|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
3
Barriers to Innovation
As in any sector, accelerating the process of technology innovate
tion in infrastructure depends equally on increased research and on
better transfer of the products of research to field use (Tornatzky
et al., 1983~. Neither wiB be easy to achieve. The implementation
strategy for an mEastructure research agenda, presented In the
next chapter, must comider the barriers to research arid to the
spread of research results ~ desenbed In this chapter. A national
strategy for infrastructure research and development must ensure
that significant resources are devoted to te`~bnology transfer efforts
as wed as to te~bnolog~cal and scientific research on new products
and processes.
lNl?1~8TllUCTllBE ClIARACTEllISTICS
THAT DI8COU=GE RE8E"CH
Researth for improved infrastructure systems has not always
been vigorously pursued in the past, with the exception of cer-
tain modes such as highways and surveys. The reasons for this
lam of research lie ~ a complex array of geographic, economic,
politick, and technics charactermtics of infrastructure systems.
The primary charactermtics that seem to discourage reteach and
inno~ration mclude industry fragmentation and the absence of a
27
OCR for page 28
28
market mechanism. This ~ true for both the initiation of research
and the disunion of research produce.
Fragmentation of Research by Mode and Junction. There
no single government agency or other organization that ~ respon-
sible for the state of our inil~tructure, including ~ its modes.
Each mode has its own set of institutions, users, and degree of
recepti~renem to innovation. ~ addition, there ~ fragmentation of
responsibility within modes. ~ the highway system, for example,
county, city, state, and federal organizations play diverse roles.
There are about 59,000 water supply systems, most of them very
smaD~5 percent of the systems serve led than 3 percent of the
population (Congressional Budget Office, 1987~. The character
of needs also varies by size of jurisdiction. A small community's
water supply system, for instance, has quite different problems to
address than those of a large community.
This fragmentation results in a Variety of problems ~ ~ti-
ating and conducting research programs. Most jurisdictions or
agencies tend to be small in size, with little capacity to comman-
deer resources for research. Moreover, the modes and jurisdiction
tend to compete for the same resources, resulting ~ uneven ret
source distribution. Local jurisdictions tend to reinvent the wheel
for problem that are common to Al. Research on new materi-
ad for pothole repair and ice removal from highways are subjects
common to several loch, state, and fevers program, and dup~ic~
tive efforts seem unnecessary ~ this field. FinaBy, fragmentation
reduces the possibility of research that address problems that
cut across the various modes of infrastructure. Thus, the water
supply, wastewater men ageme~}t, and hazardous waste industries
face common problems in piping design. A coordinated approach
would enhance the capabilities of Al involved.
Abecnec of a Market Mechanism. Mont infrastructure facilities
are operated and managed by public agencies. The profit motive
that often Entree research in other industries ~ absent from the
area of ~frsatructure; thus, research ~ not typically an activity of
public infrastructure agencies. ~
Although the large investments involved would seem to prom-
ise a profitable market for the priorate sector, ~ fact, the fragmen-
tation of control within the various modes has discouraged any
sort of standardization in facility design. This laclc of star dardiza-
tion is not conducive to production manufacturing. Without the
OCR for page 29
29
possibility of a large 8a~ rolume, private industry is reluctant
to mYest ~ innovative products. The marketing effort ~n~rol~red
educating the may buyers of such products ~ also significant.
The combination of low sales volume and high marketing costs
discourages priorate interest ~ research for public works facilities.
As a result of these and other impediments to research on
improved infrastructure techIIologies, researcl1 has lagged in some
infrastructure mean "d on materials and techniques that pertain
to more than one infrastructure mode.
BARRI1:RS TO TH1: DIFFUSION OF
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGI1:S
E,ren if the rate of the discovery and development of new tech-
nology is increased under the stimulus of a national infrastructure
research and development agenda, significant barriers would ret
main in transferring inno~rati~re research products from the labo-
ratory to widespread use in the field. Such diffilsion-o£inno~ration
problems are not limited to infrastructure, as evidenced by the
recent attention to problems that American manufactures have
had ~ de~relop~g the video cassette recorder and other products
based on technologies invented in the United States. Ill fact, a
huge social science research literature exists on the problem a of
diffusing innovations, although very few studies relate directly
to ink - tructure. Sociological studies, which emphasize commu-
nication patterns and the characteristics of inno~ration-adopting
individuals and orgy ations, are synthesized by Rogers (1983).
