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.

55 SESSION 5 From Principles to Practice Kirk Steudle, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, Michigan, USA, and Chair, Transportation Research Board Executive Committee final discussion John Munro said that Chris Martin’s perspective on how the private sector incentivizes research was missing; other participants, however, felt that this concept was captured under the “incentives” rubric. Liam Breslin raised a question about the distinction between advanced research and other kinds of research, to which Francesca La Torre replied that advanced research was top-down research that was driven by researchers without end users asking for a product or asking directly for an outcome. She noted that implementing applied research was easy because end users help to frame the research question. On the other hand, basic research is not directly tied to an outcome; therefore, the question is how to get basic research implemented. Patrick Malléjacq said that communication is important and that sometimes people’s behavior does not seem rational. That is, people are presented with a solution that is cheaper and easy to implement, but they do not apply it because of disincentives. He thought that sociologists and economists should be involved in the process. Alessandro Damiani mentioned that the role of venture capital as a bridge over the valley of death was overlooked in the recap. Max Donath pointed out that public–private partnerships incentivize both parties and suggested creating bonuses for the two groups to work together. Research into understanding how to create successful partnerships would also be fruitful. Chris Martin mentioned that he had research on how to use venture capital as a bridge over the valley of death and suggested some seminal articles on that for a bibliography. Martin invited any other participants to contribute to a bibliography of relevant materials on the topic. Steve Phillips mentioned that there was a difference between advanced research and very innovative applied research. Innovative applied research is still applied research, and thus it has a very different process and research chain. He said it would be crazy for all funders to be mandated to set aside funding for advanced research, because some funders would not be good managers of advanced research. Rather, funders should focus on their core competencies. For example, road agencies should focus on applied research. Bill Millar added that a mechanism should be put together to ensure that adequate advanced research is done. The key is having a mechanism in place for advanced research, he said, not that each funder has to conduct advanced research itself. Phillips said that there is a big gap in trust. In the past, there was a good ecosystem of state departments of transportation (DOTs), national research labs, and universities, so that basic research was translated. That ecosystem has now been lost and needs to be

56 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 recreated. The answer, however, is not that more funding of research is needed. Rather, current funding must be better spent. Millar tied Phillips’ comments back to the concepts of framework and context, and Munro linked them to the portfolio concept as well. Cristina Marolda talked about the continuum of research and the difficulties in setting boundaries between the dif- ferent phases. She felt that funding was the least of the problems. Rather, there are different competencies that are needed at each stage, and projects are concurrent. Sometimes basic research can deliver a solution, and sometimes an applied project can yield a new concept. Ideas on how to cross-fertilize the different stages and ensure communication across the continuum are needed. Citizens want value out of all research, not just pieces of it. Damiani said it was important to keep in mind the dual EU–U.S. nature of this symposium. To say “we need more basic research” could be misleading because the EU framework program is 80% basic research, whereas in the United States the balance of basic to applied research is flipped. The United States is seeking more basic research, and the European Union is seeking more applied research. Thus, joint collaboration could help both parties. Bob Skinner commented that the portfolio concept was useful, and he agreed that research organizations should play to their strengths and not be expected to do both applied and blue-sky research. Context dictates what the portfolio makeup should be, he said. For example, a developing country would likely do no blue-sky research but would instead scan the research that is already being done. Similarly, what one country in the European Union does or what one state does may differ from what its neighbor does. Alasdair Cain saw three main areas of improvement: partnering, consortia, and procurement reform. What was missing was the idea of implementation agencies, which Breslin had raised on the first day. That is, some agencies should be responsible for the implementation stage and have the funding to do so, such as the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the second Strategic Highway Research Program. Millar concluded the discussion by summarizing the main points: the portfolio or continuum of research and risk sharing. He thought that researchers should frame the research and the context and the area of communication early on to connect researchers to the longer term as well as to the entity that has a particular need to be addressed. concluding keynoTe address Kirk Steudle Kirk Steudle said that the future is developed by research. Prior research has influenced society in big and small ways; research leads to what happens in society. Over the 2 days, participants heard about many research perspectives that have many different angles: traditional research institutions, modified research institutions that focus on blue-sky research, and groups that focus on applied research. Participants also heard from industry and private R&D, which is driven by the need to improve productivity and the quest for competitive advantages. In addition, participants heard about government- supported research at different levels: the national level (European Union or U.S. federal government), the state or EU country level, and cities and network operators. The EU country level and U.S. federal level focus on long-term research, and much of the process is driven by funding distribution and managing a big portfolio of research that has to happen across agencies. There was discussion of the balance between advanced and applied research that happens at all levels. State– country and network operators focus closer to the end user and are more oriented toward customer demand. That group is also concerned about scalability. Research can demonstrate that something works on one bridge, but there is the question of how to scale it to several bridges and whether it can work on all bridges. The bottom line, as Bev Scott said, is about organizations, culture change, and people, people, people. The world is changing and evolving, and disruptive technology and disruptive research are forcing change. At the same time, incremental research needs to respond faster to match the disruptive technology. Feedback loops are getting faster and shorter and will continue to do so. Funding budgets are much tighter, and legislative bodies demand accountability. Particularly in the public sector, failure is not an option because failures will be used by political enemies. Therefore, failure must be managed, and administrators will be cautious about the risks. Steudle called for a greater connection to outcomes. For example, the Michigan DOT will take risks if it is working toward certain specific outcomes. In those cases, a risk that does not produce a good result will be accepted. In addition, investments need to focus on an expanded business case: why is the research being undertaken, and how does it impact the bottom line? There is intense competition for research funding, and new competitors are responding to requests for research.

