Transportation Research Implementation: Application of Research Outcomes (2015)

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.

58 SYNTHESIS Suggestions for Successful Implementation of Research Andrea Meyer, Working Knowledge, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Rapporteur Dana Meyer, Working Knowledge, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Rapporteur Much of the symposium presented or dis-cussed potential suggestions for how to improve the implementation of research to increase the long-term return on investment (ROI) from transportation research. During the 2 days of the symposium, presenters and participants offered ideas for making research more deployable and for breaking down barriers to deploying innovation in transporta- tion systems. This section contains a wide variety of suggestions for improving the efficacy of transportation research to pro- duce successful implementations at scale. Broadly, the suggestions are as follows: • Structure the research. • Involve stakeholders. • Disseminate research outcomes. • Mitigate systemic impediments. • Manage the double-edged swords (accelerators and impediments). • Track research and implementation over the long term. These suggestions, which form the structure of this synthesis, were harvested on an inclusive rather than consensual basis from the following sources during the conference: • Two cycles of breakout group discussions; • Two white paper presentations, including one of 13 case studies of successfully implemented research; • Observations by the presenters; and • Open discussion among all symposium participants, namely, researchers, funding agency representatives, infrastructure operators, and industry. conTexT: impedimenTs To innovaTion in a risk-averse sysTem Transportation research occurs in a multiparty context of mutual interdependence of the researchers who do the research, the companies that manufacture transport system products, and the public sector entities that fund research and deployment as well as operate transportation networks. To a first approximation, research flows along a chain from basic research to more applied research with prototyping and small-scale trials and then to broader implementation, with different parties playing different roles along that chain. Creating and maintaining the flow of new ideas and new implementations implies gaining the acceptance and ensuring the success of the multiple parties in the public, private, and academic sectors. Transportation needs innovation to address pressing problems (e.g., emissions, congestion, costs, safety) but cannot tolerate the chance of failure that comes with trying new projects. Transportation system funders and operators want certainty, and yet the fundamental property of true research is that its outcome is uncertain. Thus, these suggestions occur within a risk-averse context. Improving the ROI of transportation research seems to face a systemic impediment. On one hand, increasing the productivity of research implies accelerating the deployment of innovations at scale in real transportation

59s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h networks. On the other hand, the managers of these networks and the funders who might finance such deployments have a rational aversion to risk. Thus, the creators and promoters of innovation face the conundrum of trying to increase the adoption of research outcomes in a system that must meet the needs of end users. The following impediments to research were discussed at the symposium: risk aversion due to resource limits, risk aversion due to operational priorities, and two valleys of death. Impediment: Risk Aversion Due to Resource Limits Many participants noted the constraints on funding for research and cited government austerity and overall budget pressures. Regardless of whether current research funding is sufficient or insufficient, justifying spending on research requires proving and improving the contribution of research to the cost–benefit performance of transportation networks. Many transportation projects involve extremely large budgets. New or remediated infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels, highways, and rail facilities can cost billions of euros or dollars. These projects can take decades to come to fruition and, once built, have decades of impact on transportation operators and transportation system end users. The high cost, high visibility, and long-lived consequences of these projects contribute to risk aversion: failure is not an option during the design, build, and operational phases of the projects. Impediment: Risk Aversion Due to Operational Priorities Transportation system operators, being the managers of the literal network that underlies the everyday economy, naturally seek maximum uptime and minimum distur- bance within their networks. Manufacturers, contractors, and operating entities also face potential legal liabilities, especially in the United States. Many aspects of trans- portation systems impinge on safety and environmental outcomes. By definition, something new might have new side effects that are not readily apparent in the lab, during small-scale trials, or over short timescales. The potential that even small changes might have large consequences makes players in the transportation space hesitant to innovate. Impediment: Two Valleys of Death The gap between research and real-world deployment of transportation innovations includes two valleys of death. The first—the technological valley of death— occurs between the initial research phase and the initial implementation of the concept as a prototype or dem- onstration. The second—the commercialization valley of death—occurs between the demonstration phase and the broader deployment at scale. The result is that successful research either fails to get a trial test or never makes it to the market. Moreover, the long delays between initial research, follow-on development, and eventual deploy- ment mean that valuable knowledge created at each stage is lost before the next stage. In addition to the high cost of individual transportation projects is the fact that transportation networks operate at very large scale. A large urban or national network might encompass thousands or tens of thousands of bridges, signals, public transit conveyances, network nodes, and kilometers of road and rail. Thus, deployment of innovation becomes a complex exercise in commercialization at large scale, requiring the development of a network of suppliers, manufacturers, and