Guide to Accelerating New Technology Adoption through Directed Technology Transfer (2014)

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.

45 Tier 1: Foundational/ Organizational Components • Address Societal and Legal Issues • Have an Effective Champion • Engage Decision Makers • Develop a T2 Plan • Identify, Inform, and Engage Stakeholders • Identify and Secure Resources There can be numerous stakeholders in the Innovation Adoption Process, each with a unique perspective on the need or problem that the technology addresses. The T2 definition offers two ways to classify core stakeholders: those who are the source of the technology, and those who are the recipients of it. When the need stems from an organizational problem or deficiency, the process is likely to start with recipient stakeholders. They search for a solution or remedy until they pull in the technology that satisfies the need. The process can also begin with source stake- holders. When the source stakeholders have a technology that meets a need that recipients may or may not recognize, their task is to push the technology to the recipients. In either case, the question is how to make the process more efficient for both recipient and source stakeholders. The guided T2 effort benefits when source and recipient stakeholders are aware of each oth- ers’ needs, resources, decision processes, knowledge and skill levels, current work methods, and technologies. Numerous authors have proposed strategies for facilitating communication and knowledge sharing among stakeholders. Among the strategies recommended by Rogers (2002) were creating boundary-spanning units, transplanting personnel, and forming network rela- tionships linking R&D organizations and receptor organizations. Each of these strategies places source and recipient stakeholders into close working relationships—these purpose- ful interactions transfer relevant knowledge and information while helping each party to understand the circumstances and perspectives of the other. Other authors have emphasized the importance of communications and knowledge sharing among stakeholders, including Desouza et al. (2009), who listed dialogue with all stakeholders and use of social networks among key elements for successful diffusion, and Bonini et al. (2011), who listed among their implementation principles effective communications, broad involvement of the field, and a supportive culture of innovation. C H A P T E R 6 Identify, Inform, and Engage Stakeholders 1. Have source stakeholders been identified? If yes, proceed to the next question. If no or unsure, proceed to the component discussion. 2. Have recipient stakeholders been identified? If yes, proceed to the next question. If no or unsure, proceed to the component discussion. 3. Have stakeholders reached a mutual understanding of the need and potential solution? If yes, proceed to the next component. If no, proceed to component discussion.

46 Guide to Accelerating New Technology Adoption through Directed Technology Transfer Fostering stakeholder interactions has figured prominently as a way of promoting T2 in the transportation community. Beginning in 1987, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) relied on task forces established by the American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials (AASHTO) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as does SHRP’s successor, SHRP2. Task forces have members from states that take the lead in implementing various SHRP and SHRP2 products, following the AASHTO guidebook that pre- scribes the roles and responsibilities of team members. FHWA’s Highways for LIFE initiative, intended to accelerate innovation in the highway industry, created the Technology Partnerships Program to promote partnerships to test and demonstrate new technologies in real-world settings (Zirlin, 2009). The U.S. Domestic Scan Program gives transportation professionals the opportu- nity to gain firsthand knowledge of best practices and innovative technologies implemented by other states (Casey and Casey, 2009). These scans are viewed as valuable by participants not only for the opportunities to see technologies in use elsewhere, but also to learn about the T2 practices of other agencies, the barriers they encountered, and the lessons learned. Interactions and knowledge sharing help stakeholders identify and understand technologies that fit the particular needs that motivated the searches for solutions. Solutions for an organi- zation may reside internally within other organizational units, externally as might be revealed by a domestic scan, or may require original research such as could be accomplished through a networking relationship with an R&D partner organization. When the technology is used successfully elsewhere, and particularly when a domestic scan or peer exchange determines that it is being used successfully by a comparable organization, then the important questions “Does it work?” and “Could it work here?” can potentially be answered in the affirmative. The deep understanding that comes from stakeholder interactions should greatly facilitate specific T2 activities. At that point, the decision to begin the T2 effort is paramount. Informed and Engaged Stakeholders Foster Use of Structural Design Methodology Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a design methodology used by struc- tural engineers for the design of steel structures and the geotechnical design of highway substructure features. AASHTO introduced LRFD in 1994, envisioning full implementation by all state departments of transportation (DOTs) by year 2000. The acceptance of LRFD occurred more slowly than anticipated and full implementation did not happen by the target year. The barrier was that LRFD represented a significant difference in design practice from the previous standard and was not well received by many engineers in the highway structures industry (Withiam, 2003). Accordingly, AASHTO and the FHWA decided to better inform stakeholders, the structural engineers responsible for incorporating LRFD in their agencies, through several initiatives, in particular the development of two LRFD courses: one for superstructure design and the other for substructure design. During the courses and through subsequent surveys, FHWA gathered data about reasons for delayed implementation by the state DOT stakeholders (Withiam, 2003). As a result of the findings, the LRFD Specifications were revised with new content that removed the design practice barriers and helped overcome the reservations of structural engineers. NCHRP, FHWA, and state DOTs, particularly Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington, led the effort. By informing and engag- ing stakeholders in the process and by gathering their input and educating champion states, public and industry agencies worked to evolve the specifica- tions and importantly to accomplish effective T2 (Withiam, 2003).

