic goals and objectives of the organization. 32 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mgmt., Financial, Admin. Change Policy Change Safety Enhancement Resource Savings Specification/Standard Change Effectiveness/Efficiency Improvement O u tc om e Frequency n = 38 FIGURE 9 Result of successful technology transfer—State DOT. (Multiple responses were permitted.)

Next: Chapter Four - Challenges »
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!