Accelerating Implementation of Transportation Research Results (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.

17 CHAPTER THREE CASE EXAMPLES AND PRACTICE DESCRIPTIONS • Entrepreneur-in-Residence Programs • Innovation Inducement Prizes • Evidence-Based Practice Scholars Program • Training for Implementation • Organizational Implementation Policy • Research Transition Teams. NETWORK OF IMPLEMENTATION EXPERTS— NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH NETWORK The National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) is an example of the type of resources that can be available for implementation assistance for the transportation com- munity. NIRN is located at the FPG Child Development Institute of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. It is staffed by implementation and technical assistance acade- micians and scientists. Material in this discussion is excerpted from the NIRN website: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/. The purposes of NIRN are to 1. Advance the science of implementation across domains (e.g., mental health, substance abuse, educa- tion, juvenile justice) by • Conducting implementation research and evalua- tion and • Developing and updating syntheses of relevant implementation research and practice descriptions. 2. Inform the transformation of human services by • Developing practical implementation frameworks to guide the transformation of behavioral health services and • Providing technical assistance to governments, communities, foundations, and individual agencies that are implementing evidence-based programs and practices. National Implementation Research Network The mission of NIRN is to close the gap between science and service by improving the science and practice of implementation in relation to evidence- based programs and practices. (NIRN) To him who devotes his life to science, nothing can give more happiness than increasing the number of discoveries, but his cup of joy is full when the results of his studies immediately find practical applications. (Louis Pasteur) This chapter provides a variety of case examples and prac- tice descriptions that build on the factors discussed in the chapter two. The examples are illustrations of strategies and activities seen as contributing to accelerating implementa- tion within various public-sector, private-sector, and aca- demic organizations. These case examples or descriptions were selected (1) as models that picture how other domains succeed in effective and efficient implementation of inno- vations, and (2) because they may be applicable within transportation contexts. Furthermore, these examples are presented to prompt transportation professionals to consider how these strategies and approaches can speed the use of research findings by • Enhancing expertise to perform implementation, • Providing support to those responsible for accomplish- ing implementation, • Demonstrating the value of well-defined processes based on research, and • Providing systematic approaches to implementation that will be foundational to developing a strong imple- mentation infrastructure. Implementation case examples and practice descriptions included in this chapter are • Network of Implementation Experts—National Implementation Research Network • Global Implementation Conference • Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, National Institutes of Standards and Technology • Research Project Synopses, Joint Fire Science Program • Partnership Intermediaries—Resources Committed to Implementation Processes • Well-Defined and Documented Implementation Processes—Manager’s Guide, Desk Reference, Policies and Procedures, and Implementation Guide • Research, Document, and Share Successful Implementation Strategies—Accelerating Innovation at Hewlett–Packard • Technology Readiness Levels

18 Paper implementation means putting into place new policies and procedures. … It is clear that paperwork in file cabinets plus manuals on shelves do not equal putting innovations into practice with benefits to consumers. Process implementation means putting new operating procedures in place to conduct training workshops, provide supervision, change information reporting forms, and so on. … It is clear that the trappings of evidence-based practices and programs plus lip service do not equal putting innovations into practice with benefits to consumers. Performance implementation means putting procedures and processes in place in such a way that the identified functional components of change are used with good effect for consumers. It appears that implementation that produces actual benefits to consumers, organizations, and systems requires more careful and thoughtful efforts [than addressing policy and procedures]. (Fixsen et al. 2005, p. 6) The implementation synthesis identifies six stages of implementation that are seen in practice within the context of the authors’ work: 1. Exploration and Adoption—the first step, thinking about options and making a decision to implement 2. Program Installation—putting into place the struc- tures and resources to accomplish the implementation 3. Initial Implementation—early use of the new prac- tices, requiring change and commitment to use of something new 4. Full Operation—experienced change, learning the new way of doing things is integrated into practitioner and organizational and community practice 5. Innovation—evaluation of practice over a sufficient time to determine if the new practice is beneficial to users 6. Sustainability—ensuring long-term survival and continued effectiveness. Detailing the implementation process in this manner shows some of the complexity of the process and provides a framework in which to consider how implementation of transportation research findings can be addressed. These stages may be present in transportation applications; how- ever, there is little support to acknowledge and marshal the resources and expertise required to successfully accomplish each stage. Other items in the document include guidance for the clinical community on the core implementation components: Practitioner Selection—who is qualified to carry out the new practice; Pre-Service and In-Service Training—practitio- ners need to learn the new way of doing things; Consultation and Coaching—guidance for individual change, especially 3. Ensure that the voices and experiences of diverse communities and consumers influence and guide implementation efforts by • Supporting a network to impact implementation agendas as they relate to consumer and family issues, diversity, access, and effectiveness and • Collaborating with diverse communities that wish to develop an evidence base for a promising practice. The National Implementation Research Network can help states, communities, and provider organizations develop locally sustainable solutions to many problems faced by human service planners, managers, and prac- titioners. NIRN’s practical and effective strategies and processes are based on more than 35 years of experience developing and implementing evidence-based programs, reviews of the implementation evaluation literature, and ongoing reviews of effective implementation practices from the perspectives of purveyors, implementers, policy makers, and researchers. The most important aspect of this implementation network is the commitment from the clinical community to dedicate expertise to create implementation content. It is not difficult to insert wording related to transporta- tion to get the idea of how helpful such a resource would be to transportation research managers and those seeking to implement research results. The most important aspect of this implementation network is the commitment from the clinical medical community to dedicate the expertise to create the implementation content provided through the network. The network is not only a means to connect or link clinical professionals, it provides substantive content on implementation strategies and practices. It is a “go-to” place to receive guidance to accelerate use of practices. One of the most informative items on the NIRN website was produced in 2005 by NIRN. The document, “Imple- mentation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature,” pro- vides detailed material on the existing research and practice for implementation in clinical settings. The study reviewed more than 1,000 documents in agriculture, business, child welfare, engineering, health, juvenile justice, manufactur- ing, medicine, mental health, nursing, and social services (Fixsen et al. 2005, p. vi). Implementation is defined as “a specified set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or program of known dimensions” (Fixsen et al. 2005, p. 5). Moreover, at the outset of this work, it is acknowledged that careful and thoughtful activity is required to actually accomplish implementation as described by these three degrees of implementation:

19 during initial implementation; Staff Evaluation—assess- ment of use and outcomes by practitioners; Facilitative Administrative Supports—leadership and organizational support; and Systems Interventions—ensuring the contin- ued financial, organizational, and human resources required to support the innovation (Fixsen et al. 2005, chapter 4). The implementation synthesis provides an example of using the core implementation components taken from man- ufacturing: Consultation and Coaching—Toyota adopted a new just-in-time manufacturing process that caused a com- prehensive reorganization of the production units. To assist in implementation of the new system, the Toyota Supplier and Support Center (TSSC) provided consulting and imple- mentation support free of charge to Toyota manufacturing production sites that have committed to implementing the new manufacturing process. TSSC analyzed plant capacity, prescribed the best implementation strategy with adapta- tions for local context, directly observed and analyzed work- ers on the production line and for the supply chain, identified key aspects at the operation level, assisted in plant redesign for industrial engineering efficiencies, and more. The TSSC staff spent about 1 week per month for 3 years observing performance, reviewing progress, answering questions, and assigning new tasks until full implementation was achieved (Fixsen et al. 2005, p. 13). The effort and expertise required to ensure successful implementation was not trivial; it was substantially greater than what is traditionally committed by transportation organizations for implementing major changes in practice. Although the content of the implementation synthesis is particularly informative, it is also important to recog- nize the fact that the document was produced—that the research-to-practice and clinical communities supported the effort to do an in-depth comprehensive examination of current practice. The work was accomplished with fund- ing from a nonprofit partner, the William T. Grant Foun- dation (http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org), that has an interest in applying research results to policies and practice to affect youth. This implementation case example shows the critical assistance that partners can give to furthering successful implementation. The research performed to produce the NIRN imple- mentation synthesis has also spawned additional activity for implementation science. One such activity is the Global Implementation Conference sponsored in part by NIRN. GLOBAL IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE The evidence-based practice (EBP) community conducted its first Biennial Global Implementation Conference (GIC) in August 2011 with 750 scientists, practitioners, and policy makers gathered to address the variety of topics dealing with implementing research results to practice. A 2013 conference was also planned. (Material is excerpted from the GIC 2013 conference website, http://www.implementationconference. org/.) Specific goals for the inaugural conference included the following: • Gather participants from a variety of disciplines, domains, and countries to share ideas and research around implementation science, practice, and policy. • Form practice groups based on participants’ imple- mentation-related roles—researchers, purveyors, prac- titioners, policy makers, and organization leaders—to exchange knowledge and best practices. • Integrate knowledge across practice groups to create a common language, framework, and measures to guide implementation policy, practice, and research. • Set the stage for discussion and activities within and across practice groups for continued collaboration beyond the 3-day conference. Lessons learned from literature were the foundation for the conference agenda. GIC did the following: • Focused on the practice and science of implementa- tion, rather than on specific evidence-based practices or other interventions. • Addressed universal aspects of implementation, orga- nization change, and system transformation that have the potential to benefit all human services. • Spotlighted issues related to the improvement of imple- mentation practices in order to promote better imple- mentation science and policy. • Emphasized the interplay among implementation, organization change, and system transformation. Plenary sessions addressed • Frameworks to Integrate Implementation Science, Practice, and Policy • Cross-Disciplinary Integration of Research, Practice, and Policy • Integration of Implementation Research, Practice, and Policy across Human Services • The Future of Implementation Science, Practice, and Policy. An important aspect of this conference is the focus on sharing successful practices—those that fostered the imple- mentation of research results—thus helping to accelerate the implementation of innovations in the practitioner commu- nity. For example, the Norwegian Center for Child Behav- ioral Development presented its findings on large-scale implementation of empirically supported programs after 10 years of integrating research, policy, and practice. “The work

