Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 31


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 30
31 Technology "Pushed" by Others Source of Innovation Technology "Pulled" from Others State DOT Research by Organization LTAP/TTAP Org. Funded Research by Others 0 5 10 15 20 State n =36 LTAP/TTAP n = 22 Number of Responses FIGURE 7 Comparison of source of technology--LTAP/TTAP and state DOTs. (Multiple responses were permitted.) Reviewing these elements will prepare an individual who nologies and innovations that have been recommended by is considering incorporating the element in his or her own credible sources or that are requested by a user organization. environment. The elements hardest to replicate were those For the state DOTs, the source of the technologies is more that presented particular hurdles to some of the respondents. 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 SOURCE AND RESULTS OF SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER EFFORTS unit. State DOTs are reaching out to locate technologies for implementation or getting technologies from others through Knowing the source of the innovation and the results of its AASHTO TIG, FHWA, and other organizations such as technology transfer or implementation efforts helps to gain Indiana's Technology Deployment Group. a more complete understanding of successful projects. Note in Figure 7 that for the LTAP/TTAP centers the source of For LTAP centers that are operated by the state DOTs the majority of innovations comes from either (1) innova- there was a small difference in the source of innovations. For tions being "pushed" by others; that is, others outside the the most part, the centers pulled in technology or used tech- center are providing influence and assistance in some form nology brought to their attention by others; however, these to have the technology transferred to the center for its use; centers drew a greater number of innovations from the state or (2) technologies that are available from others and "pulled" research activities than the centers that are operated by others. into the center by its program personnel. There are consid- This shows that some state DOTs are using the LTAP centers erably fewer technologies that originate as research funded as outlets for deployment of their research products. by the LTAP/TTAP center organizations and fewer still from research performed by another organization. This is a What happened as a result of the technology transfer reasonable picture of the operation of the LTAP/TTAP cen- efforts for the successful projects identified by the survey ters. Most do not perform research and most bring in tech- respondents? Figures 8 and 9 show the disposition of the Knowledge Transfer Training Frequency Effectiveness/Efficiency Enhancement Safety Enhancement Cost Savings-Labor, Materials, Equipment Specification/Standard Change Mgmt./Financial or Admin. Change n = 22 Policy Change 0 5 10 15 20 25 Outcome FIGURE 8 Result of the successful technology transfer--LTAP/TTAP. (Multiple responses were permitted.)

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