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.

52 BREAKOUT SESSION 2 Identifying the Success Factors Unlike Breakout Session 1, in which participants met in one of three groups, according to their professional affiliation (funder, implementer– user, researcher), the format of Breakout Session 2 ran- domly assigned all participants into three mixed groups. breakouT group 1 Martin Schroeder summarized the five key points that emerged from Group 1’s discussion. The first point had to do with the definition of research and the different research types. Advanced research is defined as involving higher risk and is not necessarily tied to a product. Applied research, in contrast, is tied to a known problem or product. The second key point was to connect advanced research with the end in mind. Even though advanced research does not have to be tied to a product, advanced research must be tied to a purpose. The purpose sets the context for the research. There has to be a concept of the purpose for the work and for the vision. For example, a mission statement such as “going to the moon” provided a clear vision and end goal. The third point was the idea of using consortia to connect research needs to the end user. In the United States, for example, Technology Watch has the goal of identifying promising research. The identification goes both ways: the agency weighs in on the research topics and so do end users such as road system operators, who need to be aware of advanced research. The European Union has its own way of identifying promising research topics. In addition to being aware of advanced research in transportation, users such as those in transit systems and road systems also need to be aware of the advanced research in other disciplines, because it could be relevant to transportation. The fourth point was awareness of the full funding requirements from advanced research through to product development. It is useful to know the cost estimate from the start, because that information could help in the decision of whether to do the research. It may not be feasible to undertake expensive research that would then require another tenfold investment to get the research to implementation. For example, a country will not undertake the replacement of all of its existing rail, so research that would lead to that end is not fruitful. Finally, procurement practices need to encourage innovation. Currently, procurement is based on a lowest- bidder approach, which forces procurement of old solu- tions. The procurement system has to be restructured to provide incentives for innovation. An innovative solution may cost a bit more up front but will save much more in maintenance or over the entire life cycle. breakouT group 2 As in Group 1, the participants in Group 2 had an initial discussion about the different types of research and the aspects of vision, risk, implementation, and evaluation– financing of the different research types. urban Karlström provided a recap of the discussion. Types of Research and Their Implications Several people in the group identified research on two ends of a continuum: advanced and applied. Advanced research is entirely driven by researchers. In contrast, applied research is driven by those who own the prob- lem. Advanced research needs a vision, framework, or context under which it should be undertaken. It is essen- tial to define the research so that it is focused but to give researchers the freedom to do what they want within that framework. The two types of research also vary in their risk profiles. Advanced research is high risk and long term in comparison with applied research. Finally, the more advanced the research is, the more interdisci- plinary it should be. In advanced research, implementa- tion might constitute the identification of the next steps of the research.

53i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s u c c e s s f a c t o r s Applied and advanced research would be evaluated differently because each has different merits. Therefore, the criteria for funding should be different as well. Likewise, different financing tools are needed for the different kinds of research. A portfolio is needed for both applied research and advanced research. Those portfolios will differ on the basis of the institutional situations of different countries. Impediments to Application of Research Individuals in the group identified six impediments to the application of research: 1. Lack of incentives to apply the research. From the point of view of the researcher, there is no incentive to work on the application of the research because doing so will yield neither academic recognition nor funding. The solution is either to provide academic recognition or to provide funding for implementation as an incentive for researchers. 2. Lack of understanding that research is a tool. In the public sector, few administrators or implementers understand that research is a tool that will help them solve their problems. Therefore, they are not looking at research and trying to apply it. Some members of the group thought that it would be beneficial to help these implementers–users to understand that research is a tool that can help them solve their problems, and that this could be done through communication. 3. Lack of cooperation between industry and academia. Industry and academia need to support each other and understand each other’s processes. 4. Standards and regulations. Standards and regulations can both impede and enable implementation. In some cases, regulation can be an impediment to applying research, as when, for example, regulations or standards specifications do not allow new materials. In other cases, standards have been necessary to the application of research, as in the case of autonomous vehicles. Advanced research could identify the standards that would promote the operation of autonomous vehicles. 5. Communication. Although communication is vital, it is difficult and requires a skill set different from that of researchers. In addition, the communication must be ongoing. For example, the perfume industry continuously communicates that people need its product. Some in the group thought that continuous communication might be one way to increase the application of transportation research. 6. Culture. There is a need for a research-to-innovation culture, and this need boils down to leadership and people. People need to see the importance of research. Karlström concluded by saying that the entire session could be distilled to one word: incentives. If the incen- tives are right for the system, it will work. If they are wrong, it will not work. breakouT group 3 Breakout Group 3, summarized by Max Donath, likewise distinguished between various kinds of research and then offered suggestions for tackling the impediments to applying research outcomes. On the continuum of research, advanced research pursues what he called “reach goals,” such as the elimination of all roadway deaths. Applied research, in contrast, goes for the low-hanging fruit by examining standards, processes, or systems engineering. Some in the group offered the following suggestions: • Regarding the driving elements that lead to deployment of innovative solutions: – Define and articulate the vision. – Set aside a percentage of all funds for advanced research that is different from applied research, so that the two do not compete with each other (sugges- tion for funders). – Reward innovation by giving a bonus to all partners who move the research forward. – Define success, because advanced research has different criteria for success. If researchers do not fail on occasion, they are not reaching high enough. It is not a failure but something to be learned from the process. – Conduct field operation tests under real-world conditions. Create the environment to test and deploy ideas in the field. • Regarding impediments to the application of research outcomes: – Spread risk by teaming between partners, such as departments of transportation (DOTs) and agencies. State DOTs can pool their funds for research, but they have been funding applied research. They may also need advanced research. The same is true for different countries. – Foster a culture of innovation among DOTs and agencies. Deployers are risk averse. – Articulate a return on investment for investment in research and, perhaps, rebrand research and get it out there so that people understand it. The average person on the street does not know how research is connected to final deployment. – Target funding for advanced research and rec- ognize that, regardless of whether research is tech- nology pull or technology push, technology transfer

54 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 is still needed. Researchers need to go out and mingle with users to understand their environments. • Regarding factors that inhibit deployment: Procure- ment rules need to move away from the low-bid model. Instead, these rules should reward innovation through incentives and by providing liability protection, because agencies are so averse to risk. Agencies should be protected from potential liability when they implement innovation. This means procurement rules should be based on func- tional performance and not on technical specifications.