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.
33 BARRIERS IDENTIFIED IN PAST STUDIES Challenges abound in the process of technology transfer or implementation of research results. Past studies have included the issue of impediments or barriers to successful technol- ogy transfer and a number of these challenges remain. The results from a few of these studies are included in this sec- tion. Each study provides a different perspective and helps to form a broad view of the challenges facing technology transfer participants. TRB Special Report 256: Managing Technology Trans- fer: A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administration, notes that âa number of factors serve as impediments to inno- vation in the highway industry because they limit or prevent innovation and its potential benefitsâ (p. 33). Special Report 256 presents an excellent summary of principal impediments to innovations in highway transportation that focus on the following categories: ⢠Technicalâtesting, demonstration, and standards set- ting issues. ⢠Procurementâdisclosure, low-bid process, life-cycle costs, and specifications setting issues. ⢠Legalâdesignâbuild limitations, product liability and insurance costs, community involvement, and permit issues. ⢠Public sector and institutionalâresistance to change, lack of incentives, limited capabilities, interest group resistance, effect of political patronage, employment practices and work rules, and technology mismatch issues. ⢠Generalâresources limitation issues. The full summary table is in Appendix G. In the comprehensive look at technology transfer provided in Transportation Research Circular 488: Transportation Technology Transfer: A Primer on the State of Practice (1998), the authors identify common challenges or barriers and also provide some guidance on overcoming these barriers. This study stated that, âBarriers restrict or constrain successâ (p. 54). They may be self-imposed or the result of factors external to the technology transfer process. The barriers identified in the study have some overlap with TRB Special Report 256, considering the circular was a reference for the TRB work. However, the barriers discussion of the circular brings additional understanding to the topic of challenges. The barriers highlighted are: ⢠Institutional â Lack of resourcesâfunding and people; â Lack of management support to implement new ideas; â Lack of an organizational infrastructure; â Inflexible regulations, incentives, and rewards; and â Resistance to risk taking and change. ⢠Technology supplier factors â Misunderstanding of receiversâ needs, â Technology not suitable for the condition or envi- ronment, and â Technology not presented appropriately. ⢠Human/behavioral â Cultural clashes, â Language, â Lack of interest or perceived need, and â Poor attitudes from provider and recipient toward one another. Overcoming these barriers can be difficult, but the circu- lar provides the following advice: ⢠Motivation is caught, not taughtâOne personâs excite- ment becomes contagious. When the whole staff, office, or agency is highly motivated, even institutional barriers are scaled, if not broken down. ⢠Empower people to become more open mindedâIf everyone in an organization is given the authority to think and, more significantly, act upon their thoughts, the organization will grow, both intellectually and productively. ⢠Be customer-orientedâMeet customer needs more effec- tively and strive for customer satisfaction. In NCHRP Report 382: Facilitating the Implementation of Research Findings: A Summary Report (Bikson et al. 1996), the top barriers to implementation identified are grouped into the following four areas: ⢠Characteristics of research, ⢠Internal organizational context, ⢠External organizational context, and ⢠Implementation process. CHAPTER FOUR CHALLENGES