20 presented results of activities to strengthen competence in the specialist treatment services for young children with conduct problems” (Ogden et al. 2011, p. 2). This study showed that the work done to implement research findings on services to enhance multisystemic therapy (MST) and parent manage- ment training (PMT) more than doubled therapist adherence to defined practice in Norwegian MST teams. Additionally, with PMT processes implemented in more than 50 munici- palities, 383 PMT therapists trained more than 850 practitio- ners—families, parents, schools—to use innovations from research findings to improve effectiveness in intervention. Noting that the EBP implementation community is more developed than the implementation community within trans- portation, this type of conference presents a future oppor- tunity to gather all players serving a role in transportation implementation. As in EBP, those involved are researchers, developers, practitioners, policy makers, and leaders—each group representing participants in the continuum of the implementation process. Such a transportation implementa- tion conference could accomplish many of the same goals as GIC. Furthermore, the sharing of best practices, coordi- nation among the various interests with the implementation process, and providing a forum to present recent progress will enable more effective and efficient—including acceler- ated—implementation of research results. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY The U.S. Department of Commerce’s response to the need for more and faster innovation by the manufacturing sec- tor has been the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a more than 20-year-old program, sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). MEP represents a significant commitment by federal gov- ernment to nurture and foster innovation, and particularly to accelerate the application of technology in manufac- turing through strong partnership activity (see Figure 4). MEP is a model of involving federal expertise to speed the application of technology into a business sector. There are two potential applications for such a model in transporta- tion: (1) as it currently operates in manufacturing—to cre- ate a partnership that fosters the development of products available to private-sector transportation business through technology acceleration support, which MEP can do, but does not focus on transportation specifically; and (2) as it may operate within the public sector—to form a frame- work to provide technical support to public-sector agen- cies seeking to accelerate the use of technology to advance transportation practice. The program has focused on technology acceleration dur- ing approximately the past 5 years, as shown in Figure 5. FIGURE 4 Manufacturing Extension Partnership Strategy (Kilmer 2013, p. 13). FIGURE 5 Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program Evolution (Kilmer 2011, p. 15). The NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partner- ship describes the program as follows: Manufacturing Extension Partnership The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) works with small and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers to help them create and retain jobs, increase profits, and save time and money. The nationwide network provides a variety of services, from innovation strategies to process improvements to green manufacturing. MEP also works with partners at the state and federal levels on programs that put manufacturers in position to develop new customers, expand into new markets, and create new products. MEP field staff has over 1,300 technical experts— located in every state—serving as trusted business

21 advisors, focused on solving manufacturers’ challenges and identifying opportunities for growth. As a program of the U.S. Department of Commerce, MEP offers its clients a wealth of unique and effective resources centered on five critical areas: technology acceleration, supplier development, sustainability, workforce and continuous improvement. Innovation is at the core of what MEP does. Manufacturers that accelerate innovation are far more successful and realize greater opportunities to participate in the global economy. By placing innovations developed through research at federal laboratories, educational institutions and corporations directly in the hands of U.S. manufacturers, MEP serves an essential role sustaining and growing America’s manufacturing base. The program assists manufacturers to achieving new sales, leading to higher tax receipts and new sustainable jobs in the high paying advanced manufacturing sector. As a public/private partnership, MEP delivers a high return on investment to taxpayers. For every one dollar of federal investment, the MEP generates $32 in new sales growth. This translates into $3.6 billion in new sales annually. For every $1,570 of federal investment, MEP creates or retains one manufacturing job. (NIST-MEP) Figure 6 shows the vital bridge and continuing support that MEP provides as it connects the research community seeking to transfer technology from laboratories to the manufacturing industry. As with other technology accelera- tion efforts, the MEP model supplies technical expertise that augments the skills and knowledge of the partner organiza- tion. MEP’s role is clearly to assist in diffusion and adoption of technologies within industry. An example of the MEP effort that shows the potential for accelerating technology into the marketplace is the experience of 3C Cattle Feeders. The company developed state-of-the- art cattle feeders that are efficient, effective, and economi- cal, meeting high standards of commercial livestock owners. For the past 30 years, 3C Cattle Feeders’ products earned a sterling reputation among the agricultural community for their quality and design elements. With changes in the indus- try, the company owner sought a way to once again distance himself from the field, retain his market share, and grow his business. For help, he turned to the Oklahoma Manufactur- ing Alliance, a NIST MEP network affiliate. One situation that was addressed was the problem of wild hogs and other animals scavenging food from traditional feeders. Though it was a common problem, livestock owners had learned to live with the situation. The feeders developed are completely enclosed, which prevents feed from falling on the truck bed, and include exclusive features such as sight holes and digi- tal counters. The Oklahoma Manufacturing Alliance worked with the Oklahoma State University New Product Develop- ment Center, one of the Alliance’s programs. Initial designs were promising and helped secure a Small Business Innova- tion Research grant. Those funds were used to perfect the design and create a marketing plan for the high-tech feeder. Now in production, initial sales of the feeders are encourag- ing and have boosted the company’s potential future sales. A snapshot of the results of the effort are development of a new product, a $500,000 increase in sales, and creation of three new jobs (MEP-Client Successes n.d.). FIGURE 6 Manufacturing Extension Partnership Technology Acceleration Framework (NIST-MEP) (Kilmer 2013, p. 14).

22 RESEARCH PROJECT SYNOPSES, JOINT FIRE SCIENCE PROGRAM (Synopses) of research findings and targeted delivery to managers are essential components of the program. (Fire Science website) The Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) is an interagency research, development, and applications partnership created in 1998. It is funded by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and is managed through an oversight board con- sisting of five representatives from the Forest Service and a representative from each of the five following agencies: Bureaus of Land Management and Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. From the beginning of its work, JFSP conducted a vital and aggressive applied research effort, and between 1998 and 2005, it committed more than $100 million to more than 300 research projects dealing with fire science and other fire-related topics. JFSP realizes that “getting new science and technology into use quickly is the key to the success of an applied science program” (Barbour 2007, p.5). The program also realized that it had “been so suc- cessful in developing new data and information that it [was] a challenge to assimilate it [the new knowledge] in its entirety” (Barbour 2007, p. 6). Having the host of research project results by 2007, JFSP needed to determine how to do a better job than it had been of disseminating its research findings. JFSP conducted a study to develop a proof of concept whereby scientists and users could connect and engage more effectively. This two- way interchange was designed to enhance knowledge trans- fer—particularly data and information from the research findings—between the two groups. As part of this effort, JFSP examined the use and effectiveness of research study synopses by “program managers and/or line officers that have very limited time to invest in acquiring technical infor- mation, but tend to control budget and program priorities, which in turn affect the rate of adoption or science delivery by members of their staffs” (Barbour 2007, p. 20). In the course of the study, JFSP prepared 138 synopses of research project reports through the efforts of research- ers, managers, and a technical writer. The products of their efforts were designed to be easy-to-read, informative, con- cise summaries, and attractive to busy officials and practi- tioners. Information was categorized by themes, organized according to topical descriptions of importance; for exam- ple, firefighting, fuels and fuel reduction, fire behavior, and physical effects/erosion. JFSP posted synopses on its web- site and received feedback from users. Synopses written by people in technical responsibilities the same as the users were more effective and better received than those written by research scientists. As a response to feedback, in FY 2007, the JFSP board of directors formalized the publication of Fire Science Briefs—research report synopses—some with opinions of research results by managers for managers in a several- page “Manager’s Viewpoints” addenda to the brief. As an example, a February 2009 Fire Science Brief states the Manager’s Viewpoints is “an opinion written by a fire or land manager based on information in a JFSP final report and other supporting documents. This is our way of help- ing managers interpret science findings. If readers have differing viewpoints, we encourage further dialog through additional opinions. … Our intent is to start conversations about what works and what doesn’t” (JFSP Fire Science Brief 2009, p. 11). Conclusions from the 2007 study by Barbour used in this discussion note that the synopses were well received and are part of the foundation of the program’s efforts to effectively disseminate the results of research among the forest fire safety community. Furthermore, of the 140 research project synopses listed on the JFSP website, about 40 contain Man- ager’s Viewpoints discussions (http://www.firescience.gov). Dissemination is addressing managers/decision makers as well as practitioner/user needs. As the program continues, additional research synopses have been posted. JFSP continues its research activity and focuses on application of research results. Its May 2011 invest- ment strategy commits 25% of its funding to Science and Delivery and Adoption (JFSP Investment Strategy 2011, p. 1). As in the fire science community, busy transportation practitioners and managers would benefit from professional synopses and cogent, enlightened opinion—for some, the existence of synopses would further the understanding of the research results and foster accelerated implementation. PARTNERSHIP INTERMEDIARIES—RESOURCES COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES Partnership intermediaries are a relatively new strategy being used by a number of federal government agencies to assist them in getting more research results applied and get- ting them applied more expeditiously. For example, DoD and the USDA Agricultural Research Service are creating networks of private-sector organizations to help with imple- mentation (USDA 2009 and T2Bridge online n.d.). Material for this discussion is excerpted from both references. The vehicle used to formalize the relationship between a federal government agency and the organization doing implementation tasks is a Partnership Intermediary Agree- ment (PIA). These agreements are allowing research pro- grams to add targeted expertise to the job of implementation through partnership arrangements.

