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.

13 BREAKOUT SESSION 1 Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementation Alessandro Damiani, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium Francesca La Torre, University of Florence, Florence, Italy Harold (Skip) Paul, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA In the first breakout session, symposium participants divided into three groups: funders, researchers, and implementers–users. Each group discussed the three questions of the conference: 1. What are the driving elements in successful funding leading to deployment of innovative solutions? 2. What are the impediments to the application of research outcomes? 3. What are the factors that are inhibiting transport research from being deployed into real transport systems? funders’ breakouT session Alessandro Damiani recapped the discussion from the funders’ group’s five key points: 1. Involving stakeholders from the start, 2. Involving researchers in the deployment of the research, 3. Emphasizing the policy context, 4. Recognizing the importance of communication, and 5. Using loans or equity resources to bridge the valley of death. First, involving stakeholders from the start is essen- tial in the process of identifying priorities and drawing up the research agenda. Facilitating a close-knit partner community of funders and researchers is of paramount importance in this process. The risk of involving industry and end users is that these groups tend to look at things incrementally. That is, few of them have a broader, holis- tic view that includes disruptive innovation. Stakehold- ers need to have more vision, and the way to accomplish that could be to have a coalition that works together, such as the European Technology Platform. By working together, stakeholders could achieve a vision collectively and overcome the obstacles of the incrementalist view. Second, on the topic of stakeholders, researchers talk about stakeholder involvement, but the question is, who are the stakeholders? It is actually a complex picture requiring several different stakeholder profiles. How can stakeholders be encouraged to take risks and be pre- pared to share risks? Some participants suggested involv- ing stakeholders in setting priorities and in the research process. Stakeholders should be involved in setting pri- orities, but researchers likewise should be involved in the deployment of the research. In short, users should be engaged in and with the research teams, and researchers should be engaged in deployment, as it is not a linear process. For example, Transport for London mandates that research projects have a sponsor in order to obtain funding. Third, the funders’ group emphasized the policy context, that is, political stability, the long-term policy perspective, and the importance of a sound regulatory environment. The obstacles to creating an innovation- friendly policy environment include the lack of enabling legislation, standards, and general political uncertainty. There is a need to fund research to reach standards and to affect legislation so that legislation and standards are innovation friendly.

14 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 Fourth, the group discussed the importance of communication, not just to disseminate success stories but also to raise public awareness and nurture a culture of innovation. Researchers need not just to define the beauty of the research but to redefine the research in terms of having a solution to a problem rather than having a good research outcome. Fifth, some in the group suggested that bridging the valley of death was important, perhaps through loans or equity resources. One way to achieve this goal could be to link research funding with implementation funding, so that the funding does not stop at the doorstep of deployment. For example, there could be implementation agencies that operate alongside research agencies. Distinguishing between demand-driven and supply-driven loans could be another way to facilitate funding over the valley of death. Procurement and IPR also drew attention from the funding group. Procurement, which is based on the lowest-bid practice, can hamper innovation. Public procurement of innovation is a good practice that would encourage risk-sharing among procurers. There is a need for procurement to be based on performance rather than on compliance with technical standards. IP rights need to reconcile the need for openness (for public benefit of the public investment) with protection of IP so that partners can invest to commercialize the innovation. researchers’ breakouT session Francesca La Torre reported on the researchers’ breakout session, noting that the researchers asked themselves six questions: 1. Are we delivering implementable research? 2. Do we contribute to the implementation of our research outcomes? 3. Are we satisfied with our research outcomes and output? That is, do we focus only on the output of the research or on the outcome of the research? 4. Are we selling the new solutions, that is, evaluating new solutions and proving their effectiveness? 5. Are we really considering implementation when conducting our research? 6. Do we consider only academic recognition rather than successful implementation of our research? For most academics, the measure is academic recognition, although that priority is starting to change. The researchers also made the point that implementation does not simply mean a demonstration or a pilot project, but actual implementation in real-world situations. Three Types of Research The research group then made a distinction between three types of research: basic, development, and implementation research (Figure 1): • Basic research is driven by and conducted by researchers (as opposed to end users) and includes blue- sky, or visionary, thinking. Basic research may have some contribution from end users, but it is primarily research driven. • In contrast to basic research, development research is driven by end users and conducted by researchers. It gives the mortar that pulls together different existing projects to produce end results that the end user needs. • Implementation research is driven and conducted by the end user (manufacturers and contractors) and FIguRE 1 Types of research. IMPLEMENTATION: driven by the END USERS and conducted by the END USERS, with SOME contribution of the researchers DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH: driven by the END USERS, conducted by the researchers (gives the “mortar” that puts together the different existing projects to produce the end results that the end user needs) BASIC RESEARCH: driven by the researchers (including “blue sky” thinking) and conducted by the researchers, maybe with SOME contribution by the end users