Identify, Inform, and Engage Stakeholders 47 Stakeholder Roles in Guided T2 With the onset of guided T2 activities in the Innovation Adoption Process, the number of stakeholders involved in T2 is likely to increase and their roles are likely to diversify. Some deci- sion makers may have been involved in the Innovation Adoption Process since the initial search and evaluation phases, particularly if they have ownership of the problem, but other decision makers, such as top executives, may not have been. Before green-lighting a T2 initiative and allocating the required resources, decision makers may need to be informed by internal and/or external stakeholders about the technology-need fit. If a champion has not already emerged, one will have to be found. A transfer agent may be advisable if the source is external and the technology is unfamiliar to internal stakeholders. Work unit managers and other end users may be involved as participants or observers in demonstrations, showcases, technical assistance education, process/outcome evaluation, and other T2 activities. Establishing trust among stakeholders is vital to effective knowledge sharing and cooperation. Stakeholders enter the scene with their individual perspectives on the problem, the potential solution, and the resources required to transfer the technology. Stakeholders may differ in their views on the probability of successful transfer, the magnitude of change to current practices if the technology is deployed, the value of current practices and whether they should be maintained, human resource implications if the technology is deployed (knowledge and skill needs of cur- rent staff, whether staffing will increase or decrease post-deployment), and more. Some recom- mended strategies to promote trust among stakeholders include R&D partnerships and alliances in which source and recipient stakeholders jointly formulate the problem statement, T2 teams that are formed to design and lead the transfer process, and a leader who reinforces cooperation among team members (particularly important in competitive organizational cultures). Engaged Stakeholders at FAA Ensure Input Heeded by Technical Teams During the 1990s, the FAA collaborated with the University of Dayton, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), and Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation (ESCO) to study how Runway Safety Area (RSA) requirements might be realized at runways without sufficient area for full compliance. A new technology emerged from this collaboration that safely arrests over running air- craft using crushable concrete placed at the end of runways (U.S. DOT, FAA, 2011, 2012). That technology was commercialized as Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) and marketed by ESCO. FAA had the job of transferring the tech- nology to airport user organizations that could potentially use it to improve their RSAs. In its early T2 efforts to ensure that the technical need of airports would be satisfied, the FAA involved stakeholder organizations in the early implemen- tation of the new technology. The Port Authority loaned one of its senior engineers to the FAA to provide customized input to facilitate the transfer of the technol- ogy. This valuable input included addressing implementation issues that were critical to the ultimate success and usability of the technology by airports. The stakeholder was able to provide a practical example defining the need for the technology and the resources required to transfer that technology in the field, as well as provide technical input to FAA. Currently, EMAS is installed at 63 run- way ends at 42 airports in the United States, and there are plans to install three EMAS systems at three additional U.S. airports. Also, to date, there have been eight incidents where EMAS has safely stopped over running aircraft with a total of 235 crew and passengers aboard those flights.

48 Guide to Accelerating New Technology Adoption through Directed Technology Transfer Considerations Regarding Stakeholders What Actions Should Be Considered? Identify the stakeholders • How many stakeholders are there? • Which stakeholders represent the source of the technology and which represent the recipient organization? • How do stakeholders relate to the T2 decision maker(s) and champion? Assess the stakeholders’ perspectives on the problem and the solution • What are the perspectives of individual stakeholders on: – The need or problem? – The technology identified as a potential solution? – Resources required for successful transfer? – Probability of successful transfer and definition of success? – Implications for current and future practices if fully deployed? • What are the education and communication needs of stakeholders concerning this T2 effort? • What are the levels of knowledge sharing, trust, and cooperation among stakeholders? Define the roles of various stakeholders in the T2 effort • Define each stakeholder’s responsibilities for T2 activities • What can be done to promote knowledge sharing, trust, and cooperation among stakeholders? What Are Some of the T2 Challenges and Barriers Encountered by Stakeholders? Overcoming T2 barriers often hinges on the actions of stakeholders. By way of illustration, consider these categories and barriers to T2: Contextual • Little organizational support for innovation • Lack of political support for new initiatives or risk • Legacy technologies/practices foster inertia Organizational/Bureaucratic • Organization policies, business processes, and standards work against change and innovation • Organizational structure discourages cross sharing and collaboration • Contracting and procurement practices thwart new approaches Communication/Knowledge Management • Information is not readily shared across the organization • No emphasis on “social contagion,” a lack of opportunities for direct contact, observance, and influence of early adopters • Information does not get to the right people or put in a format that people can use Internal Stakeholders • The researchers aren’t listening to the users • Users aren’t deploying solutions developed by R&D • Staff lacks the skills to either promote or seek out new ideas