23 ARS PIA Fosters Use of Innovation Within the first 18 months of creating the ATIP, the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO), the founding ATIP Partner and seven ATIP Affiliates were established; five with some funds provided by TEDCO. One of these affiliates, a Maryland start-up business (CrispTek), licensed an ARS technology developed at the Southern Regional Research Center, received funding from TEDCO, and made its first sale within 8 months. This process was initiated through an entrepreneurship program affiliated with TEDCO, and demonstrated the value these complementary business assets can bring in accelerating adoption of research outcomes by companies vetted by ATIP Partners. (ATIP-ARS 2010, p. 2). The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) initiated the Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership (ATIP) pro- gram to facilitate the adoption of ARS research outcomes by private-sector companies for commercial production of goods and services. PIAs are with technology-based economic devel- opment entities and are strategically chosen by geographic region and for their ability to serve small businesses by pro- viding assets complementary to ARS research and innovation capacities. A strategic network of six to eight PIAs across the United States would increase opportunities for businesses— through the intermediary—to gain access to the 2,100 scien- tists conducting research at more than 100 ARS locations and strengthen partnerships with current university researchers. Intermediaries facilitate business development and competi- tiveness by helping ARS identify companies to license ARS innovations. They also assist small businesses whose research needs can be matched to the expertise of ARS scientists con- ducting research addressing high-priority agricultural issues. Businesses identified and assisted by the intermediary—who subsequently partner with ARS through licensing or estab- lishing a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)—are designated as ATIP affiliates. A similar description of a partnership intermediary is found with an authorized DoD intermediary, T2Bridge, sponsored through funding from the Air Force Research Laboratory. T2Bridge is one of a handful of partnership intermediaries located throughout the country to serve the needs of DoD. The website describing the services this PIA provides states: T2BridgeTM is a technology acceleration program designed to solve defense needs through development, transfer, transition, and commercialization of defense sponsored innovation. The program connects private sector businesses and researchers in the southeast United States with Department of Defense (DoD) technologies, research capabilities, funding opportunities, development partners, and procurement needs. A primary program objective is to match a DoD need with an innovative solution and to facilitate the development and transition of the solution into DoD. • T2Bridge provides assistance at various stages throughout the research, development, and transition cycle. The following are examples of where T2Bridge can add value to technology development and transition: • Finding new product opportunities in the portfolio of defense created technologies, • Facilitating cooperative research and development with defense labs, • Identifying research funding opportunities, • Obtaining funds for creation of new technologies, • Creating partnerships between small and large businesses, and • Helping companies through the transition of defense sponsored innovation back to DoD. The noteworthy item about partnership intermediaries is that the federal government agencies realize more must be done to facilitate implementation of research results. By instituting a network of PIAs, the agencies are augment- ing the technology transfer and commercialization services performed through the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC). PIAs work with the federal labs to move innovations from late-stage development to acquisi- tion. PIAs are filling a gap that still exists between the fed- eral laboratories’ research results and getting these results into practice. The current economic times make the job of implementation even more difficult for the federal labs, and by many accounts they struggle with the mission of commer- cializing innovative products coming out of the labs. PIAs bring to the table agile organizations with precise imple- mentation expertise. PIAs are funded to do implementation services whereas, for example, federal labs have little funds for marketing of a research result. Federal labs may initially perceive PIAs as “doing their job,” but many are now seeing how partnership intermediaries are fostering more innova- tions through creating more CRADAs, bringing more play- ers to the table, and accelerating the implementation process. A further initiative is being considered that will bring together the various partnership intermediaries from the fed- eral agencies now having PIAs in operation. A national net- work of PIAs would bring in intermediary companies working with USDA, Department of Homeland Security, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Energy (DOE). An important aspect of the example of PIAs is that it can serve as a model for creating standard arrangements that form an infrastructure of organizations specifically tasked with fostering use and impacting the speed of use of innovations developed by research laboratories. Work done by the fed- eral laboratories also has prompted model agreements in use by federal agencies that address the scope of the intermediary organization’s responsibility, the treatment of intellectual prop- erty, and other necessary contractual items. Such PIAs could be created at the state or regional level to foster the development, adoption, and implementation of innovations in transportation.

24 WELL-DEFINED AND DOCUMENTED IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES—MANAGER’S GUIDE, DESK REFERENCE, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE A number of federal agencies have excelled at document- ing processes for implementation or implementation-related activities. • The Department of Defense produces the Manager’s Guide to Technology Transition in an Evolutionary Acquisition Environment (DoD 2005) to detail the process and procedures for DoD transition/imple- mentation responsibilities. Planning for the transi- tion activities in every aspect of the process with the requirement for accountability including timelines and responsibilities are included. • The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer publishes its FLC Technology Transfer Desk Reference, A Comprehensive Guide to Technology Transfer, detailing the activities federal labs perform in conjunction with moving federally funded research and development to practice (FLC 2011b). • ARS publishes Policies and Procedures, which describes policies, procedures, and responsibilities for technology transfer (USDA 2000). • NASA produced the NASA eEducation Research and Development Guide that begins the process of discuss- ing the necessary steps to receive outcomes from the implementation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (Laughlin 2007). • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) created its Policy on Transition of Research to Application (NOAA 2008). The model these agencies provide is helpful to the trans- portation community in that it shows that implementation processes can be documented in a practical and rational fashion. Just as state department of transportation research organizations have produced a research program manual, manuals documenting the processes required to accomplish implementation of research results can be prepared. Guid- ance from the available federal agency manuals can be help- ful in determining the types of implementation instruction required, the scope of the implementation practices identi- fied, and the level of detail necessary. Just creating a document, however, does not fully sat- isfy the needs of successful implementation. Resources, supportive management, innovation culture, and other factors must augment clearly defined implementation documentation. Such documentation is only a start, but importantly, it is a start of the process of institutionalizing implementation practices, so that in the future such pro- cesses become the standard. Of course, a caution is also important: such processes are to facilitate implementa- tion, not to develop barriers to implementation that focus on non-implementation-critical activities. Elements contained in DoD’s Manager’s Guide include the following: • Environment for Technology Transition—including definitions, goals, decision support systems descrip- tions, acquisition and financial systems, and players— government and industry. • Technology Transition Planning and Tools—including planning government-to-government transitions, tools for industry-to-government transition, and transition planning tools. • Programs That Facilitate Technology Transition— including discussions of and guidance for participation in 13 demonstration, technology transition initiatives, and acquisition programs. • Challenges and Considerations—including technology transition, cultural barriers, and knowledge management. • Appendices contain resource information, websites, success stories, and planning guidance. The elements of DoD’s Manager’s Guide are designed for the military establishment, yet they show the variety and comprehensiveness of available guidance. Develop- ing guidance documents for transportation implementa- tion procedures is an achievable task. Such manuals are, however, part of a larger effort to foster the acceleration of implementing research findings. Recall that federal agen- cies are not solely relying on the activities generated by guidance manuals but often bring in targeted expertise to the implementation process, as evidenced by establishing Partnership Intermediary Agreements. The transportation community can learn from the other federal agencies and make a leap in process improvement. Rather than only taking the model of documenting processes, coupling the defined processes with the expertise to do the imple- mentation work through mechanisms functioning like partnership intermediaries would be a significantly more effective approach. RESEARCH, DOCUMENT, AND SHARE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES—ACCELERATING INNOVATION AT HEWLETT-PACKARD This Hewlett-Packard case study was prepared for Research-Technology Management (RTM), the journal of the Industrial Research Institute (IRI). IRI describes its organization as “a non-profit association of more than 200 leading industrial and service organizations having a common interest in effective management of inno- vation.” This case study description is excerpted from the referenced article in the RTM journal (Rivas and Gobeli 2005).

25 NOAA Policy on Transition of Research to Application Transition Plan: A management document, which should be updated as appropriate, identifying the comprehensive activities necessary to transfer a research result to applications. This document should be used for planning purposes as well as to ensure that the project is being executed per the terms and conditions of the Plan. The Transition Plan shall: a. clearly define the requirements of the end-result of the transition of research to applications; b. define data collection requirements and pro- cedures in sufficient detail to enable the appli- cations organization to understand and meet, as appropriate, the data requirements of the research organization and other users; c. document technical performance and cost- effectiveness parameters to be met prior to the operational implementation or information service delivery; d. justify the transition from the research to applications and document how the benefits outweigh the costs; e. identify the amount and source of funds needed to cover the costs associated with the transition, as necessary, including relevant requirements for equipment, upgrades, staff training, and maintenance of redundant appli- cation capabilities during the transition period; f. outline how the applications organization will address the evolving needs of the research organization, partners, and users after the transition, as appropriate; and g. for testbeds and other similar development systems/projects, the transition plan is a compilation of numerous individual project components whose net result is a significant improvement or advancement in NOAA capa- bility justified, in general, using the elements defined above. (NOAA 2008) The case study discusses enablers and barriers to inno- vation as well as lessons learned regarding accelerating the process of innovation. The purpose of highlighting this case study in this synthesis is to show the type of research results that are presented in the private sector to foster improve- ments in innovation; in this case, improvements to the time to market for an innovative inkjet product. The case study clearly demonstrates the type of research being conducted to improve processes for innovation delivery. This then serves as an example of the type of research studies that could be available in the transportation research management community, which would foster improvements for imple- mentation activities. When there is robust research on the processes related to implementation, there will be opportu- nities for continued advancement in the ability of scientists, transportation research managers, and practitioners to accel- erate implementation of research results. The work of this case study provides a view into what aspects within the research functions at Hewlett-Packard would accelerate the rate of innovation for the Technology Development Operation—the micromachining and semicon- ductor R&D section of the inkjet enterprise. The goal of the research was to determine how to excel at innovation and com- mercialization—to speed the results of research to market. Figure 7 shows the model used within Hewlett-Packard to display the attributes that are considered as inputs to the study of accelerating innovation for the inkjet printing mar- ket, the factors or resources available within the company that were used to analyze potential technology offerings, and the results of the analysis—the enablers and barriers and lessons learned about advancing Hewlett-Packard ink- jet technology. The analysis allowed the company to clearly understand what will help further speed their inkjet product technologies to the marketplace. FIGURE 7 Research model for identifying enablers, barriers, and lessons learned (Rivas and Gobeli 2005, p. 33). For its technologies, attributes of the market included items such as how new the product was to the market (for domestic and global markets), how new it was to Hewlett- Packard, whether the technology was innovative or incre- mental, the competitive position of the technology, and more. In the course of the analysis, the capabilities of the organiza- tion such as the checkpoint processes were examined—the