15s t a k e h o l d e r p e r s p e c t i v e s o n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n validated by researchers. Therefore, researchers make some contribution to implementation research, but it is primarily driven and conducted by end users. Key Points Next, La Torre described the 10 key points that arose from different participants in the breakout discussion. In no particular order, the points are as follows: • Researchers need to be free to do blue-sky research. Researchers are researchers, and they need to be free to create innovation. • There is a need for funding for the implementation of research, not just the research itself. • Research is most likely to be implemented if there is a linkage of projects; that is, the plans for implementation ideally begin when the research begins, and implementation continues to overlap with the research. If it is not possible to begin the implementation at the time the research effort begins, then the research project should at least be linked to the implementation project. • Two of the elements that support research that leads to implementation are allocating researchers to the implementation and having demonstrations and pilot tests. In addition, publicizing the implementation and making it visible to the public also help, because the public will be judging the project. • Some noted that the implementation process is not linear and that a systemic approach that looks at both research and implementation in depth would be helpful. • Certain members of the group suggested that the implementation strategy be made part of the scope of the research project and included in the work package to ensure that the implementation gets done. • Others in the group suggested awarding final payment on a research project only after “the end user is convinced of the utility of the research product in practice,” which may mean waiting some time after the project, even years. • Some in the group thought that requiring third- party evaluation of the research implementation could be beneficial. • A few in the group suggested including the cost- effectiveness of the research and identifying possible deployment issues to help the implementation. • Many in the group stressed the importance of disseminating research outside the research community, to decision makers and end users. The researchers’ group then discussed five points that they would emphasize above all others: • Monitoring research outcomes for a sufficient length of time at the end of the project; • Funding implementation; • Providing incentives for manufacturers to do research, which independent researchers can then validate; • Changing IP rights so that IP does not go to the funding agency but could go to manufacturers that would implement the research; and • Educating all stakeholders (e.g., designers, contractors, and decision makers) on the processes and tools needed to help implement transportation research. Discussion Discussion of these points was then opened to symposium participants. Jesús Rodríguez commented that there is a need to change the way academics are evaluated. Often, academics are not interested in participating with indus- try because they are not evaluated on implementation. In Europe, he said, it is normal to be a researcher and then to go to work for the end user for which the prod- uct of the research was intended. He suggested that this researcher–to–end user model could be one to follow. implemenTers–users’ breakouT session Harold (Skip) Paul reported on the implementers–users’ breakout session, which covered the following topics: • Risk and procurement rules as impediments to the implementation of innovation, • The need to drive innovators to be interested in transportation, and • Stakeholder involvement. Risk, an impediment to the implementation of inno- vation, can be addressed by giving implementers politi- cal cover for potential failure. There need to be ways to reward taking the risk of implementation or to spread the risk around. A change in public demands can be advantageous because it can allow innovation to be deployed. For example, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) looked at innovations that existed but were not being used. SHRP 2 validated inno- vative ideas. With that validation, risk was reduced. SHRP 2 was initiated by 10 chief executive officers from lead states looking at soft-side issues. Because SHRP 2 was a national program, the states had political cover to explore the innovations; that is, they could say, “We need to do this because it is a federal program,” and thus had an excuse to make the leap to implementing the innovation. More risk could be taken. Risk was also

16 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 mentioned as a problem for industry because of the pos- sibility of failures. Operators often have to risk failure to get innovation. It is important for research commission- ers to understand that it is okay to fail. Second, procurement rules sometimes impede innova- tion because they focus on the lowest initial cost rather than on the overall life-cycle cost. Procurement rules make it harder to implement innovation because innova- tion may have a higher initial cost but a lower life-cycle cost because of aspects that the innovation offers, such as reduced maintenance costs. Also, when the case for using life-cycle costs is made, it is important to have valid measures that are performance based. Third, there were those in the group who wondered what was different about industries such as the defense, aviation, and pharmaceutical industries, which spend huge sums on innovation. Although transportation is typically the second-highest budgetary expenditure, transportation is not always seen as essential. Transpor- tation infrastructure is not considered to be an innovative, cutting-edge area. There is a need to drive innovators to be interested in transportation. Perhaps attracting play- ers such as Google to the industry or engaging in more marketing to raise the profile of transportation would be helpful. With respect to defense, aviation, and pharma- ceuticals, size also matters. Finally, a predominant theme from the implementers’ discussion was stakeholder involvement in deployment, because implementation is about end users. For example, for rail projects to succeed, commissioners needed to know that operators were on board. Involving stakeholders can shorten the time to acceptance.