More recent studies have focused on organizations, because organi-
zations, rather than individuals, adopt most innovations (Rogers,
1983; Rogers and Kim, 1985~. Studies by economics emphasize
industry structure add characteristics of the invention, especially
its profitability (e.g., Mowery, in print; Mansfield, 1968). Many
of the barriers identified in this literature also apply to innovation
with respect to infrastructure systems. Ways to understand bets
ter Ed overcome these barriers must be considered ~ esigDing
and ~mplement~g an ~nfi~tructure research agenda. The barriers
include:
Cullural Values. The stones about popular unwiBingne~ to
change personal habits n grays that would make new infrastruc-
ture technology more effective or efficient are legion. The average
OCR for page 30
30
Amencan's attachment to his or her automobile ~ Fred knew.
The automobile ~ ~ excellent example, In fact, of a t=-hnolo~cal
nno~ration whose compatibility with cultural Sues aBowed it to
spread very rapidly, foiling subsequent efforts to promote techno-
logical improvements in mass trap sit (Tarr, 1984; Hilton, 1985~.
Similarly, the cultural tendency toward Nippon rather than reuse
of produce makes it harder to develop technologies for improved
management, maintenance, and modernization of ex~t~g infield
tructure. For example, technologies for recycling soUd waste exist,
but they face mgra~ned cultural reactance to separation at the
source, that is, to separation of glass, metal, and paper at the
individual consumer ferret.
Govc~nmcntal and Profeemonal Standard and Rcguiatione.
Though necessary to ensure safety and reliability, standards "d
regulations can become obsolete ~d a barrier to innovation if they
are not reprised on a periodic b - is. Many standard that apply
to highway M,] railroad systems have their origin ~ technologies
prevalent at the turn of the century; therefore, they do not accom-
modate easily new design, new material, arid new construction
methods. There appears to be a strong social and institutional ret
luctarece to make changes In long~established building standards.
For example, the acceptance of pipe made of polyvinyl chionde
(PVC) as a substitute for copper and iron pipe In residential and
commercial construction was redated by both unions and mun~c-
ip~ities. Unions objected to the use of PVC because it was
labor-sav~g improvement which reduced the skis Ed time re-
qu~red for the pl~'rr~b~g trades. M~nicip~ities, reacting to union
pressure and lack of knowledge regarding this new material, were
also reluctant to change the building codes.
Fragmentation in standard-setting and regulatory authority
can ~ be an ~mpedirnent to creating sufficient markets for m-
no~ration. To construct a solid waste incinerating system, for in-
stance, communities may be required to meet the codes and st~-
dards of as many as 30 to 40 federal, state, counter, municipal, and
regional organizations tenth o~rerIapping jurisdictional authorities.
This can be an overwhelming task, particularly if the standard)
are not up to date.
The problem of inadequate stands~ds are also encountered
bidding and contracting procedures. Typically, standard math
rial lists are part of the specifications, even though substitution
OCR for page 31
31
through an for equal" clause ~ permitted. In practice, bidders are
wavy of substituting new products or material because the bur-
den of proof that the new item does, In fact, meet the for equals
standard ~ on the bidder. Bids have been thrown out where, In
the opinion of the contracting agency, the new product did not
meet the standard. The risk of losing the bid certainly stifles any
innovation on the part of the contractor.
~rgc Proicet Scats. Most public works infrastructure systems
are costly, larg~scale, complex, and geographically dispersed. I,ife
e~cpect~cies for these facilities are typically 50 to 100 years, and
construction of these facilities Is of long duration. These systems
are expect to provide continuous and reliable produce or ser-
~rices. To introduce innovations into this class of engineering Gym
tem'3 requires large-scale, complex, probably costly, and long-term
research arid development efforts. These features make it difficult
to mount support for infrastructure innovations, and to sustain
support once mounted in jurisdictions with limited resources and
shor~term political agendas. The problem is particularly acute
for small jurisdiction attempting a prototype or demonstration
project. There are many costs associated with these projects,
particularly if they are led than successful. Small agencies or
jurisdictions find it very difficult to justify the budgetary risks
associated with a demonstration project.