26 decision-making methods along the course of the project; the integration team—technical experts who select technologies and oversee spanning the transition from concept to product development; the influence of senior management; the cul- ture of risk taking, decision making, and communication; as well as the infrastructure, such as, resources, equipment, and organizational support. These enablers and barriers are excellent facts to under- stand about the potential successful commercialization or market acceptance of the technologies. Analysis on this level for the products that are to be used in the highway industry by facility owners would give remarkable insight into the ease of implementing innovations. The top five enablers and barriers identified are listed in Table 2. Hewlett-Packard also learned lessons from this effort: barriers are more project specific; enablers relate to the over- all program efforts; identify and consider the lessons learned by the study team involved with the technology; and manage the innovation improvement process. A standard process to identify and address enablers, barriers, and lessons learned would be the framework that substantially contributes to accelerating technology into the marketplace. TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS In 1979, NASA created a seven-level standard readiness scale to determine the maturity of its technologies. In the 1990s, two more levels were added, and today the nine-level technology readiness scale continues to be used in a broad array of industry applications. Although highway transpor- tation’s missions may not have as large of dollar as NASA’s space program or Boeing’s 787 aircraft, there are specific lessons to be learned by the use of well-proven standards in the application of new technologies. A particularly notable aspect of using technology readi- ness levels for the research, development, and implementa- tion of innovations is the necessary systematic perspective, beginning from the concept or idea through to the successful operational experience. This systematic perspective fosters a comprehensive view with the understanding that the research will be forwarded to development and then application. Because of the necessary work committed to each of the nine steps in the process, barriers and hurdles to eventual imple- mentation are addressed along the course of the project. The work within each level when accomplished brings the work of the next level, which includes its various requirements to TABLE 2 HEWLETT-PACKARD ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION TOP 5 ENABLERS AND BARRIERS Top 5 Enablers and Recommendations for Action Enabler Recommendation 1. Skilled people Continue to stress the importance of individuals increasing their skills. Recruit individuals for new technologies when there are no in-house candidates. 2. Helping culture (People are helpful) Promote and reward a culture of helping and sharing. Actively create and support networks within the organization. Older programs do not report help- ing culture as being critical, but new programs might benefit most here. 3. Management support Continue strong management support for all programs, especially fundamental programs. 4. People working together Create teams with a wide breadth of skills. 5. Checkpoints provide discipline/focus Use checkpoints to drive focus and decision making. Communicate check- point decisions widely. Top 5 Barriers and Recommendations for Action Barrier Recommendation 1. Not enough resources Analyze bottlenecks, best done with cross-functional teams to review key learning cycle barriers. Flexibility in programs to address new issues that arise from new market and technology information. Enable organization to deploy resources faster. 2. Hard to run experiments on production equipment Related to level of innovation, fundamental innovations experience this the most; exploratory research recommends early investment in required equipment, reducing bureaucracy for experiments. 3. Lacking capable equipment Invest in flexible research tools and invest early in tools for fundamental programs. 4. Market planning Market planning is related to market newness of an innovation. Quickly identify marketing resources, strategy, and value on new innovations to HP and the world. 5. Multisite project Multisite projects add communication complexity. If a cross-site project cannot be avoided, establish strong communication links and develop clear roles and responsibilities. Source: Rivas and Gobeli (2005) (IRI used with permission).

27 be completed before progressing. Because of continued use, the technology readiness level strategy is sufficiently familiar to those working on technology projects for NASA or DoD, for example, and these agencies’ researchers, developers, and technology professionals know that the process steps must occur to successfully implement the technology. It is important to note the full spectrum of players involved in advancing through the technology readiness levels. Applied researchers work closely with development experts, and their work is closely integrated with those in the relevant environ- ment (users). There is continual awareness of the applica- tion of the technology and of what is needed for its operation and maintenance, including user competency. Importantly, this process shows the role of development expertise in the implementation process. The readiness levels show there is a smooth and expected handoff from research to development to the users. Progressing to the next level ensures that barri- ers to implementation are addressed, enabling more effective and efficient implementation of the technology. The system perspective allows researchers and implementers to anticipate and correct choke points or barriers that slow the implementa- tion as well as fosters actions to enable positive conditions that speed the implementation process. Definition of Technology Readiness Levels NASA TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported: Transition from scientific research to applied research. Essential characteristics and behaviors of systems and architectures; Descriptive tools are mathematical formulations or algorithms. TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated: Applied research. Theory and scientific principles are focused on specific application area to define the concept. Characteristics of the application are described. Analytical tools are developed for simulation or analysis of the application. TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept: Proof of concept validation. Active Research and Development (R&D) is initiated with analytical and laboratory studies; Demonstration of technical feasibility using breadboard or brassboard implementations that are exercised with representative data. TRL 4 Component/subsystem validation in laboratory environment: Standalone prototyping implementation and test; Integration of technology elements; Experiments with full-scale problems or data sets. TRL 5 System/subsystem/component validation in relevant environment: Thorough testing of prototyping in representative environment. Basic technology elements integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements. Prototyping implementations conform to target environment and interfaces. TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototyping demonstration in a relevant end-to-end environment (ground or space): Prototyping implementations on full-scale realistic problems; Partially integrated with existing systems; Limited documentation available. Engineering feasibility fully demonstrated in actual system application. TRL 7 System prototyping demonstration in an operational environment (ground or space): System prototyping demonstration in operational environment. System is at or near scale of the operational system, with most functions available for demonstration and test. Well integrated with collateral and ancillary systems; Limited documentation available. TRL 8 Actual system completed and “mission qualified” through test and demonstration in an operational environment (ground or space): End of system development; Fully integrated with operational hardware and software systems. Most user documentation, training documentation, and maintenance documentation completed. All functionality tested in simulated and operational scenarios. Verification and Validation (V&V) completed. TRL 9 Actual system “mission proven” through successful mission operations (ground or space): Fully integrated with operational hardware/software systems. Actual system has been thoroughly demonstrated and tested in its operational environment. All documentation completed; Successful operational experience; Sustaining engineering support in place.

28 Missile Defense Agency Hardware Maturity Checklists for Technology Readiness Levels 6–9 TRL 6: System/Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstration in a Relevant Environment. Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond the breadboard tested for level 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness; examples include testing a prototype in a high fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment. Hardware Maturity Criteria: (each must be identified as “Met,” “Not Met,” or “N/A” with supporting documentation) 1. Materials, process, design, and integration methods have been employed. Provide documentation of process, design, and integration methodology compliance with MDA Quality Assurance Plan. 2. Scaling issues that remain are identified and supporting analysis is complete. Provide description of issues and resolution. 3. Production demonstrations are complete. Production issues have been identified and major ones have been resolved. Provide documentation of data, issues, and resolutions. 4. Some associated “Beta” version software is available. 5. Most pre-production hardware is available. Provide documentation of identified shortfalls to end user(s) and/or testing organization. 6. Draft production planning has been reviewed by end user and developer. Update integration cost estimate and update integration schedule with end user(s). 7. Draft design drawings are nearly complete. 8. Integration demonstrations have been completed, including cross technology issue measurement and performance characteristic validations. Verification report compiled and reviewed by system engineer and testing organization. 9. Have begun to establish an interface control process. Provide process documentation to system engineer for review. 10. Collection of actual maintainability, reliability, and supportability data has been started. Provide RAM data to system engineer. 11. Representative model or prototype is successfully tested in a high-fidelity laboratory or simulated operational environment. Provide performance estimate and verification of capability enhancement with data collected. 12. Hardware technology “system” specification is complete. Submit hardware technology “system” specification for approval. 13. Technology Transition Agreement (TTA) has been updated to reflect data in items 1 through 4, 7 through 9, 11 and 12. TTA has been coordinated and approved by end user Deputy(ies) and [others]. TRL 7: System Prototype Demonstration in an Operational Environment. Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from level 6, requiring the demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment. Examples include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft. Hardware Maturity Criteria: (each must be identified as “Met,” “Not Met,” or “N/A” with supporting documentation) 1. Materials, processes, methods, and design techniques have been identified and are moderately developed and verified. 2. Scaling is complete. 3. Production planning is complete. 4. Pre-production hardware and software is available in limited quantities. 5. Draft design drawings are complete. 6. Maintainability, reliability, and supportability data growth is above 60% of total needed data. 7. Hardware technology “system” prototype successfully tested in a field environment. TRL 8: Actual System Completed and Qualified Through Test and Demonstration. Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this level

