National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter Four - Challenges
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Needs." 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 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Needs." 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 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Needs." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Needs." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Needs." 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 40

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.

37 There are highly effective and productive technology trans- fer activities throughout the nation, particularly in the public- sector transportation community—LTAP/TTAP centers and universities, state DOTs, and federal agencies. Many organiza- tions have efficiently run programs and are well supported by their stakeholders and customers. However, although this may be so, many technology transfer or implementation activities have challenges to overcome. The surveys asked respondents about their needs as they saw their organizations fulfilling two main roles: (1) that of pushing technology out of their unit to another unit or orga- nization; for example, a research unit and its efforts to facil- itate implementation of its research program’s results or an LTAP/TTAP center’s activities to transfer knowledge and skills to local government to improve, for example, its work zone safety practices; and (2) that of pulling technology in for use from other units or organizations external to the orga- nization; for example, a state DOT research or operating unit that wants to apply a technology that is currently being used by another DOT or through AASHTO TIG or an LTAP/TTAP center that is seeking to find applicable innovations for its customers with particular needs. The following sections discuss the needs encountered when state DOTs and the LTAP/TTAP centers fulfill the two roles of pushing technology out or pulling technology in. PUSHING TECHNOLOGY OUT The top three needs of state DOTs were: (1) more time to per- form technology transfer, (2) additional funding, and (3) tech- nology transfer training, as shown in Figure 10. More than half of the respondents indicated these three items as needs. Many states have fewer employees and increasingly larger workloads than previously. It is not surprising to see that the research managers need more time for technology transfer activities, because technology transfer is time intensive. It takes dedicated time of the best technical employees to per- form technology transfer well. Although the state DOTs did not consider dedicated funding as the highest ranked element for success (see Figure 3), funding is still important and nec- essary. Thirty of 38 research units determined that additional funding was a need to be addressed. Another outcome of the survey is that the state DOTs believed that they could use training in the processes of technology transfer. Recalling that 17 of 38 respondents had been in their positions for 5 years or less, training in technology transfer could be a high- payoff activity. It is worth noting that LTAP/TTAP centers consider technology transfer training as one of their lower ranked needs. It is most probable that the LTAP/TTAP cen- ters view these skills as existing strengths and do not place a priority on further enhancing these skills in place of address- ing other needs. This is a result of their experience and excel- lence in this activity. State DOTs may be able to gain some insight into the conduct of technology transfer from the LTAP/TTAP centers. Figure 11 shows that LTAP/TTAP centers consider addi- tional funding the most important need. The centers also did not consider dedicated funding a high-rated success fac- tor (see also Figure 3); however, as with the state DOTs, funding for LTAP/TTAP is a priority and ranks first among these needs. The other needs rated by more than half of the LTAP/TTAP respondents are greater management support for technology transfer, more trained staff, greater access to technical expertise, and assistance for management and administrative responsibilities associated with technology transfer. These needs support some of the challenges the LTAP/TTAP centers expressed about staffing (see chapter three). Such needs also show the difficulty centers have encountered in acquiring talent for their many and diverse activities. For the state DOTs that indicated they could benefit by having assistance with those management and administrative responsibilities associated with technology transfer, a choice of five items was presented. Figure 12 provides the ranking of these items. All of the suggested items were accepted as viable approaches for assistance to the state DOTs. Note that imple- mentation plans and evaluation or assessment procedures were the top two areas for assistance. Similarly, LTAP/TTAP centers were asked about the types of help they would like if they had indicated a need for management and administrative assistance for technology transfer. Examining the experience levels and the needs for train- ing provides additional insight for addressing how to build capacity and skill for technology transfer and implementa- tion of research results. State DOT respondents with 5 years or less experience indicated by a two to one margin that they needed training for technology transfer. This group was less open to including new technology in projects and a majority CHAPTER FIVE NEEDS

