National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs (2005)

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

« Previous: Chapter Five - Needs
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Findings, Conclusions, and Suggestions for Further Research." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Findings, Conclusions, and Suggestions for Further Research." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Six - Findings, Conclusions, and Suggestions for Further Research." 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 43

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.

Findings generated by the synthesis study are summarized here by topic beginning with the characteristics of the state departments of transportation (DOTs) and Local Technical Assistance Program and Tribal Technical Assistance Pro- gram (LTAP/TTAP) centers’ programs. • Close to half of the state DOT respondents and nearly 40% of the LTAP/TTAP survey respondents have 5 or fewer years experience in technology transfer. • More than half of the research units in state DOTs share the responsibility of technology transfer with other units in the agency, one-quarter of the research units are solely responsible, and two respondents reported that no unit in their department was specifically assigned responsibility for technology transfer. • State DOTs reported that on average they commit approximately 6.5% of total agency funds to research and research-related activities on technology transfer and implementation activities. This figure includes all types of funding; state, State Planning & Research (SP&R), other federal, and any other funding received for research and research-related activities. (Note that without Cali- fornia’s substantial commitment to technology transfer using agency and other funds in addition to Research Part II, SP&R moneys, the average total for respondents would decrease to 5.3%.) • Of the 38 state DOTs providing information in the syn- thesis survey, their best estimate was that on the average they spend approximately 9.3% of their Research Part II, SP&R federal-aid funds on technology transfer and implementation activities. This figure is a component part of the previous bullet point’s total expenditure figure. • Survey responses from the LTAP/TTAP centers reported that they have been operating for an average of nearly 20 years, with California DOT and Indiana DOT centers having conducted organized technology transfer activi- ties for 50 and 40 years, respectively. • Responding LTAP/TTAP centers have annual budgets totaling, on average, $375,000, and including California, $495,000. Nearly all of the centers reported receiving federal-aid funds (one center reported state-only funds). Two TTAP centers received Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal government funds as well. Approximately 35% of the centers reported receiving university funds and 41% receive funds from local governments. Only 5% of the centers reported receiving funding from the private sector. 42 • Both state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers showed sub- stantially larger technology transfer program invest- ments for respondents having 15 or more years of expe- rience. For state DOTs, the investment amount was more than three times that of respondents having 6 to 14 years experience and more than double the invest- ments being made by those with experience of 5 years or less. LTAP/TTAP center technology transfer invest- ments for the respondents with the most experience were nearly twice that of the respondents’ programs with 6 to 14 years experience and greater than twice the investments of programs for those having experience of 5 years or less. • Four of every five agencies having a group or person in an agency-wide coordinating role reported that more funding was necessary for technology transfer, whereas those state DOTs without such a coordinating function were somewhat equally divided in their assessment of whether or not they needed more funding. • Organizations with a coordinating function tended to recognize the positive influence of senior management support more than did the state DOTs without such a person or group filling the coordinating role. State DOTs with technology transfer coordination also indicated a greater openness to including innovations into projects and were more accepting of management assistance when compared with their peers without a person or organization in the coordination role. • Having a role assigned in the DOT for agency-wide coordination of technology transfer or implementation of research results showed a strong relationship to larger investment in technology transfer activities. For programs with a person or group assigned to coordinate the technology transfer activities the investment in technology transfer was 10 times that of agencies that had no such coordination. • States routinely use a broad array of communications vehicles and methods to convey the message of the innovation and their abilities to assist in technology transfer. Technology transfer and implementation applications as compared with the private sector were revealed as follows. • The private sector consistently has organizations whose primary role it is to make the successful connection between the innovation generator and the innovation CHAPTER SIX FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