29 represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications. Hardware Maturity Criteria: (each must be identified as “Met,” “Not Met,” or “N/A” with supporting documentation) 1. Interface control process has been completed and final architecture diagrams have been submitted. 2. Maintainability, reliability, and supportability data collection has been completed. 3. Hardware technology successfully completes developmental test and evaluation. 4. Hardware technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. TRL 9: Actual System Proven Through Successful Mission Operation. Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation. Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions. Hardware Maturity Criteria: (each must be identified as “Met,” “Not Met,” or “N/A” with supporting documentation) 1. Hardware technology successfully completes operational test and evaluation. 2. Training Plan has been implemented. 3. Supportability Plan has been implemented. 4. Program Protection Plan has been implemented. 5. Safety/Adverse effects issues have been identified and mitigated. 6. Operational Concept has been implemented successfully. (Missile Defense Agency) The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) created a maturity checklist that adapts the technology readiness level (TRL) strategy for its specific use as it advances applied research results to practical use. The checklist is a customized appli- cation of the nine readiness levels. It provides a tailored definition of the maturity level as well as hardware maturity criteria for each level. The various criteria also have with a check box for “Met” with appropriate background informa- tion for verification, “Not Met” providing a status and an estimate when the criteria will be met, and “N/A” with sup- porting documentation. Furthermore, MDA also describes the certification authority sign-off so that accountability for achieving each level is identified at the beginning of the pro- cess. The following are entries for TRLs 6–9 definitions and criteria as examples of how this type of process can become an implementation methodology. ENTREPRENEUR-IN-RESIDENCE PROGRAMS A primary concept for entrepreneur-in-residence (EIR) pro- grams is to assist in commercializing viable technologies by pairing a research institution with venture capital firms. The intent is to assist in the start-up of a new venture by providing a means to bridge the gap, the “valley of death,” in commercialization efforts and enable technologies to be ready for the market more quickly and efficiently. The val- ley occurs after the research is completed and the researcher considers the technology ready for the market. Yet there can be huge potential for a disconnect between what a sci- entist considers a viable market product and what the mar- ket will actually embrace. EIR programs assist researchers and research sponsor organizations in developing business plans and strategies for their products and in capitalizing on opportunities by introducing them to innovative business funding and venture capitalists. Federal government, academia, and the private sector all conduct successful EIR programs. Some federal programs have modified the concept of spanning the “valley of death” and rather than bettering the position a product has for suc- cessful commercialization, these programs span the gap between the program’s innovative services and the use of the services by stakeholders and customers. Another varia- tion on the EIR basic strategy is one taken by a number of academic institutions with strong EIR programs. The Uni- versity of California Los Angeles instituted an EIR program in April 2013 to provide experienced entrepreneurs’ coun- sel to UCLA scientists and inventors. These entrepreneurs have knowledge of marketplace requirements and will be a resource for new business start-up strategies for innovations developed by university scientists. An example of the potential for EIR success is the pro- gram in place at High Tech Rochester sponsored by the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA). Although this program is based on promot- ing energy innovation, it is funded through the authority for the benefit of New York State, and it is not a DOE partner- ship effort. The Rochester EIR program began in 2004, and it has more than 45 entrepreneurs available for assistance. The program is a model of how executive-level advice can

30 enable early-stage companies to more effectively accom- plish, among many areas, resource management, operations planning, and, most important, technology development, enabling the viable products to enter the marketplace more quickly. For example, an EIR was instrumental in provid- ing advice to a start-up that developed a software platform associated with networking of electronic devices. The start- up was acquired by a company that will get the technology into the marketplace. The experienced entrepreneurial men- tor made the difference in the speed with which this product was available to users (NYSERDA 2013). $15 Million Award Will Fund Three ‘Idea Incubators’ to Bring Commercial Success to Clean-Energy Ideas The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) will invest $5 million each in seed money over a period of five years in Columbia University, the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, and High Tech Rochester. Cost sharing will be required as part of the agreements. The three centers are expected to operate on their own after NYSERDA funding ends. Centers will link business experts and early-stage investors with scientists making new discoveries. The new entities — “idea incubators” for very- early-stage entrepreneurs — will fill a gap between the maturing of an idea in a research environment and the creation of a business. (NYSERDA 2013) The Entrepreneurs-in-Residence (EIR) model … brought together professionals with diverse talents from inside and outside government to work together as a team on outcome-oriented solutions within a short and focused time frame. (USCIS 2013) In addition, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service (USCIS) formally launched its Entrepreneurs in Residence initiative in February 2012. USCIS reports “that based on work accomplished the past year the EIR program has been a great success. By leveraging talent from the private sector and empowering government employees in an unprecedented way, the EIR initiative has proven to be an effective model to focus and address a critical challenge faced by government…. In the coming months, USCIS intends to expand the EIR con- cept to a broader range of industries that it serves, including performing arts, health care, and information technology.” USCIS had the unique opportunity to foster entrepreneurs coming into the United States through the USCIS entrepre- neur-in-residence program—a win-win for USCIS. USCIS recruited both start-up experts from the private sector, using the Department of Homeland Security’s Loaned Executive Program, and internal immigration experts from across the agency. Working within the framework of current immigration law, the team set out with the overarching goal of optimizing existing visa categories used by entrepreneurs to provide pathways that are clear, consistent, and aligned with business realities. The EIR team worked collaboratively to develop the most effective solutions for USCIS. For each of its three main goals, the team produced a range of signature deliverables, making valuable contributions to the mission of the service. The three areas in which practical solutions were developed are • Produced clear public materials to help entrepreneurs understand which visa categories are most appropriate for their particular circumstance. • Equipped USCIS’s workforce with tools to better adju- dicate cases in today’s complex and rapidly evolving business environment. • Streamlined USCIS’s policies and practices to better reflect the realities faced by foreign entrepreneurs and start-up businesses. (Excerpts from USCIS website) The first Entrepreneurs-in-Residence program at CDRH [conducted from October 2011 to April 2012] brought in 20 outside FDA representatives— from industry, academia, venture capital, and research—to work with CDRH staff and management to rapidly develop and test the Innovation Pathway 2.0, a streamlined regulatory pathway intended for innovative medical devices with significant public health impact. Fifteen EIR members participated on the strategic team, serving as a sounding board as other EIR members worked to build Innovation Pathway 2.0. The strategic team provided vision and focus during the development phase of the Innovation Pathway, including the review of policies, business processes and tools helpful in bringing innovative and safe new products to the U.S. market. (CDRH) Other government agencies are using the EIR structure to find solutions to particularly challenging needs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiologi- cal Health (CRDH) conducts an EIR program that is “a time-limited recruitment of world-class entrepreneurs and innovators to join highly-qualified internal government employees in the development of solutions in areas that impact innovation. The EIR goal is to deliver transformational change by combining the best internal and external talent applying the principles of lean engineering in rapidly testing, validating and scaling new approaches. EIR Programs at Centers for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) currently last six months.

31 … CDRH looks forward to continuing the program in order to cultivate new ideas and fresh perspectives that will advance [its] vision to provide patients in the U.S. with access to high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices of public health importance first in the world” (CDRH n.d.). After a successful initial experience, CDRH launched the EIR Program Two (October 2012 to April 2013), address- ing areas that have the potential to better support a more robust environment for medical device innovation by (1) streamlining clinical trials; (2) streamlining FDA approval to reimbursement; and (3) striking the right balance between pre- and post-market requirements. The teams assess the current landscape, identify problems and their underlying drivers, and develop potential solutions (CDRH n.d.) The NYSERDA, USCIS, and CDRH programs are only a few examples of the many seen in the private sector. In 2011, Dell Computers launched a pilot EIR program to foster opportunities for entrepreneurs to turn their solutions into a marketable reality. Dell’s EIR plays a part in identifica- tion, assessment, and potential adoption of new business and technology solutions for small to medium-sized businesses, and while shepherding the pilot she will be developing her next business venture and being Dell’s EIR (Dell n.d.). Regardless of the type of EIR program created, a com- mon purpose across the various domains and sectors is engaging entrepreneurs and research sponsors or originators of an innovation so the new practice or technology is brought to market or applied more readily and efficiently. INNOVATION INDUCEMENT PRIZES “Prizes such as the Nobel prizes and the U.S. National Medal of Science or the National Medal of Technology [and Inno- vation], reward past accomplishments and do not have a specific or technological goal. These have been called ‘rec- ognition prizes.’ Other prizes called ‘innovation inducement prizes,’ are designed to attain scientific and technical goals not yet reached. ... Objectives of these prizes include both technological and nontechnological goals: • Identify new or unorthodox ideas or approaches to par- ticular challenges; • Demonstrate the feasibility or potential of particular technologies; • Promote development and diffusion of specific technologies; • Address intractable or neglected societal challengers; and • Educate the public about the excitement and usefulness of research and innovation.” (Stine 2009, p. 1). “In FY 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-108) directed the National Science Foundation (NSF) to use avail- able funds for ‘innovation inducement prizes’” (Committee on the Design of an NSF Innovation Prize 2007). As a first step in the process, the NSF commissioned a study by the National Academies to propose a plan, evaluate goals, and address issues of design and administration for such a prize mechanism. From this work a variety of innovation induce- ment prizes are now offered through NSF. Additionally, The America COMPETES Act, December 2010, gives federal agencies a legal mechanism to award prizes to stimulate innovation. Recent studies of the concept of incentivizing innovation conclude that such tools provide, among other things, a means to gain greater market awareness of tech- nology as well as a means to encourage accelerated imple- mentation of targeted technologies (Brunt et al. 2011; Kay 2011). Now with the 2010 legislation further encouraging innovation inducement prizes, more activity is occurring. The website http://Challenges.gov, hosted by the U.S. Gen- eral Services Administration, provides a view into some of the more recent inducement prize challenge efforts. The U.S. Department of Transportation is currently sponsoring a few small science and technology challenge competitions. These are a modest initial entry into what has proven to be a suc- cessful mechanism, particularly on a larger scale for other technical domains. In “Managing Innovation Prizes in Government,” Kay (2011) discusses the structure of innovation prizes and chal- lenges in designing a prize competition, and then provides implementation guidance for those deciding whether such inducements are applicable in their contexts. The following is taken from Kay. According to Kay (2011), the structure of innovation inducement prizes can vary depending on the competition. Yet, in general, participants are asked to solve pre-specified techni- cal challenges or meet targets by a given deadline. Prizes can be “first-to-achieve,” “best-in-class,” or “winner-takes-all” as defined by the program. Prize competitions can be individuals or teams and can originate from the private sector (companies, entrepreneurs) and academia. Flexibility resides in the identi- fication of goals for the competition, the criteria for selection of prize topics, and the program administration. Important to this synthesis, Kay notes, “Properly designed prizes may accelerate the speed of technology development, incentivize creativity that leads to new inventions, promote the introduction, application, and diffusion of existing tech- nologies, stimulate performance improvements, and bring on new forms of R&D organization.” For approximately the past 8 to 10 years, DoD, DOE, and NASA have been conducting innovation inducement challenges and competitions. Each of these programs was established through legislation (prior to the America COM- PETES Act) that, in general, allows the DoD Secretary to