57f r o m p r i n c i p l e s t o p r a c t i c e He noted how Transport for London (TfL) is using social media and social interactions to connect with stakeholders and that stakeholders now expect much more involvement. Like TfL, the Michigan DOT conducts e-mail blasts and has two-way Twitter conversations; the agency asks for user feedback and uses social media as much as it can. Steudle suggested that others in the room use social media to its full advantage to tell their stories of what their research accomplished and how it changed people’s lives and to get support for the next round of research. Steudle ended with four conclusions. First, he supported Kevin Womack’s idea of creating a research primer, especially for new employees. Second, connection to end users is paramount for the success and future of research. Third, innovation means implementing a result or a product that helps society evolve. Finally, he shared a relevant quote: “Imagination without implementation is hallucination.” final remarks by The organizers Bob Skinner thanked the participants for their high energy levels and engagement over the 2 days of the symposium. He felt enriched by the discussions and said he had learned not only about European methods but also about Americans engaged in the research process. Kevin Womack thanked participants for their varied and important points of view and for helping in this endeavor. He said that he and Damiani would have much material that they could use. He also mentioned creating a primer of basic principles that apply to all types of research and that help to oversee the process from inception to implementation. Alessandro Damiani remarked on the usefulness and applicability of the symposium discussions. The next steps are to reflect on how to follow up on them: What lessons can be extracted so that both the United States and the European Union put to use the investment of knowledge that was given here at the symposium? He was particularly grateful for the participants’ willing- ness to share their knowledge and engage so actively. He acknowledged that each participant contributed a lot and that he and the European Commission appreciated it very much. He said the French have an apt, melodic phrase to describe the innovation process: le savoir, le savoir-faire, et le faire-savoir—knowledge, know-how, and outreach. He urged participants not to forget the importance of outreach and to communicate the richness of ideas that emerged from these symposia. Jesús Rodríguez concluded the meeting, saying the col- laboration would continue. He referred back to Breslin’s comment about the two new EU–U.S. joint research projects that have developed from the first symposium and noted that the United States and the European Union are working together on Infravation. He said he sees that this kind of collaboration will be the future of research and that it should be the typical way that research is conducted. To do research within just the United States or the European Union makes no sense.