Identify, Inform, and Engage Stakeholders 49 External Stakeholders • External partners are not viewed as customers or end users • There is limited communication between the state DOT and outside organizations Many of these barriers arise because of past decisions about how resources were spent, what policies were established and enforced, what information was shared and with whom, and legacy practices. What Are Some of the Tools or Strategies a Stakeholder Can Use to Overcome the T2 Challenges Encountered? Source and recipient stakeholders can pave a smoother road for T2 by employing some of the tools below when barriers are encountered or anticipated. Contextual • To the extent possible, use existing systems to advance T2 priorities • Create mechanisms for knowledge sharing (newsletters, library, and network teams) • Use organizational resources and programs to reinforce T2, such as awards, rewards, prizes, and innovation competitions Organizational/Bureaucratic • Designate an innovation champion to lead T2 activities • Give the program office directors greater ownership for R&D and T2 programs • Create a common sense of purpose within the organization (“one DOT”) Communication/Knowledge Management • Offer “brown bag” or “just-in-time” training to highlight innovations • Establish social media links within the organization focused on knowledge sharing (refer to Educate, Inform, and Provide Technical Assistance component) • Form partnerships with local universities Internal Stakeholders • Mentor/coach new T2 champions • Actively engage user community in the entire innovation process from R&D to deployment • Provide leadership by senior management in bringing users and researchers together External Stakeholders • Develop a network of external partners that share an interest in the technologies that are being promoted • Invite external partners to participate in technical working groups to identify technology needs, R&D candidates, and deployment opportunities • Provide conferences/expos to link to external stakeholders and potential partners Suggested Readings Bonini, M. R., B. J. Fields, R. J. Vance, M. S. Renz, B. T. Harder, M. W. Treisbach, and L. I. Bankert, “How to Build a System to Implement Research and Innovation.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta- tion Research Board, No. 2211, (2011) pp. 1–9. Butler, S. M., and J. L. Flagg, “Technology Transfer and Technology Transfer Intermediaries.” Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2010) pp. 129–150. Casey, D. P., and P. C. Casey, “Accelerating the Rate of Innovation Among State DOTs—Tracing Domestic Scan Impacts.” (2009).

50 Guide to Accelerating New Technology Adoption through Directed Technology Transfer Desouza, K., C. Dombrowski, Y. Awazu, P. Baloh, S. Papagari, S. Jha, and J. Kim, “Crafting Organizational Innova- tion Processes.” Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2009) pp. 6–33. Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation (ESCO), “What is EMAS?” ESCO EMAS Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Accessed May 8, 2013. http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/commercial-systems/what-is-emas.php Erhun, F., P. Concalves, and J. Hopman, “The Art of Managing New Product Transitions.” MIT Sloan Manage- ment Review, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2007) pp. 73–80. Lichtenthaler, U., E. Holger, and M. Hoegl, “Not-Sold-Here: How Attitudes Influence External Knowledge Exploitation.” Organization Science, Vol. 21, No. 5 (2010) pp. 1054–1071. Luna-Reyes, L. F., L. J. Black, A. M. Cresswell, and T. A. Pardo, “Knowledge Sharing and Trust in Collaborative Requirements Analysis.” System Dynamics Review, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2008) pp. 265–297. Rogers, E. M., “The Nature of Technology Transfer.” Science Communication, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2002) pp. 323–336. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS).” Fact Sheet. (2011). Accessed May 8, 2013. http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story. cfm?newsId=12497 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns.” Advisory Circular No. 150/5220-22B. (2012). Accessed May 8, 2013. http:// www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5220_22b.pdf Withiam, J. L., “Implementation of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Substructure Design.” In Proc. International Workshop on Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering Practice (LSD2003) (2003) pp. 37–38. Zirlin, J., “Bringing Innovations to Market.” Public Roads, Vol. 72, No. 4 (2009).