32 conduct the program, award cash prizes, and set criteria for the completion. GENERIC EXAMPLES OF APPLICATIONS OF PRIZES TO TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT- RELATED GOALS • Explore new, experimental technologies that imply high-risk R&D • Explore new innovative approaches to break critical technological barriers • Incentivize the development of cheaper or better-performing solutions based on existing technologies • Accelerate the application, diffusion, and commercial development of technologies • Raise public or industry awareness and change beliefs about science and technology topics linked to the agency’s mission. (Kay 2011) Using a $2 million innovation inducement final prize, the “DARPA Robotic Challenge” (DRC) will focus on developing robots that can operate in rough terrain and austere conditions, using aids (vehicles and hand tools) commonly available in populated areas. Specifically, DARPA wants to prove that the following capabilities can be accomplished: 1. Compatibility with environments engineered for humans (even if they are degraded). 2. Ability to use a diverse assortment of tools engineered for humans (from screwdrivers to vehicles). 3. Ability to be supervised by humans who have had little to no robotics training. Success in the DRC would mark a significant leap forward for the field of robotics. The entire robotics industry would be strengthened by raising the bar for robotic hardware, soft- ware, and sensors. Additional benefits include increasing the speed of advancements in robotics, growing international cooperation in the field of robotics, and attracting new inno- vators to the field. The challenge events include a virtual chal- lenge in June 2013, a robotics trial in December 2013, and the challenge finals in December 2014 (DARPA n.d.). Two million dollars is a substantial prize that could pro- duce breakthrough technologies and innovations to contrib- ute to the Defense Advanced Research Products Agency’s (DARPA’s) mission. As with other inducement competi- tions, the intention of the DARPA prize is to spur the cre- ation of an innovative solution rather than rewarding a final product that has been commercialized and is now institu- tionalized in practice. DARPA also uses challenge prizes to meet time commit- ments for deployment. “The DARPA Grand Challenge com- petitions in 2004 and 2005 made significant strides toward a day when autonomous robotic vehicles will perform hazardous tasks on the battlefield that today put America’s fighting force in harm’s way…. The DARPA Urban Challenge continued the acceleration of autonomous ground vehicle technology, mak- ing possible deployment on the battlefield within the timelines established by Congress” (Stine 2009, p. 10). Accelerating the deployment of technology is only one of the benefits of the chal- lenge prizes. DARPA also reports the forming of new alliances of cross-discipline teams and bringing into the research arena new, energetic talent from nontraditional sources—all provid- ing fresh insights to problem solving and generating a more robust research and a strengthened commercial community. Furthermore, DARPA’s as well as others’ experiences of inno- vation inducement prizes shows that the researchers, scientists, and entrepreneurs are motivated by the marketing potential brought about by winning the prize and often contribute more than the cash value of the prize. In fact, a Brookings Institute study notes, “Prizes … offer the potential for allowing govern- ment to establish a goal without being prescriptive as to how that goal should be met; can stimulate philanthropic and private sector investment that is greater than the cash value of the prize and attract teams with fresh ideas who might not otherwise do business with the federal government” (Kalil 2006). As with the DARPA example, the highway community could benefit from innovation inducement prizes that not only focus on developing needed technology and research exper- tise, but that base awards on acceleration of deployment of the technology. The model presented is federal, yet it can be mirrored on a state level where there is a push for identifying innovative solutions to spur advancements through develop- ment of highway transportation technology. Furthermore, investigation into states cooperatively sponsoring such prizes through federal aid-funding may prove productive. EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE SCHOLARS PROGRAM The Evidence-Based Practice Scholars Program conducted at the Menninger Clinic, a leader in psychiatric and behav- ioral health care, is a response to findings within the medi- cal community that “[t]here is a need for strategies aimed at improving the translation of research to practice in order to improve patient outcomes” and that while “[s]ignificant resources have been committed to health care research; the lag between the reporting of research and the imple- mentation of research findings is between 15 and 20 years” (Mahoney 2009, p. 356). Clearly research findings—evi- dence of successful treatment—needed to be applied more expeditiously.

33 EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE The term evidence-based practice (EBP) is used to describe the application of research and other forms of clinically relevant information to practice. (Mahoney 2009) The movement for EBP for nursing in the medical com- munity began with the recognition that nursing professionals needed to be using the best available research results— research evidence of successful treatment strategies and best practices. Further acknowledgments within the medi- cal community stated that many in the nursing profession lacked the skills and understanding to apply research to practice, even with the emphasis on EBP in nursing school curricula. Therefore as Mahoney describes, the Menninger Clinic developed a scholars program where “scholars focus on identifying a critical practice issue and proposing a new or updated policy or guideline based on the best evidence” (Mahoney 2009, p. 359). The scholars program was devel- oped in-house by the clinic’s director of nursing practice and research. Program details are taken from Mahoney (2009). Criteria for scholars: • Intellectual curiosity • Commitment to professional excellence • Leadership • Strong work ethic • Letters of recommendation and personal essay detail- ing use of EBP within work context. Scholars’ acceptance is a management-recognized responsibility and assignments from the program are included in performance appraisals. Coursework includes 6 full work days and requires a final project presentation to peers and management. Nurses receive educational leave to attend classes and supervisors champion the scholars. Hav- ing completed the program, scholars may serve as mentors for others going through the program. EPB five-step process: • Asking the burning question • Collecting the best relevant evidence (research findings) • Critically appraising the evidence (research findings) • Integrating the research evidence with one’s clinical expertise, patient preferences, and values in making practice decisions or change • Evaluating the practice change. Scholars’ projects impact the operational environment of the clinic. The goals of the program are not only to train nursing professionals to use research results and develop a project that pilots a changed practice, but to change the deci- sion-making process, transform the culture, and create a best practice environment more attuned to incorporating EBP as a standard. Eighteen scholars completed the program in its first 2 years. Research results are being put into practice at a rate not heretofore experienced resulting from the scholars’ projects, and a trained cadre of nurses now fosters EBP in their operational spheres. The highway community has no similar opportunity to focus on enhancing skills leading to accelerating the poten- tial for implementing innovations. The value of such a pro- gram to the highway community is that this type of activity not only provides skills and knowledge enhancement but spurs implementation of a specific project important to the organization. The added competencies are gained through project-specific work in line with work responsibilities. Training for more effective implementation of highway materials is just one such example. Partnerships with the private sector are an avenue that could reap significant ben- efits for highway training venues. The highway construction industry could be a partner that provides skills-building expertise as well as enhances competencies for more rapid and effective materials use. TRAINING FOR IMPLEMENTATION If we keep on doing what we have been doing, we are going to keep on getting what we have been getting. (Anonymous) The scholars program is only one example of building expertise to more effectively put innovations into practice in an operational setting. Whether the implementation activi- ties are considered increasing research into practice, foster- ing technology transition, or enhancing technology transfer of innovations from federal laboratories, training plays an essential role when partnered with other strategies to acceler- ate implementation of research findings. Literature confirms that training alone is not sufficient to make a significant dif- ference in accelerating the use of innovations (Rogers 2003; Fixsen et al. 2005). Yet when training is part of a systematic and multifaceted approach to implementation, it is a high- payoff tool for streamlining the implementation processes and thus accelerating availability of innovations to practice. The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) actively promotes training and education. It offers a variety of training opportunities in conjunction with its many other implementation and technology trans- fer education and initiatives. Scientists and those involved in making innovations more readily and quickly available to the marketplace are the primary audience for training. Use of the term “technology transfer” by federal laboratories is broadly directed at commercialization and avenues for appli- cation of innovations to practice. As described by the FLC