For a listing of these barriers see Appendix G. In a 1989 study, NCHRP Synthesis 150: Technology Transfer in Selected Highway Agencies, survey respon- dents were asked to describe their greatest difficulty in the transmission of information on new technology in the state. The responses are summarized as follows (Hodgkins 1989, p. 14): ⢠Problems with targeting audiences, ⢠Determining needed translations, ⢠Lack of resources, ⢠Availability of too much information, ⢠Lack of time on the part of potential users, ⢠Lack of an evaluation methodology, ⢠Inability to find appropriate personnel, ⢠Resistance to change by users, ⢠Communications, and ⢠Lack of participation by end user in identifying needs. SURVEY RESPONDENTSâBARRIERS IDENTIFIED AND OVERCOMING THEM In this synthesis survey, respondents were asked to identify the greatest challenges to accomplishing technology trans- fer in their organizations. They also were asked to describe what is being done to reduce or remove those challenges. The results of the survey revealed that some of the historical chal- lenges have not been sufficiently addressed and still require attention. However, although barriers today may deal with similar root causes, they exist in more complex transporta- tion systems and often with significantly more sophisticated technologies. The broad categories of challenges identified by the sur- vey respondents are listed here. Each category has a number of representative examples of the challenges as expressed by the survey respondents together with the corresponding actions taken to reduce or eliminate each challenge. State DOTs provided these challenges and corresponding actions: ⢠Change and risk-aversion issues â Contractor resistance to changeâAction: quarterly public meetings with the Associated General Con- tractors of America and suppliers to allow for ques- tions and discussion. â Change acceptanceâAction: persistence. â Resistance to changeâAction: education and train- ing, have an innovative champion, and capitalize on perspective of younger (less attached to tradition) or more open-minded staff. â Convincing industry of the reason for changeâ Action: work with industry associations to incorporate the changes into their sponsored training sessions. 34 â Willingness to take risks by trying a new technol- ogyâAction: use new technologies on small pilot projects to reduce the risk. â Creating the incentives and motivations to changeâ Action: provide visible credit to individuals and divi- sions leading the effort. ⢠Time constraints â Lack of time for workloadâAction: set up partner- ship with researchers to assist in technology transfer effort. â Limited staff and timeâAction: try to create âjust when neededâ tools, databases, etc. â Time for experts to collaborateâAction: promote technology transfer organization and services. ⢠Staffing and workload issues â Lack of human resourcesâAction: create partner- ships with associations and universities, outside con- tractors, and consultants. â Technology transfer must be done in addition to exist- ing workloadâAction: share success stories and show benefits to the agency. â Champion/technical expert needed to lead the effortâ Action: work with division management to secure key staff involvement. â Staff turnoverâAction: offer incentives. ⢠Structural and organizational issues â Lack unit with responsibility for implementationâ Action: continue to rely on project monitors. â Organizational capacity, who should implement the innovationsâAction: research unit will assume the lead role. â Changing prioritiesâAction: schedule regular brief- ings for Deputy Secretary and Chief Engineer. â Fragmentation of research rolesâAction: new direc- tor is trying to show value of fully supported program to increase effectiveness. ⢠Commitment of the agency and influential individuals â Ensure that only the top projects the various offices want get fundingâAction: there must be a link to the business plan and require executive approval. â Obtaining upper management supportâAction: con- duct research showcases, demonstrations, and other upper management visible activitiesâcontinue to create awareness. â Lack of interest from organizational personnelâ Action: simplify the research management process. ⢠Weak outcomes of research, perceived and actual â Benefits of adoption not compellingâAction: focus on projects where benefits are absolute. â Benefits of adoption not understoodâAction: em- phasize knowledge sharing on benefits as well as change. â Untimely resultsâAction: continue effort to de- liver timely results, focus on retaining project cham- pions and be informed about potential technology leapfrogging.