contractors to mass-produce and deploy the innovation into a large network. A shortage of debt or equity funding or a lack of a clear commercial opportunity can prevent an invention from being brought to broader markets. Opposition by communities and environmentalists can also forestall deployment. suggesTion: sTrucTure The research One of the key suggestions from the symposium was the need for a primer on how to implement advanced and applied research. The primer would facilitate a more effective research process by providing a road map for researchers to follow in setting up their research in a way that positions it for implementation. Much of the discussion during the symposium centered on the characteristics of successful research efforts (i.e., research efforts that led to successful real- world deployment). These characteristics of successful implementations can serve as helpful ideas. Several of these characteristics related to the structure and presentation of the research itself. Context: Spectrum of Research Suggestions for improving the deployment of research depend on the type of research being done. During the symposium, many participants discussed the full spectrum of research, including basic, advanced, and applied research. All three are needed, but different types of funders emphasized different types of research. For example, network operators seem most interested in short- term applied research that offers a guaranteed solution.

60 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n Others argued for greater funding of advanced research that could offer potential step changes in the performance of transportation systems. The European Union may be rebalancing its focus from advanced research to more applied research, while the U.S. federal government may be rebalancing from an applied focus by adding more advanced research. Although the boundaries between the different types are not clear-cut, some participants cited general dimensions that correlate with these different types of research and that affect how the research is done. The first dimension is the locus of motivation, that is, the key party or stakeholder driving the research. In the case of applied research, end user demand creates a pull effect. The funder or commissioner of the research has a specific problem in mind and seeks a specific solution. In the case of advanced or basic research, the researcher supplies or pushes a novel solution in search of a potential application. The second difference is in the breadth of thinking. Applied research tends to have a rubber-meets-the-road focus, whereas advanced research might include more open-ended, blue-sky thinking. To be sure, all types of research demand a high level of creativity, whether it be solution-seeking creativity for out-of-the-box ideas or the creative problem solving needed to make everything fit inside a box of complex technological, operational, and policy constraints. The result is that applied research offers an anticipated incremental (plug-and-play) innovation, whereas advanced and basic research have the potential to create radical or disruptive innovation. The various types of research chain together. For example, basic research might lead to radical new materials or ideas that require advanced research to explore possible uses. Alternatively, advanced research might lead to more specific conclusions that may require applied research to refine. This chain takes time, which implies that the earlier stages of research need to look further into the future for likely applications. Along with this difference in timescale comes a difference in the level of risk: applied research is generally less speculative and less risky than advanced research. Several presenters and commenters stressed that the overall progression from advanced research to applied research to demonstration pilot to eventual deployment was not linear. Instead, there may be retracement loops in which one stage may uncover problems or opportunities that call for more research or work of an early-stage type. In the broader context, the entire process creates a loop, as deployment of an innovation from one cycle of research may lead to new societal issues (e.g., higher vehicle usage creates higher fatalities, a development that spurs new research into safety) or may create new opportunities (e.g., recharging electric cars by using power from railway catenary systems). The symposium identified the following suggestions for structuring research: • Define a clear objective, • Outline the implementation, • Conduct a real-world pilot test or demonstration project, and • Provide incentives to researchers. Define a Clear Objective Several presenters stressed the importance of clear objectives and metrics. Research projects that lacked goals appear to have had a lower chance of success. Applied research has objectives and metrics driven by end users and their specific applications. Advanced research should also have an objective, even if the focus is more open-ended. The goal of advanced research can be quite broad and blue-sky aspirational, for example, zero highway deaths. Outline the Implementation Outlining the implementation of a new idea, even at an early stage, can help establish the feasibility and economic merits of the intended results of the research. Although ongoing research often causes changes to these tentative plans, the exercise helps link the forward progress of the research to the eventual deployment. Communicating the outline of the implementation also reduces the perceived risk, because it shows more operationally focused stakeholders how the research can fit into real-world transport systems. Overall, sketching the implementation and its business case was part of a suggestion for more systems-level thinking about any research project, including the road map for postresearch activities and how those activities fit with the needs and trends in the transportation systems. Conduct a Real-World Pilot Test or Demonstration Project As research progresses toward application, the need for real-world testing rises. Real-world testing has two purposes. First, the testing helps uncover and mitigate risks by creating real-world knowledge of how to deploy the innovation and how the innovation performs. Second, demonstration projects provide tangible proof to funders, infrastructure operators, and citizens that the research is producing useful outcomes. Some presenters noted the unfortunate inadequacy of funding for these kinds of tests.