34 for Technology Transfer Annual Report to Congress 2008, the Technology Transfer and Education Program includes • Technology Transfer Fundamentals Training— Designed to introduce newcomers to the technology transfer (T2) field or as a refresher for T2 veterans, the day-long Fundamentals Training course provide(s) a basic foundation in the background, concepts, and practical knowledge required to transfer federally funded technologies from the laboratory to the market- place. The course feature(s) an in-depth workshop on Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), other transfer mechanisms, how to man- age a federal technology transfer office, and an intro- duction to intellectual property issues. • Technology Transfer Intermediate Training—Designed for T2 professionals with a basic foundation in technol- ogy transfer, this day-long, intermediate-level course feature(s) two interactive workshops on develop- ing and commercializing innovative technologies. The Workshop on Commercialization of Innovative Technology focus(es) on how researchers, scientists, and technology entrepreneurs can interest investors and other business backers in their ideas and show(s) how they can increase the odds of bringing innova- tive ideas from “laboratory to life.” The Licensing and Negotiations Workshop focused on how to develop an effective license and how to successfully negotiate a license agreement. • Technology Transfer Advanced Training Workshop— This day-long workshop focus(es) on several issues important to technology transfer leaders and managers, including how technology transfer adds value to labo- ratories and agencies, metrics that enable a laboratory or agency to quantify the economic and mission-related impacts of technology transfer, interface issues for labo- ratories when dealing with startup companies, entrepre- neurial programs sponsored by federal laboratories, and how federal agencies can utilize the licensing of trade- marks to further their technology transfer mission. • Technology Transfer Video Training Program—[This program] enables FLC members and other technology transfer professionals to participate in FLC training activities at the time and place that best fit their needs. (FLC 2008; see also FLC 2011a) These training courses are supplemented by a number of important reference publications including the FLC Tech- nology Transfer Desk Reference: A Comprehensive Intro- duction to Technology Transfer (2011b), and the Green Book, Federal Technology Transfer Legislation and Policy (2013), which includes policy guidance for decision makers and practitioners. Although public agencies do not focus on the commer- cialization of technologies, the message is clear: the FLC is a model that shows training is a vital part of getting people better equipped to effectively implement innovations. The FLC committed the resources to create the Training and Education Program and offers its courses in a variety of ven- ues, including its annual national meeting. For the highway community, such training could be a successful practice for those involved in implementation of innovations. With the commitment of resources through collaborative efforts, coursework could be developed, and training could be pro- vided for varying levels of experience. The FLC training could be given in conjunction with national meetings as well as in standard scheduled offerings. The health care community also is active in training to produce the types of strategies and tools that will assist in implementation activities. The sponsored training oppor- tunities frequently require the student to identify an imple- mentation study that will be part of the training, and it may form the foundation for a longer-term mentoring opportu- nity for the student. National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH Training Insti- tute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. The first training institute was held in August 2011 as an effort to help close the gap between knowledge and practice and specifically to address how health care pro- viders can more consistently disseminate and implement research results. The institute was a joint effort sponsored by the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, working with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Mental Health. The five-day training institute focuses on expanding the capacity for research that is spe- cifically oriented to accelerating an innovative treatment strategy to practice. The 2011 institute was comprised of plenary sessions featuring experts on implementation and dissemination, discussing the science and the practice; tech- nical sessions discussing practice; individual project devel- opment sessions; individual project roundtable discussions; and case study workshops. The institutes are designed to have attendees work on practical problems in their specific contexts. The 2011 institute was so well received that another institute was held in 2012. In addition, a number of training and educational pro- grams offered in the medical community are longer-term opportunities that include a research grant to develop an implementation plan, strategy, and program for practical application of a treatment needing more consistent use by practitioners. One of these is offered by the National Insti- tute of Mental Health/Veterans Affairs Implementation Research Institute fellows participate in a 2-year program that includes a week of on-site training and ongoing men- toring, pilot project funding for a mentored implementation study, and travel funds to visit a funded implementation research project and to attend the NIH Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation.

35 The goal of these health care community training and educational opportunities is to substantially change the nature of practice, by determining the best practices for implementation as well as for dissemination of the best prac- tices—what works and what does not in implementation of the practice and in the dissemination of the practice to the full medical community. The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation is an approach also used within the med- ical community that stresses the capacity of the organization and individuals to accommodate and perform implementa- tion. Central to using this framework is training—building and supporting the capacity that enables the implementation to be accomplished. The framework is based on work done by Wandersman et al. (2008), who acknowledge that “under- standing capacity is central to addressing the gap between research and practice.” This framework was used to examine the potential for a more effective system of school mental health services after Hurricane Katrina because of schools’ unique role in the community and the particular vulnerability of youth survi- vors of disasters (Taylor 2012). The community as well as the educational system required the knowledge, skills, and tools to create an effective system to provide interventions for post-trauma occurrences. On a variety of levels, training and technical assistance—for example, coaching, retrain- ing, materials—were key strategies that could enable and accelerate implementation of viable programs. Training was needed at the organizational level to create innovative, effec- tive programs, as well as at the individual level to model and implement practice changes. Training was an integral part of the systematic framework for changing how a difficult com- munity problem was approached. Yet, while training was integral, it was not seen as a sole implementation accelera- tor. It played a role along with city community policy, pro- fessional resources, a social infrastructure with recognized need for change, and other implementation activities. ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION POLICY A particularly influential enabler for implementation is a senior management committed to accelerating the use of innovations and a well-crafted policy to communicate to, and guide the organization in, its implementation and tech- nology transfer activities (Bikson et al. 1996; Kanter 2006). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the position of DOE technology transfer coordinator. Yet technology transfer had not been a sufficiently primary focus of DOE and the posi- tion was not filled with a full-time dedicated staff person— indicating a lack of management commitment and resources to the task of speeding innovation to practice. In 2011, the newly appointed Secretary of Energy clearly communicated his challenge to DOE regarding his support of increasing the use of DOE research findings through technology transfer, by creating a technology transfer policy and selecting a well- qualified professional to fill the coordinator post. The Technology Transfer Coordinator’s charge is “to increase the rate of tech transfer” (Innovation June/July 2011). Moreover, the new Technology Transfer Coordina- tor confirms that having an agency head fully committed to accelerating the use of research products in operational settings is a means to replicate successful practices con- ducted in one research program/facility to many others. The Secretary’s goal is, by applying the resources of exper- tise in a leadership position, to reduce “red tape” in the process of getting research findings out of the laboratory through its agreements that give more advantages to small businesses, a memorandum of understanding with DoD to position that agency as a first adopter, and other similar program options. INCREASE SUCCESSES The traditional outcome-driven role for tech transfer remains strong, but there is a considerable pressure to increase the number of successes in order to maximize better the return on the federal R&D investment… It is time to create an infrastructure that reduces costs by providing easy access to information and resources, and encourages industry stakeholders to work with federal laboratories and universities… using cooperative models that can accelerate [the use of] technology. (Blaustein 2010/2011) As an example of the focus on getting research find- ings out of the laboratory and reducing the red tape that goes along with it, Moughon’s article titled “How Tech Transfer Is Supposed to Work,” recounts the following: The National Renewables Energy Laboratory (NREL), the DOE laboratory focused exclusively on renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development, is actively promoting the use of the bacterium Zymomonas mobilis (Zymo). “Zymo is poised to change production of biofuels as we know it. From food waste to grass clippings to any feedstock with good levels of cellulose and hemicellulose, Zymo and a little water can turn them into bioethanol. … NREL is offering [Zymo] widely, with straightforward license terms designed to get the bacterium into exten- sive use.” NREL has also assisted in removing barriers for users through completing the Microbial Commercial Activity Notice for the Environmental Protection Agency, which substantially reduces costs and effort for licensees. Zymo is licensed to producers and manufacturers as well as to a company that markets a home fueling station. The head of NREL views technology transfer—the process by which innovative research findings are effectively put into

36 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE POLICY DIRECTIVE 80-8 MARCH 29, 2010 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION OF INNOVATION AND RESEARCH TO OPERATIONS 1. This policy describes the authorities, roles, and responsibilities of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) associated with the transition of research and inno- vations to operations (R2O). NWS must invest in a process, staffing, and infrastructure that support transition- ing results of innovation and research into NWS enterprise operations in a cost-effective manner. 2. Transition is the transfer of research or innovation projects from one financial management center (FMC), conducting research or innovation, to another FMC providing operations and maintenance (O&M) of the transitioned project. The policy applies to NWS R2O activities with other NOAA line offices (or other external research organizations)….NWS will maximize the application of NOAA sponsored research, NWS innovations, and capitalize on non-NOAA research for operations. NWS will: a. Establish processes for identifying valid needs and opportunities, and transitioning research and inno- vation results to operations; b. Maintain an operations environment capable of transitioning proven research and innovation results into operations while continuing to maintain reliable cost effective services for users; c. Implement and manage processes that identify new opportunities and needs for research and innova- tion, develop project plans, formulate budgets, report status information, and create test and evalua- tion procedures, and effectively transition to operations. 2.1 The policy requires an effective and efficient pathway from research to operations including strategic partnerships and effective collaboration between the research and operational communities. 3. This directive establishes the following NWS roles, and responsibilities: 3.1 The Director of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) serves as the NWS research to operations Line Office Transition Manager (LOTM). The LOTM also serves as the manager of NWS field, regional, national center, and headquarters innovation to enterprise operations transition activities. Under this authority the OST Director is responsible for: a. Ensuring Policy on Transition of Research to Application is implemented. The LOTM assesses and approves NOAA research projects for transition to NWS enterprise operations; b. Enhancing relationships with NOAA research organizations, including identifying research thrusts in support of NWS needs and fostering the interactive feedback process between operational capabilities and researchers; c. Overseeing the NWS R2O transition portfolio, including those in recognized test beds, by tracking project performance, addressing issues, identifying research incubation projects ready for transition to NWS enterprise operations, and risks that endanger transition success; d. Establishing criteria for test beds and other transition projects that includes setting priorities based on tactical and strategic needs identified in the NOAA Annual Guidance Memorandum, NOAA and NWS Strategic Plans, the NWS Science and Technology Roadmap, and other scientific review processes; e. Tracking and providing reports to NWS leadership on the status of the transition portfolio including any issues related to resource gaps, schedule modifications, and changes in priorities; f. Instituting transition “best-practices” including test bed activities, operational testing, research activi- ties performed on operational platforms, and common information technology architecture (e.g. soft- ware & hardware compatibility); g. Ensuring all training requirements for the transition to operations are submitted to the Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services; h. Ensuring that all potential licensing, intellectual property rights, distribution, and agreement issues associated with technology transfer are properly addressed. 3.2 The NWS Meteorological Development Laboratory’s Research and Innovation Transition Team supports the LOTM and assists working teams in facilitating transition of research and innovation projects into NWS operations.