38 of the respondents in this group indicated that they did not need technology transfer management and/or administrative assistance. State DOT respondents with 6 to 14 years of experience expressed different needs than those with less experience. Of these respondents, 63% determined that they did not need technology transfer training. They were very open to includ- ing new technologies in projects (75% of the respondents in this group), and were equally divided regarding the need for technology transfer administrative assistance. Those with the most experience (15 years and more) reported that they were nearly equally divided on needing technology transfer train- ing and nearly 40% of this group was open to including new technologies in projects, and the same percentage reported that they did not need technology transfer management and/or administrative assistance. Further review of all three of these different experience groups (less than 5, 6 to 14, and 15 or more years) shows that 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Access to Technical Expertise Openness to Use in New Projects T2 Process Mgmt. Assistance Senior Management Support T2 Process Training Additional Funding Time for T2 N ee d Number of Responses n = 38 FIGURE 10 Needs—Pushing technology out—State DOTs. (Multiple responses were permitted.) T2 = technology transfer. 0 5 10 15 20 More Time for Tech. Transfer Openness to Use of New Technology Tech. Transfer Process Training Tech. Transfer Mgmt./Admin. Assistance Greater Access to Tech. Expertise More Trained Staff Greater Sr. Mmgt. Support for Tech. Transfer Additional Funding N ee d Number of Responses n = 22 FIGURE 11 Needs—Pushing technology out—LTAP/TTAP centers. (Multiple responses were permitted.) 0 5 10 15 20 Marketing Plans Scheduling and Tracking Methodologies Executive Briefing Models Evaluation or Assessment Procedures Implementation Plans Ty pe o f A ss ist an ce Number of Responses n = 18 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.)

39 a majority of the respondents indicated a need for more fund- ing for technology transfer, all rather uniformly reported that they were not in need of greater access to technical expertise, all indicated a need for more time for conducting technology transfer, and all were nearly evenly divided regarding the need for additional support from senior management for their tech- nology transfer projects. For the respondents who indicated a need for technology transfer management assistance, the dif- ferent experience levels did not show any unique trends. In general, between 60% and 80% determined that they did not need the suggested technology transfer management strate- gies; for example, implementation plan assistance, marketing plan assistance, executive briefing models, scheduling tools, or evaluation assessment assistance. They also did not provide any alternatives when asked for other management strategies. The conclusions are that there is a sense of needing manage- ment and administrative assistance, but perhaps an inability to articulate what exactly that assistance should be. As with LTAP/TTAP centers, each of the three experi- ence level groups determined by a large majority that more funding is needed to perform technology transfer responsi- bilities. They also indicated by a substantial margin that it is desirable to have more time to perform technology transfer. Those with 5 or fewer years experience did not note such a wide margin (57% reported more time needed). Most LTAP/TTAP center respondents with 6 to 14 years of expe- rience (78%) indicated that greater access to technical exper- tise was clearly needed. The other two groups, with less and more experience, had more reporting “no need,” than those who reported “a need.” Although there were a few excep- tions, in general those with less than 5 years of experience did not show substantially different needs than the full com- munity of LTAP/TTAP center respondents. Program and project evaluation are very important needs in today’s transportation environment. Figure 13 shows that evaluation and assessment procedures was the highest ranked type of management assistance cited by the respon- dent LTAP/TTAP centers. Having an accurate assessment of the value and contribution of technology transfer is certainly a desirable goal. PULLING TECHNOLOGY IN Not only do organizations push technology out, attempting to encourage the adoption of the technology by others, but many organizations also seek to bring in and apply proven tech- nologies to their operations. State DOTs are in a unique posi- tion to take advantage of this methodology. Each of the 50 states has the opportunity to leverage its funds by finding best practices and innovations that have already been applied in a context similar to its own. As discussed earlier in this docu- ment, groups like the Technology Deployment Work Group in Indiana and the AASHTO TIG seek to identify technolo- gies and innovations that are market ready and that can be applied to practice with relatively modest modifications. State DOTs reported that additional funding, added time for conducting technology transfer, and greater senior man- agement support for bringing in new technologies as the three most frequently mentioned areas of need when pulling promis- ing technologies into the organization (see Figure 14). The LTAP/TTAP centers indicated that more extensive contact with external-to-the-agency peers to determine candidate tech- nologies, added time to perform technology transfer, and methods or techniques to assist in making the process of tech- nology transfer more efficient as their three most common needs (see Figure 15). Assistance in pulling technology into the organization was addressed in an NCHRP effort completed in 2000. The results of the study were published as NCHRP Report 442: Systems Approach to Evaluating Innovations for Integra- tion into Highway Practice. This report put forth guidelines designed to help state DOTs in: • Researching and organizing information and data about a considered innovation, • Screening and selecting innovations, • Developing an evaluation plan, and • Implementation planning. The guidelines have a step-by-step procedure for evaluation approaches and a description of tools used during evaluation 0 2 4 6 8 10 Implementation Plans Scheduling and Tracking Methodologies Communication/Publicity Tools Marketing Plans Executive Briefing Models Evaluation/Assessment Procedures Ty pe o f A ss ist an ce Number of Responses n = 11 FIGURE 13 Type of helpful management assistance—LTAP/TTAP centers. Responses based on indication of need for management and administrative assistance from Figure 11. (Multiple responses were permitted.)