61s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h Provide Incentives to Researchers Participants raised the idea of incentive payments to researchers. These incentives should be tied to deployment performance metrics, not just research outcomes. Incentives could help reduce the natural tendency for academic researchers to focus on academic measures of performance (e.g., published papers in respected journals), which do not directly improve society’s return on the research investment. Negative incentives might include performance-linked final payments. Positive incentives might take the form of a financial bonus or some guarantee for funding of future research. The U.S. Department of Energy’s program of contract performance bonuses was cited as a potential example of these kinds of incentives. suggesTion: involve The sTakeholders Many of the presentations and discussions highlighted the crucial role of bidirectional involvement of researchers and stakeholders. Collaboration between researchers and stakeholders early in the research phase helps both to shape the results and to give the stakeholders a sense of ownership. With stakeholder involvement, the research is more applicable and more likely to be accepted for deployment. The symposium identified the following suggestions for involving stakeholders: • Deepen researcher–stakeholder relations, • Identify key stakeholders, • Pool stakeholder resources, and • Understand the limitations of researcher– stakeholder relationships. Deepen Researcher–Stakeholder Relations Many participants’ presentations, discussions, and comments focused on the importance of tighter relations between researchers and stakeholders. In particular, researchers need to stay involved after the research is done and when the implementation begins. This involvement would better leverage the tacit knowledge of the researcher to accelerate the implementation of the idea. Similarly, involvement of stakeholders early in the research can help guide the innovation process in more useful directions. Stakeholder involvement thus changes the research from a bounded-duration, black-box project to a more open-ended, white-box process. In the future, researchers may be coproducers of implementation rather than just arms-length suppliers of the seeds of innovations. With this increased connection between researchers and implementers come some ideas on changes in the framing of research. The first is the need to tie research to implementers’ specific goals, priorities, vision, or policies. Doing so implies the need for some form of business case, with the potential costs and potential benefits that deploying the research could bring. That is, researchers need to communicate the economic merits of the work as well as the scientific ones. Overall, researchers need to help sell their ideas and make transportation innovation more sexy—that is, interesting and appealing—so that citizens, operators, and funders will want more innovation. Identify Key Stakeholders Working with stakeholders requires understanding who those stakeholders are. The symposium’s wide range of presentations and discussions uncovered a daunting number of potential stakeholders, which can be loosely grouped as follows: 1. Public stakeholders: transportation agencies, infrastructure operators, legislative bodies, the executive branch or ministries, and citizens; 2. Industrial stakeholders: suppliers, original equipment manufacturers, distributors, engineering firms, and construction contractors; and 3. Knowledge stakeholders: the research community, educators, the media, and standards bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). There was some debate over the exact term to use for the stakeholders with whom researchers should work the most. Common terms for these key players included “adopter,” “buyer,” and “end user.” More generally, the key stakeholders included those with one or more of three roles with respect to the research and the implementation of research outcomes: • Those who fund the research and its implementation, • Those who will bear the risks if the deployment fails, and • Those who have the authority to permit or prohibit implementation. The suggestion was for researchers to be aware of key gatekeepers who affect the progression of research to large-scale deployment. This need to work with key stakeholders was part of the general suggestion for more systems thinking about research and implementation. That is, researchers need to think about who will most affect the chances of deployment and then engage those stakeholders at an early date to ensure that the research outcomes are useful (or palatable) to them.