37 use—as a completion of research and development, and the means to bridge the gap between lab and user. Fostering this type of technology has its roots in the newly adopted policy being used at DOE. The guiding prin- ciples in the 2011 DOE’s secretarial policy statement (U.S. DOE 2011) include • Commitment to ensure robust activities that result in commercialization and deployment. • Empowerment of innovators to be directly involved in the technology transfer activities. • Fairness in opportunity within the private sector domestically and globally. • Facilitation of expeditious technology development and deployment for partners. • Visibility through promoting access to capabilities and intellectual property and by accelerating the matura- tion and commercialization of new technologies aris- ing at the facilities. • Leverage of DOE’s resources through partnerships to demonstrably benefit the United States. • Impact through identification and measurement of outcomes that are effective indicators of success and impact that show widespread deployment of technolo- gies developed by DOE. • Predictability along with streamlined processes and appropriate flexibility in applying the policy. • Cooperation in sharing best practices and lessons learned in order to further technology transfer, to foster collabo- ration among partners, and to maximize administrative flexibility in items such as minimizing cycle times and eliminating and avoiding unnecessary barriers. It is not difficult to consider a policy for implementa- tion within the highway community as having many simi- lar guiding principles. It may be more challenging to foster full commitment by transportation leaders to such a policy. Yet with the similar conditions of needing to accelerate the use of innovations to solve problems and the pressures of needing to show benefit for investments, senior manage- ment commitment to such policy for transportation may be advantageous. A policy for implementation of innovations should not be overly complex. The most critical factor is to have a clearly worded, workable policy that provides guidance and structure for implementation practices. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service Policy on Science and Technology Tran- sition of Innovation and Research to Operations is such an example. The majority of the main body of that policy is included as an example of the language that can be created for useful organizational guidance. The National Weather Service policy also included a glossary of less than a dozen terms used in the document. Included are several definitions as follows: • Innovation Project: NWS Regional efforts to improve NWS Operations based on localized needs that could be expanded to national capability. An innovation proj- ect includes the collective set of activities necessary to transfer one or a collection of NWS innovative results developed or initiated by NWS field, regional, or head- quarters staff, to national operational status. • Incubation Project: Exploratory research or innovation project addressing one or more objectives of NOAA 5-year research plan and/or NWS requirements. • Transition Project: Incubation project deemed mature, scientifically valid, and technically ready for implemen- tation into NWS Operations. This includes the collective set of activities necessary to transfer one or a collection of research results to operational status or to an infor- mation service between NOAA Line Offices or between separate and distinct organizations within NWS. 3.3 The NWS regional Innovation Advisory Board assesses field office innovation and recommends to the LOTM innovation projects for transition to national operations. 3.4 The NWS Chief Financial Officer ensures NWS corporate budget planning supports the approved transi- tion portfolio. 3.5 Program managers will participate with the LOTM and transition team in planning for transition activities. 3.6 The NWS field offices, and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, the NWS Regional Headquarters, and other NWS Headquarters Offices are responsible for leading, conducting, staffing, and managing individual transition projects and associated activities. They are responsible for identifying and validating program gaps and research needs in collaboration with the LOTM [and others]. 4. The NWS will measure effectiveness of innovation and research to operations transition. (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/080/pd08008a.pdf)

38 RESEARCH TRANSITION TEAMS Research Transition Teams (RTTs) are used by a variety of federal agencies such as the National Weather Service as identified in the research and innovation transition policy described above. NWS Research and Innovation Transition Teams (RITTs) are charged to • Provide staff for the transition manager’s office, and identify and prioritize projects for transition • Establish a “help-desk” center that reduces the burden on project managers and innovators by streamlining bureaucracy (not duplicating it); establish customer “checklists for success” • Coach personnel through prescribed administrative procedures • Oversee and arrange formal work agreements • Ensure appropriate coordination with NWS and the NOAA processes • Maintain awareness of research and innovations with enterprise potential • Connect field innovators and NOAA research labs to synchronize efforts • Identify funding/resource vehicles • Identify promising projects for the Office of Science and Technology seed funding • Track RITT performance and resolve issues and con- cerns (RITT Charter n.d.). National Weather Service Research and Innovation Transition Team Vision A team dedicated to facilitating rapid transition of research and innovation into NWS operations proactively, efficiently, and effectively. NOAA Policy on Transition to Operations Transition Project Team: A group of individuals, representing the research and applications communities, who support the transition project lead and are assigned the responsibility to execute the project per the terms and conditions of the agreed-upon Transition Plan. The NWS has active RITTs for a variety of projects and communicates progress on selected teams’ efforts in a monthly forum. The RITT Forum showcases potential tran- sition projects and provides an opportunity for a transition team member—subject matter expert—to present project information. Attendees at the forum, virtual or in person, discuss the project’s implications for NWS operation. Proj- ects such as Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project, Local Climate Analysis Tool Updating, and other technical efforts are effectively communicated across disciplines, providing a broader knowledge base to NWS as well as providing the opportunity to gather feedback on project outcomes. Research Transition Teams “[T]he research transition teams, the teams that we have between FAA and NASA, are held up as a model for how we do agency collaborations and share knowledge. It is generally considered a best practice [for knowledge management] in the federal government.” Susan Minor, Integration and Management Office Deputy Director for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate NASA NASA and FAA have been using the transition team concept to implement innovations with the Next Genera- tion Air Transportation System (NextGen). These agencies recognize that implementing research results and innova- tions is a process that requires a team approach, and that team must be staffed with experienced professionals in the tasks necessary for implementation. Team members must also be well qualified technically and have techni- cal credibility with the researcher and user communities. The goal of establishing the teams was to ensure that the research and development for NextGen was identified, con- ducted, and effectively transitioned to the user agencies. The objectives for the teams were to create a formal venue for researchers and implementers to collaborate through- out the NextGen effort, and to ensure that research results were fully utilized and implementable to accomplish Next- Gen improvements. RTTs were established to match four primary elements within the NextGen project framework. These RTTs were aligned with strategically important topics for user orga- nizations that facilitated the implementation planning and processes. Initially a NASA-FAA collaboration workshop defined the scope objective, timelines, and methods for the RTT activities. A major role for FAA was to provide operational unit personnel that could describe barriers to implementation and issues requiring resolution to assist in investment decisions. NASA provided researchers and details of research plans and anticipated products for imple- mentation (Scardina, JPDO 2011). An example of the work of one of the RTTs provides insight to the type of work accomplished by these teams. The team was a technically competent group of research- ers and user professionals that worked through significant technical challenges that would have prevented or slowed implementation of research findings and innovations. The team solved technical problems that would influence imple- mentation and developed a process for technology transfer

39 that incorporated developing prototype/proof-of-concept models, demonstrations, and pilot example projects. All of the implementation strategies and methods dis- cussed in this chapter point toward accelerating implemen- tation of research findings in one way or another. As a given, the goal of any implementation action is to get the research into practice — always pushing time constraints. Because of the variability of each implementation effort and the complex processes used for the implementation of research results, no attempt was made to rank the efficacy of indi- vidual strategies. Across all contexts or industries it was not possible to determine which strategies used had the high- est impact on implementation success, but it was possible to highlight strategies and practices that might bring benefits to the transportation community. The NASA/FAA Integrated Arrival/Departure/Surface Research Transition Team, one of several teams charged with coordinating the transition of NASA research products to FAA in support of NextGen, is currently coordinating the transition of four NASA research products: Precision Departure Release Capability, Spot and Runway Departure Advisor, Integrated Surface Management and Flight Deck, and Airport Runway Management. FAA participants at the meeting [September 11-12, 2012] represented NextGen organizations responsible for technology development, prototyping, and specifying and procuring automation systems. FAA personnel provided updates on NextGen technology development and prototyping as well as new FAA processes for transitioning Ideas to Implementation. NASA researchers and managers supporting the Airspace Systems Program participated and provided updates on the four research products along with demonstrations at Ames’ Future Flight Central and the Airport and Terminal Area Simulator. (NASA Aviation Systems Division News 2012)