Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 39


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 38
39 a majority of the respondents indicated a need for more fund- PULLING TECHNOLOGY IN ing for technology transfer, all rather uniformly reported that they were not in need of greater access to technical expertise, Not only do organizations push technology out, attempting to all indicated a need for more time for conducting technology encourage the adoption of the technology by others, but many transfer, and all were nearly evenly divided regarding the need organizations also seek to bring in and apply proven tech- for additional support from senior management for their tech- nologies to their operations. State DOTs are in a unique posi- nology transfer projects. For the respondents who indicated a tion to take advantage of this methodology. Each of the 50 need for technology transfer management assistance, the dif- states has the opportunity to leverage its funds by finding best ferent experience levels did not show any unique trends. In practices and innovations that have already been applied in a general, between 60% and 80% determined that they did not context similar to its own. As discussed earlier in this docu- need the suggested technology transfer management strate- ment, groups like the Technology Deployment Work Group gies; for example, implementation plan assistance, marketing in Indiana and the AASHTO TIG seek to identify technolo- plan assistance, executive briefing models, scheduling tools, or gies and innovations that are market ready and that can be evaluation assessment assistance. They also did not provide applied to practice with relatively modest modifications. any alternatives when asked for other management strategies. The conclusions are that there is a sense of needing manage- State DOTs reported that additional funding, added time ment and administrative assistance, but perhaps an inability to for conducting technology transfer, and greater senior man- articulate what exactly that assistance should be. agement support for bringing in new technologies as the three most frequently mentioned areas of need when pulling promis- As with LTAP/TTAP centers, each of the three experi- ing technologies into the organization (see Figure 14). The ence level groups determined by a large majority that more LTAP/TTAP centers indicated that more extensive contact funding is needed to perform technology transfer responsi- with external-to-the-agency peers to determine candidate tech- bilities. They also indicated by a substantial margin that it is nologies, added time to perform technology transfer, and desirable to have more time to perform technology transfer. methods or techniques to assist in making the process of tech- Those with 5 or fewer years experience did not note such nology transfer more efficient as their three most common a wide margin (57% reported more time needed). Most needs (see Figure 15). LTAP/TTAP center respondents with 6 to 14 years of expe- rience (78%) indicated that greater access to technical exper- Assistance in pulling technology into the organization tise was clearly needed. The other two groups, with less and was addressed in an NCHRP effort completed in 2000. The more experience, had more reporting "no need," than those results of the study were published as NCHRP Report 442: who reported "a need." Although there were a few excep- Systems Approach to Evaluating Innovations for Integra- tions, in general those with less than 5 years of experience tion into Highway Practice. This report put forth guidelines did not show substantially different needs than the full com- designed to help state DOTs in: munity of LTAP/TTAP center respondents. Researching and organizing information and data about Program and project evaluation are very important needs a considered innovation, in today's transportation environment. Figure 13 shows Screening and selecting innovations, that evaluation and assessment procedures was the highest Developing an evaluation plan, and ranked type of management assistance cited by the respon- Implementation planning. dent LTAP/TTAP centers. Having an accurate assessment of the value and contribution of technology transfer is certainly The guidelines have a step-by-step procedure for evaluation a desirable goal. approaches and a description of tools used during evaluation Evaluation/Assessment Procedures Type of Assistance Executive Briefing Models Marketing Plans Communication/Publicity Tools Scheduling and Tracking Methodologies Implementation Plans n = 11 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of Responses 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.)