62 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n A special emphasis was placed on finding early adopt- ers. Within the innovation literature is the notion of a bell curve of adopters: some users are early adopters, while the bulk of deployment occurs later among more risk-averse, later-stage adopters. Although early adopters account for a very small fraction of deployments, they play a key role in implementation of pilots, demonstrations, and early small-scale deployments. By helping to turn unproven ideas into lower-risk ones, these early adopters help allay the fears of their more risk-averse peers. Pool Stakeholder Resources Relationships between stakeholders, especially the pooling of resources, could also accelerate the successful implementation of research. Part of the natural risk aversion of individual agencies and operators is that each entity has a limited research budget. The budget limitations create high pressure for the success of each and every research project. In contrast, pooling resources enables each entity to share in funding a broader portfolio of research efforts. Each entity’s outlay per project is reduced and the risks across a wide range of efforts are aggregated. Being part of a larger group or using research vetted by a broader entity can provide political cover for local officials in the event of failure. Thus, pooling significantly reduces the perception of the riskiness of supporting a research effort or trying an innovation. Pooling can occur on a regional, continental, or global basis. Although the European Union and the United States may have different legal and governmental structures, they share many common goals, such as reducing congestion, reducing the costs of infrastructure, improving safety, and maximizing the performance of transportation systems. Specific transportation issues and priorities may vary across geographic and political boundaries, but many entities share issues and priorities (e.g., snow in northern climes, hot road surfaces in southern ones, or urban traveler safety priorities). Moreover, vehicle companies, technology com- panies, materials companies, and infrastructure engineering companies have a global reach and look for global markets. Thus, pooling also encourages the participation of private companies, which see the pool as a more attractive mar- ket than any individual country, state, or locality might provide. Finally, pooling could reduce the duplication of research efforts and foster competition among alternative innovations that could address a given problem. understand the Limitations of Researcher– Stakeholder Relationships Researcher–stakeholder relationships are not without risks. Some participants expressed concerns that deeper relationships between researchers and stakeholders or involvement of researchers in implementation were not a panacea, for two reasons. The first reason was in the potential gap between best-in-class research skills and best-in-class implementation skills. Although many advocated that researchers take greater responsibility in aiding in implementation, some wondered if researchers were really best suited for that role. Implementation of large-scale engineering projects is a skill unto itself, as are sales and marketing of innovation. Just as some end users might not be well suited for funding and manag- ing advanced research, some researchers may not be well suited for implementation-related tasks. The second concern was that deeper engagement between researchers and stakeholders made less sense for the more advanced types of research. Blue-sky, out-of-the- box varieties of research projects might not have a clear end user or buyer during the earlier phases. New mate- rials, energy-saving devices, or innovations in network management might apply to any of the range of modes, infrastructure arenas, or governments. Worse, prema- turely pinning research to a specific mode or application could limit the deployment and value of these potential radical step-change innovations. Finally, linking research to stakeholders can also inhibit more systemic innovations that might disrupt the existing stakeholders themselves. suggesTion: disseminaTe research ouTcomes For better or worse, getting research into the real world may require shouting. Communication plays both an informative role and a persuasive role in bringing research to large-scale deployment. Communication informs engineers, builders, operators, and maintainers about how to deploy the research or innovation. Communication also helps sell the value of the research, builds interest in forthcoming innovations, and shows that transportation can be sexy. Success stories about research and its role in deployed systems help to nurture a culture of innovation among transportation stakeholders. The symposium identified the following suggestions for disseminating research outcomes: • Communicate via multiple channels, • Create trust via peers, and • Educate the next generation of engineers. Communicate via Multiple Channels Researchers and implementers should use many different channels to disseminate research and innovation. These channels include traditional media in the form of main- stream news articles, technical reports, and even coffee-

