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 36
37
CHAPTER FIVE
NEEDS
There are highly effective and productive technology trans- that 17 of 38 respondents had been in their positions for
fer activities throughout the nation, particularly in the public- 5 years or less, training in technology transfer could be a high-
sector transportation community--LTAP/TTAP centers and payoff activity. It is worth noting that LTAP/TTAP centers
universities, state DOTs, and federal agencies. Many organiza- consider technology transfer training as one of their lower
tions have efficiently run programs and are well supported by ranked needs. It is most probable that the LTAP/TTAP cen-
their stakeholders and customers. However, although this may ters view these skills as existing strengths and do not place a
be so, many technology transfer or implementation activities priority on further enhancing these skills in place of address-
have challenges to overcome. ing other needs. This is a result of their experience and excel-
lence in this activity. State DOTs may be able to gain some
The surveys asked respondents about their needs as they insight into the conduct of technology transfer from the
saw their organizations fulfilling two main roles: (1) that of LTAP/TTAP centers.
pushing technology out of their unit to another unit or orga-
nization; for example, a research unit and its efforts to facil- Figure 11 shows that LTAP/TTAP centers consider addi-
itate implementation of its research program's results or an tional funding the most important need. The centers also
LTAP/TTAP center's activities to transfer knowledge and did not consider dedicated funding a high-rated success fac-
skills to local government to improve, for example, its work tor (see also Figure 3); however, as with the state DOTs,
zone safety practices; and (2) that of pulling technology in funding for LTAP/TTAP is a priority and ranks first among
for use from other units or organizations external to the orga- these needs. The other needs rated by more than half of the
nization; for example, a state DOT research or operating unit LTAP/TTAP respondents are greater management support
that wants to apply a technology that is currently being used by for technology transfer, more trained staff, greater access
another DOT or through AASHTO TIG or an LTAP/TTAP to technical expertise, and assistance for management and
center that is seeking to find applicable innovations for its administrative responsibilities associated with technology
customers with particular needs. transfer. These needs support some of the challenges the
LTAP/TTAP centers expressed about staffing (see chapter
The following sections discuss the needs encountered three). Such needs also show the difficulty centers have
when state DOTs and the LTAP/TTAP centers fulfill the two encountered in acquiring talent for their many and diverse
roles of pushing technology out or pulling technology in. activities.
For the state DOTs that indicated they could benefit by
PUSHING TECHNOLOGY OUT having assistance with those management and administrative
responsibilities associated with technology transfer, a choice
The top three needs of state DOTs were: (1) more time to per- of five items was presented. Figure 12 provides the ranking of
form technology transfer, (2) additional funding, and (3) tech- these items. All of the suggested items were accepted as viable
nology transfer training, as shown in Figure 10. More than approaches for assistance to the state DOTs. Note that imple-
half of the respondents indicated these three items as needs. mentation plans and evaluation or assessment procedures were
Many states have fewer employees and increasingly larger the top two areas for assistance. Similarly, LTAP/TTAP
workloads than previously. It is not surprising to see that the centers were asked about the types of help they would like if
research managers need more time for technology transfer they had indicated a need for management and administrative
activities, because technology transfer is time intensive. It assistance for technology transfer.
takes dedicated time of the best technical employees to per-
form technology transfer well. Although the state DOTs did Examining the experience levels and the needs for train-
not consider dedicated funding as the highest ranked element ing provides additional insight for addressing how to build
for success (see Figure 3), funding is still important and nec- capacity and skill for technology transfer and implementa-
essary. Thirty of 38 research units determined that additional tion of research results. State DOT respondents with 5 years
funding was a need to be addressed. Another outcome of the or less experience indicated by a two to one margin that they
survey is that the state DOTs believed that they could use needed training for technology transfer. This group was less
training in the processes of technology transfer. Recalling open to including new technology in projects and a majority
OCR for page 37
38
Time for T2
Additional Funding
T2 Process Training
Need
Senior Management Support
T2 Process Mgmt. Assistance
Openness to Use in New Projects
n = 38
Access to Technical Expertise
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Responses
FIGURE 10 Needs--Pushing technology out--State DOTs. (Multiple
responses were permitted.) T2 = technology transfer.
Additional Funding
Greater Sr. Mmgt. Support for Tech. Transfer
More Trained Staff
Greater Access to Tech. Expertise
Need
Tech. Transfer Mgmt./Admin. Assistance
Tech. Transfer Process Training
Openness to Use of New Technology
n = 22
More Time for Tech. Transfer
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Responses
FIGURE 11 Needs--Pushing technology out--LTAP/TTAP centers. (Multiple
responses were permitted.)
Implementation Plans
Type of Assistance
Evaluation or Assessment Procedures
Executive Briefing Models
Scheduling and Tracking Methodologies
n = 18
Marketing Plans
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Responses
FIGURE 12 Type of helpful management assistance--State DOTs. Responses
based on indication of need for management and administrative assistance from
Figure 10. (Multiple responses were permitted.)
of the respondents in this group indicated that they did not technology transfer administrative assistance. Those with the
need technology transfer management and/or administrative most experience (15 years and more) reported that they were
assistance. nearly equally divided on needing technology transfer train-
ing and nearly 40% of this group was open to including new
State DOT respondents with 6 to 14 years of experience technologies in projects, and the same percentage reported
expressed different needs than those with less experience. Of that they did not need technology transfer management and/or
these respondents, 63% determined that they did not need administrative assistance.
technology transfer training. They were very open to includ-
ing new technologies in projects (75% of the respondents in Further review of all three of these different experience
this group), and were equally divided regarding the need for groups (less than 5, 6 to 14, and 15 or more years) shows that