43 user. These may be venture capital firms, business devel- opment consortia, or other similar facilitator organiza- tions. The public transportation sector does not have such roles clearly defined and in routine practice, with the exception of the transfer agents within the LTAP/ TTAP centers. • The private and public (other than transportation) sectors strongly endorse a well-supported national library system for information accessibility and availability, which is essential to technology transfer. Currently, transportation has no comprehensive coordinated system of libraries or a national library providing full information services, including capabilities for archiving and preservation. • In contrast with the private sector, the public sector may not be availing itself sufficiently of the research and foundational methodologies about technology diffusion and technology transfer developed in other scientific disciplines, such as social and behavioral sciences. The structure for technology transfer and implementation of research results is as follows: • The highway transportation community has three major technology transfer operating approaches; research- unit-led, operating-unit-led, and LTAP/TTAP-center- led. The two most common approaches are those led by the research unit and the LTAP/TTAP centers. • Considering the different missions of the two primary structured approaches, there is only modest linking of the expertise contained in the LTAP/TTAP centers and the technology transfer or implementation needs inter- nal to the DOT. Successful technology transfer occurs when the following factors are present: • There is the push of technology into a user environment. • A champion is associated with the research and tech- nology transfer effort. • Pilot projects and demonstrations allow hands-on learning. • Senior management support attracts attention, leads by example, and gives guidance to the effort. • Early involvement of the user allows early resolution of problems and prepares the user for fully embracing the innovation. • There exists a technology transfer or implementation plan to identify strategies and tactics. • Qualified people are placed in lead roles. • Partnerships leverage resources and attract the right participants. • There is progress monitoring and committed funding. • There exists a focus area for technology transfer efforts. • There is emphasis on marketing and communications. • Benefits of the technology meet users’ needs. These factors all correlate with successful efforts. The lit- erature and the practice of the organizations and programs reviewed for this synthesis support the notion that the use of any of these factors is a positive move toward success. Using multiple factors for each technology transfer or implementa- tion project is better than using only one or two. Many of the elements of success in one project or for one organization can be a significant challenge for other projects or organizations. The challenges experienced by the state DOTs are concerned with: • Change and risk-aversion issues; • Time constraints; • Staffing and workload; • Structural and organizational issues; • Commitment of the agency and of influential individuals; • Weak outcomes of research, perceived and actual; • Funding and costs; • Communications and coordination; • Measures of performance; and • Implementation processes. Whereas the challenges experienced by the LTAP/TTAP centers deal with: • Instructors and technical experts; • Funding; • Marketing, communications, and information availability; • Change issues; • Staffing and time; • Materials and courses; and • Measuring outcomes. Legal issues, including patents and property ownership, were not reported in the survey responses as primary chal- lenges or barriers to technology transfer or implementation of research results. Where these issues have arisen, states fre- quently have some precedent that allows this to be overcome without much discussion. LTAP/TTAP centers also tend to focus their efforts on readily available techniques and pro- cesses and not spend scarce resources on technologies or innovations that may have some limitations on use. Keying from challenges reported in this document and other sources, state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers have rec- ognized various needs that can be addressed. • For pushing technology out to others The top three needs of state DOTs were more time to per- form technology transfer, additional funding, and technology transfer training, with more than half of the respondents citing these three items. The state DOTs believe they could use training in the pro- cesses of technology transfer. Recalling that 17 of 38 respon- dents were in their positions 5 years or less, training in the

44 The following are suggestions for further research. • The barriers to technology transfer and implementation of research results that are associated with patents and intellectual property ownership are not clear. There was no focus on these issues within the survey responses, per- haps indicating few problems. However, some respon- dents’ organizations are effectively dealing with intel- lectual property ownership rights, although anecdotal information suggests barriers still exist. More in-depth questioning of state DOTs and the LTAP/TTAP centers is required to determine the causes and solutions to these barriers, if they do present substantial hurdles. The indi- cation given by the literature is that when such barriers arise, considerable effort is required to overcome them. Investigating the processes used by public-sector trans- portation organizations and the relationship of these processes to facilitating technology transfer could be productive. Additional work on this topic could yield valuable information. • Further research to investigate the staffing, time, and other resources required for optimal efforts in tech- nology transfer and implementation of research results would be helpful to those now struggling with finding the resources required to conduct these activities. • In the future, it will be important for public-sector transportation organizations to be skilled in the com- mercialization of research products. Currently, trends in the public sector are moving toward the private-sector commercialization model. • Further investigations into the applicability of skills developed by LTAP/TTAP centers for use by the research and operating units of state DOTs in their technology transfer or implementation of research results efforts could yield highly beneficial results. Opportunities for cross-functional exchange of talent should be considered. • There appears to be great potential for the methodolo- gies on diffusion developed in other disciplines to have useful application in public-sector transportation prac- tice. Research into how such diffusion theory can be applied to public-sector transportation would contribute to application of innovations to transportation. • Research is needed in which technology transfer strate- gies and technologies are best matched to various situ- ations and circumstances. processes of technology transfer could be a high-payoff activity. It is noteworthy that LTAP/TTAP centers consider technology transfer training as one of their lower ranked needs. It is most probable that the LTAP/TTAP centers see these skills as existing strengths and do not place a priority on further enhancing these skills in place of addressing other more pressing needs. State DOTs may be able to gain some insight into the processes for technology transfer from the LTAP/TTAP centers. The LTAP/TTAP centers consider additional funding as the most important need. The other needs there were 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 associ- ated with technology transfer. These needs identify some of the challenges that LTAP/TTAP centers expressed about staffing, and they also show the difficulties that centers have encountered in acquiring talent for their many and diverse activities. A number of state DOTs and LTAP/TTAP centers reported needs in the areas of management and administra- tive processes associated with technology transfer. For LTAP/TTAP centers these are evaluation and assessment procedures, executive briefing models, and marketing plans. For state DOTs these are implementation plans, eval- uation and assessment procedures, and executive briefing models. • For pulling technology into the organization State DOTs reported that additional funding, added time for conducting technology transfer, and greater senior man- agement support as the three most frequently mentioned areas of need when pulling promising technologies into the orga- nization. Whereas LTAP/TTAP centers indicated that more extensive contact with external-to-the-agency peers to deter- mine candidate technologies, added time to perform technol- ogy transfer, and methods or techniques to assist in making the process of technology transfer more efficient as their three most common needs.

Next: References »
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!