63s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h table books that, for example, illustrate the beauty and grandeur of transportation systems. Marketing via tradi- tional, online, or social media can show stakeholders and citizens that research is exciting and valuable. Publishing research results in languages other than English increases uptake in countries where English is not the dominant language. Travel to conferences, roundtables, meet- ings, and collaborative events helps build relationships through face-to-face communications, supports deeper sharing of ideas, and builds trust. Training (undergradu- ate, graduate, or continuing education) helps engineers, managers, and policy makers learn how to implement the latest technologies. Using all of these communications channels implies reserving some fraction of research and implementation budgets for publications, public rela- tions, outreach, training, and travel. Create Trust via Peers Trust plays a crucial role in the efficacy of communication. Wary stakeholders may not accept the optimistic pronouncements of researchers or the sales staff of those who promote an innovation. Instead, information from peers (e.g., those in other transportation agencies) or neutral third parties may be viewed as more trustworthy sources of information. That was one of the rationales for seeking early adopters or champions among operators. If a real- world entity has successfully implemented an innovation, its reporting of the event may be considered more reliable than a laboratory test or researcher-run simulation. Educate the Next generation of Engineers Creating widespread adoption of innovations in basic materials or systems implies educating the next generation of engineers in the respective new properties and design principles. Some symposium participants noted, however, that adoption is slowed if professors do not update their lectures to include the latest technologies. This seems to have occurred in the case of fiber-reinforced concrete. Moreover, the solution to this issue may be stymied by academic freedom and tenure policies. No one can mandate that professors teach the latest innovations, although anecdotal evidence suggests that students tend to select classes taught by more forward-thinking professors. suggesTion: miTigaTe sysTemic impedimenTs A number of obstacles fell outside the scope of what researchers, funders, and operators could accomplish on their own. Some of the impediments to implementing research come from legislative or regulatory mandates. Improving the return on investment on research may involve tackling more systemic institutional barriers. The symposium identified the following suggestions for mitigating systemic impediments: • Change low-bid and arms-length procurement policies; • Overcome policy barriers such as mandates, conflicts, and long-term instability; • Coordinate a systematic approach to research and innovation; • Adapt to the fast pace of external change; and • Match the scale of the implementer to that of the transportation system. Change Low-Bid and Arms-Length Procurement Policies Many participants bemoaned the use of low-bid procurement, especially low-bid procurement that only considered the initial costs of new construction or system acquisition. Often, innovative solutions may have higher up-front costs but offer significantly superior life-cycle costs or provide additional benefits not offered by the mainstream solutions. Life-cycle costs and performance- based procurement would enable funders to optimize bang-for-the-buck trade-offs. The goal of fostering deeper, collaborative relation- ships between researchers and end users can run afoul of well-intended anticorruption and antifavoritism policies. Procurement policies are often designed so that the com- missioner of a transportation project is not seen as having a preferential relationship with any one bidder, yet that policy makes deeper relationships between researchers and innovative companies more difficult. Funding agen- cies need well-designed, open, and transparent procure- ment processes that create a level playing field while still permitting closer collaboration between the bidder and requester. These processes may include some mechanisms to enable the sharing of proprietary information between the bidder and the funder within a closed but fair context. TfL’s open procurement calls with follow-on private ses- sions were cited as an example of this. Overcome Policy Barriers: Mandates, Conflicts, and Long-Term Instability Other policy-related barriers concern specific technology mandates, conflicts between policies, and instability in the legislative or regulatory systems. Conflicting regulations create barriers to adoption. For example, if research finds a way to improve safety, but the innovation increases emissions,

64 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n does it get stopped by legal environmental challenges? A clear calculus of trade-offs would help implementers know which gains are worth which costs. Legislative and regulatory uncertainties also inhibit development and implementation of new transportation ideas by increasing the uncertainty about the deployment of an innovation. The long-term nature of transportation infrastructure and systems calls for long-term stability in funding and regulation. Coordinate a Systematic Approach to Research and Innovation Overall, some participants argued for a much more systemic approach to research and its deployment. The current approach is like filling potholes one at a time. It creates only incremental improvements within individual transportation jurisdictions but not the kind of paradigmatic change needed to cope with larger-scale problems such as megacity congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, or safety. The current approach is also not coordinated across modes, which is a mistake, because almost every journey taken by a person or piece of freight involves multiple modes. What may be needed is a more systemic and coordinated approach to transportation research, transportation innovation demonstrations projects, and transportation system deployments. A more coordinated approach might start with high-level societal priorities and a better understanding of the systemic gaps between the as-built environment and the as-desired transportation fabric of the economy. It might include awareness of timescales of when new transportation research might be needed to deliver innovations in time for when new transportation systems might be needed. The result would be a much more interlocking pattern of research and implementation programs across time, modes, and issues that delivers systems solutions to systems problems. Adapt to the Fast Pace