35 â Weak researchâAction: ensure scope fits antici- pated implementation; be willing to abandon weak results. ⢠Funding and costs â Insufficient fundingâAction: avoid research with implementation costs exceeding management sup- port, develop a business plan to inform and identify financial needs, diligently seek other sources, estab- lish standing RAC responsible for functional area and budget. â Increased costs for technology transferâAction: free up more SP&R funds, use fewer paper copies and cir- culating CDs, add website use. â Funding the implementationâAction: Research Advi- sory Board is more willing to fund more implemen- tation of successful outcomesâsuccess adds to future funding. ⢠Communications and coordination â Communications breakdownsâAction: awareness of potential is helpful, involvement of all participants on a scheduled basis, inform through multiple media formats. â Clear communications at all levels of the departmentâ Action: tailor the message to the specific audience. â Ensure knowledge about research results is wide- spread throughout the organizationâAction: provide easier access to final reports and other information by putting them on the department shared drive. ⢠Measures of performance â Tracking and measuring benefits and costs of researchâAction: add tracking capabilities to data- base of research projects; develop comprehensive system for performance measures for time and labor. â Selecting baselines for benefitâcost comparisonsâ Action: identify deliverables early in the project. ⢠Implementation processes â Promote buy-inâAction: develop viable marketing strategy, marketing plan. â No plan or process for implementation of research resultsâAction: create a continuous process improve- ment study for recommended process and unit creation. â Lack of verification of implementation outcomesâ Action: revise, formalize process, publicize results. â Lack of accurate technology transfer needs assess- mentâAction: involvement in exchanges, technol- ogy scanning, and participation in committees where needs will be discussed. LTAP/TTAP centers have significant challenges as well. These centers experience some of the same challenges as state DOTs, although other challenges are uniquely present for this group of technology transfer professionals. Survey respon- dents identified the following challenges or barriers to tech- nology transfer and also provided brief insights on how these challenges were overcome. ⢠Instructors and technical experts â Finding and securing trainers and technical experts who are credible, experienced, and good commu- nicatorsâAction: use experts from other LTAP centers, continually recruit new instructors, adver- tise and focus on DOT and federal retirees, assist in training new trainees, and develop a portfolio of qualified instructors across the country within the LTAP network. ⢠Funding â Lack of stable funding or âlumpyâ funding flow is a deterrent to smoothly running technology transfer effortsâAction: work with customers on master agreements, build up the technology transfer infra- structure to accommodate funding variances, direct request to legislature and DOT. â Insufficient fundsâAction: leverage resources and collaborate with clients, barter, for example, space for technology transfer activity in exchange for free attendance; concentrate on highest customer priorities; officials do not attend technology transfer eventsâ provide newsletter summaries; meet at conferences they already attend; share costs; involve users in fund appeals; demonstrate value of technology transfer efforts. ⢠Marketing, communications, and information â Making contact with decision makersâAction: be- come familiar with tribeâs management structure; breakfast meetings with administrators and other upper management. â Create a âbrand identityââAction: add logo to doc- uments, present overview of technology transfer pro- gram, circuit rider emphasis, exhibit at conferences. â Outreach to managementâAction: target informa- tion and focus on senior management. â Information overloadâAction: distribute only selected information and use DOT library as references source. ⢠Change â Resistance to changeâAction: encourage participa- tion, experiments, and more; drop if marginal results received; training. ⢠Staffing and time â Too much to do, too little staffâAction: 3-year rota- tion for workshops, spread out on a schedule. â DOT reluctant to participate in technology transfer activities owing to time commitmentsâAction: invite agencies in other states to participate. â No position vacancy for technology transferâAction: combine the knowledge management and technology transfer efforts. ⢠Materials and courses â Developing coursesâAction: use other technology transfer classes as models. â Up-to-date materialsâAction: recognize library re- sources for uncopyrighted videos; update one course per year, prioritize, use web-based documents, provide
36 bibliographies; work with instructors before they update their materials. â Keeping program freshâAction: attend national and annual meetings. ⢠Measure outcomes â Inability to measure outcomesâAction: learn from other LTAP/TTAP centers. â Performance measures for implementationâAction: national LTAP measures. Unexpectedly, legal issues including patents and intellec- tual property ownership were not reported as primary chal- lenges or barriers to technology transfer or implementation of research results on both surveys conducted for this study. Anecdotal information, however, describes patents and intel- lectual property as a problem area. In the survey responses, where these issues have arisen, states tended to have some precedent that allows this factor to be overcome without much remark. LTAP/TTAP centers are also inclined to focus their efforts on readily available techniques and processes and not spend scarce resources on technologies or innova- tions that may have some limitations on use. For further ref- erence, NCHRP Synthesis 312: Facilitating Partnerships in Transportation Research contains a listing of the treatment of intellectual property by state DOTs for research and related activities (see Appendix E in that report, p. 75).