40 activities. The effects of applying the guidelines are increased efficiency of evaluation activities, higher probability of suc- cessful adoption, and improved communication and sharing of evaluation data among agencies (Worcester Polytechnic Institute 2000). The steps in the evaluation approach are: • Screen the innovation, • Address the evaluation implications, • Identify the characteristics, • Identify the effects of the innovation, • Assess the fit of the innovation, • Assess the feasibility of the innovation, • Verify raised issues and develop evaluation criteria, • Apply evaluation methods, and • Plan for implementation. The tools for evaluation are: • Action plans; • Cause-and-effect diagrams; • Checklists; • Cost–benefit analysis; • Expert opinion; • Group discussion and consensus; • Influence diagrams; • Scoring models; • Sensitivity analysis; and • Strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats analyses. OTHER NEEDS IDENTIFIED Other needs have been identified through a TRB Work- shop, Optimizing the Dissemination and Implementation of Research Results, sponsored by the TRB Committees on Conduct of Research and Technology Transfer. The com- mittees conducted the workshop in May 2003 and have since published an electronic document summarizing the workshop and 2003 mid-year committee meeting activ- ities (http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4439). The workshop topics included the following: • New techniques and methods for sharing preliminary research findings, • Efficient dissemination of published materials, 0 2 4 6 8 Enhanced Expertise for Technology Selection Greater Senior Mgmt. Support Greater Involvement with Researcher Additional Funding Tech. Transfer Process Efficiency Tools/Techniques More Time for Tech. Transfer Contact with External Peers N ee d Number of Responses n = 14 FIGURE 15 Needs—Pulling technology in—LTAP/TTAP. (Multiple responses were permitted.) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Enhanced Technical Expertise Contact with External Peers Added Involvement of Researcher/Developer Senior Management Support for New Technology Added Time for Tech. Transfer Additional Funding Number of Responses n = 38 N ee d Tech. Transfer Process Efficiency Enhancement FIGURE 14 Needs—Pulling technology in—State DOTs. (Multiple responses were permitted.)

41 sponsors, users, and technology transfer agents so that results will be communicated effectively to the various audiences. • Encourage the use of incentives to promote implemen- tation activity, including financial, travel, recognition, and others. Promote the use of SP&R funds to support these activities. • Support adequate funding and long-term continuity for the National Transportation Library. Promote the recog- nition of the library as a key resource for research dis- semination and implementation. At the time of this writing, work was also being done on the further development of the Technology Transfer Tool- box. The effort is now moving from a broad scoping process to a preliminary design phase. This preliminary design will include a model of the implementation planning tools that will serve as a proof of concept (see also Appendix H). • Developing appropriate materials for the implementa- tion of research results, • Guidelines—dos and don’ts of implementation, and • Identifying barriers to dissemination and implementation. The priority action items—needs—that emerged from this workshop and subsequent meetings are listed here (“Opti- mizing the Dissemination and Implementation of Research Results” 2003): • Conduct a study to document best practices for research implementation, including a benchmarking effort. • Develop a guide to support implementation activities, including contract verbiage, implementation plans, reporting mechanisms, and training tools. • Develop a framework and strategies for engaging end- users in all steps of the research process. Strategies should promote a dissemination mindset within researchers,

Next: Chapter Six - Findings, Conclusions, and Suggestions for Further Research »
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!