of External Change The fast pace of external technological change threatens to overtake transportation research results. For example, decades of research have gone into vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication architectures based on dedicated radios on vehicles. Yet the rising prevalence of smartphones seems to obviate the need for dedicated radios and make the original architecture obso- lete before it has even been implemented. Similarly, rapid demographic changes in attitudes about transportation (e.g., attitudes about the merits of personal car ownership) imply that transportation research might solve last year’s perceived problem but not next year’s actual needs. These rapid changes seemed to motivate a greater acceleration of transportation research and the imple- mentation of that research. One suggestion was that the transportation industry look more closely at industries that have higher rates of innovation and an accelerated pace of bringing research into the real world, with an eye to learning from these industries. It may be that these industries, which include aerospace, pharmaceuticals, and electronics, are doing what has been suggested at this symposium, namely, engaging in closer communica- tion based on deeper trust between the different play- ers in their research area. Good flow of information will improve implementation, and it will also update the players about what is going on and what the short- and long-term R&D needs will be. Match the Scale of the Implementer to That of the Transportation System One impediment to implementation of step-change innovation has been the gap between the scale of the implementation and the scale of the companies typically found in the transportation infrastructure industry. If an infrastructure operator has 3,000 bridges and a proposed sensing system needs 300 sensors per span, then deploying that innovation requires a manufacturer and associated suppliers to make millions of very cost-effective sensor units. Similarly, adoption of new materials such as warm-mix asphalt requires investment by material suppliers and paving contractors. Unfortunately, the transportation infrastructure industry is extremely fragmented; for instance, the United Kingdom alone has about 300,000 construction firms. These small and medium enterprises do not have the resources for large- scale R&D and implementation. In contrast, other research-driven industries—such as biotechnology, aerospace, and electronics—have very large players that can afford to invest in scale. Aerospace, for example, has only two dominant manufacturers of passenger airliners. These manufacturers have the scale to invest billions in extremely large innovation projects such as designing and building a new airliner. Solving this problem in transportation may entail greater public-sector funding for large-scale development consortium-building efforts to pool development budgets or some form of private-sector consolidation to create players of sufficient scale. suggesTion: manage The double-edged sWords: acceleraTors and impedimenTs Some elements seem to have contradictory influences on the implementation of research. These elements were seen as potentially both improving the deployment of innovation as well as sometimes being an impediment. These double-edged swords generated some debate

65s u g g e s t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h over whether these elements were good or bad for get- ting research implemented in the real world. Both were thought of as good ideas, but the discussions revealed some negative second-order consequences that might require other mitigations. The symposium identified two double-edged swords: standards and intellectual property. Standards: Encouraging Adoption Versus Discouraging Innovation On one hand, standards such as those managed by ISO, the European Committee for Standardization, or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials can provide a crucial channel for the mass deployment of innovation. Many product makers, construction firms, and operating entities rely on published standards for specifications, which drive the adoption of standardized technologies. Risk-averse funders and operators feel safer if they can use standards. Thus, the sooner an idea can become a standard, the sooner it will be deployed. On the other hand, reliance on standards can inhibit the testing and initial deployment of the newest innovations. Researchers or those wishing to implement an innovation must convince funders, procurement organizations, and operators to accept a nonstandard design or product. The time lag between invention and the release of a standard referencing the invention can delay deployment. Also, differences in standards in different countries can limit the deployment of innovation or create a fragmented market for new products. Some symposium participants suggested that standards should be more performance- based rather than prescriptive. Intellectual Property: Private Incentives, Public Assets, and the Free Flow of Ideas Intellectual property rights (IPR) were cited as a significant impediment but also as another double-edged sword. Many funding agencies feel that the results of publicly funded research should not be privately owned. That perspective may be especially tragic if a funding agency insists on retaining the rights to an invention but lacks the policies, processes, or funding needed to deploy it. IPR issues stymie private-sector investment in commercialization. Without clear rights or licenses to new inventions, companies are loath to invest in development of the results of transportation research. The challenge is in balancing public rights to the fruits of public funding against private incentives to bring ideas to market. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Department of Defense were cited as U.S. government entities that had successful plans for licensing government-funded intellectual property (IP) to private firms. In addition, universities were cited as examples of entities that have successfully centralized IP and found a way to manage it across sectors. Increasing the use of IPR, however, may also have consequences that slow innovation. Some researchers saw IP as a potential impediment to the free flow of ideas in the research environment. The need for secrecy surrounding potential inventions delays dissemination and discussions. Time lags in the patent process create lags in the publication of results. suggesTion: Track research and implemenTaTion over The long Term Despite the many case studies of successful research, much uncertainty remained about the efficacy of research. Did a given piece of research make it into deployment? Was the research efficient or successful? Which research projects contributed to which transportation innovation, new product, or major infrastructure project? None of these questions had good answers. Thus, better tracking of research outcomes and their contribution to deployment outcomes was a major missing piece. Research may well be more effective than it appears, but its contribution can be invisible. The ultimate end users of transportation systems—commuters and freight shippers—do not see the technology embedded in the network and under their tires or feet. Better tracking of the relationship between research efforts and transportation system performance has three benefits. First, better tracking of the contribution of research helps ensure funding of research by documenting its value. Second, tracking is part of learning best practices and performing postmortems. Third, tracking is part of the research process, namely, finding follow-on research opportunities in unexpected outcomes during and after deployment. The symposium identified the following suggestions for tracking research and implementation over the long term: • Collect the right data, • Match the duration of the research to the duration of implementation and life span, and • Analyze the research process ROI, not the research project ROI. Collect the Right Data Several symposium participants mentioned four guidelines for collecting the proper data for tracking the contribution of research to real-world transport system performance:

66 t r a n s p o r t r e s e a r c h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n • Harmonize data collection across locations and time to ensure that data were collected in the same way and with the same definitions. • Track performance both before and after to establish the impact of a deployment or innovation. • Document the actual costs (including overruns) and benefits (including unexpected effects) of the inno- vation over the long term. • Include both objective and subjective data in the tracking. Although objective data on velocities, punctuality, and fatality rates do matter, subjective opinions about delays, flow, and safety have a greater impact on end users’ opinions about transportation systems. Match the Duration of Research to the Duration of Implementation and Life Span Several participants noted the gap between research proj- ect duration and transportation system life spans. Most of the research programs mentioned had durations under a decade, and many research projects have funding for only a couple of years. Infrastructure, land use, and fleets, however, persist for more than a decade. The long gesta- tion periods for major infrastructure only exacerbate this problem. The value (or risks) of a given innovation (e.g., long-term changes in consumer–user behavior, unintended consequences) might take years to appear. Long-term tracking of research, its implementations, and the outcome would help mitigate this disconnect. In addition, research that is funded with government money could have a clause stipulating that the project must document how the research was used and what cost savings or cost efficiency was achieved. Tracking would help close the loop between initial research, initial deployment of innovations, and follow-on research to further refine the initial innovation. Analyze the Research Process ROI, Not the Research Project ROI Several participants suggested having some way to accept or accommodate failure. By its very nature of delving into the unknown, research has risk. Not all research projects lead to viable ideas. That is especially true of projects in the advanced research category. Yet it is these advanced projects that are the most likely to produce major step- change innovations if they are properly nurtured and given the leeway to succeed. Small, low-risk steps cannot bridge the valleys of death or produce the kinds of paradigmatic change needed to achieve big societal goals in emissions reduction, congestion mitigation, cost reduction, and safety. Yet these participants noted the painful challenge of convincing risk-averse organizations to become more accepting of the failures required by innovation. In contrast, high-tech companies and venture capitalists willingly make very risky investments knowing that most will fail but that a few will produce returns so high that they will offset the investments that did not succeed. Blockbuster winners from groundbreaking research can offset the inevitable losers. Spreading the risk and sharing the gains across a portfolio can produce a very positive aggregate return. Reconciling the paradox that failure is required to achieve success implies changing the unit of analysis. Moving the focus from the success or failure of each and every individual research project to the program or portfolio level is often best. Thus, a key rationale for more thorough, long-term tracking of research is in documenting that despite some failures at the proj- ect level, the portfolio or program generates adequate returns. By pooling funding resources, sharing the risks, and coordinating research efforts, collaborating trans- portation organizations in the United States and the European Union can develop a high-return portfolio of research efforts.