Education and Rcacarch Systems. At the university level, ed-
ucation related to infrastructure occurs primarily in eng~neer~g
schools, architecture schools, city and regional planning programs'
and public administration programs. Of these, the primary source
of education and research is eng~neer~g, particularly civil eng~-
neer~ng, where there are barriers to innovation for infrastructure.
These include (1) ~ emphasm on the design of new systems and
structures In education and practice, (2) the status of civil en-
gmeer~ng in eng~neer~g schools, and (3) the lack of sustained
fudging for citric engmeenug research.
In both civil engineering education and professional practice,
the primary emphasis is on the theory and methods of infrastruc-
ture design. Other aspects such as unplementation, operation,
rehabilitation, preservation, and maintenance are often given only
brief treatment. The resulting bin in education towards new
construction is reinforced by the professional practice of civil en-
gineering. The salaries for field engineers are usually much lower
OCR for page 32
32
that those of designers. The professional rewarm are highest for
good Resin, e.g., numerous nations and international comply
titions and award exist; there are few comparable re.war~ for
nondes~gn activities.
Infrastructure ~ the concern of several different groups within
universities engineering, architecture, city and regional planning,
and public administration. Of these, civil engineering typically has
a long history slid well-estab~ished program. However, civil eng~-
neering programs generally have relatively low status in compazi-
son to the other en~eer~g disciplines. They here been the first
to face cuts ~ uni~rersi1~r funding for teaching program, research
scholarships and fellowships, add professional/public service ac-
ti~rities. Some engineering School have ~=ont~ued their card
engineering programs in the face of university budget constraints
and declining student interest in the field. Others lacic the achol-
a~hips and fellowships required to attract and retain excellent
students to the field.
Similar emphasm ~ given to new design and new construction
method In the fields of architecture and city "d regions plan-
ning. There ~ little ongoing research into method and material
for rehabilitation and preservation of infrastructure. For exam-
ple, the destructive effects of cherr~cab Wed ~ clearing ice Tom
highways and bridges are weD known, but there has been little
research into alternatives or systematic evaluation of the costs of
using these chemical methods.
Researth In civil engineering fields lacks sustained funding.
Relatively little research and development is supported in the
United States by either the private sector or the federal go~rern-
ment, and there ~ evidence that lack of Treatment ~ tied to low
producti~ribr gains over the past 20 years in the U.S. construction
industry (National Research Council, 1986~. While the Depart
ment of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space A~ninis~tr~
tion, and other federal agencies have provided strong support for
such engineering fields as aerospace and electronics, citric engimeer-
ing has tended to be o~rerIooked. The National Science Foundation
martens only a smaD effort in basic citric engineering research.
~386 and I`iability. The number of liability suits and the size of
damage award has increased dramatically In the past few years.
M=y professionals are being pressured to follow ultra~conser~rati~re
practice in the denim and construction of infrastructure facilities.
OCR for page 33
33
The problem is compounded by the typical public contracting
process, which attempts to spread the work associated Ninth one
project among several companies. Thus, one contract win be let for
preliminary design, another for film design, another for construc-
tion, ~d stiD another for construction management. Designers for
the preliminary stages are reluctant to suggest new innovations if
they require careful field Initiation, because there ~ no guar-
antee that they wiD be able to supenrme that installation during
construction. E comenrative Sections are made at each stage of
the contract process, the final project tYDiCa0Y uses Costly add
overconsenrati~re design.
~ - -·~ ~.r < ~ ~ ,~
Organizational Inertia. Organization theory h" identified fac-
tors that promote organizational inertia arid reactance to change,
including the natural desire to ma~ntam the status quo, reactance
to the traumas of change, the inability to see problems due to
mgra~ned attitudes and e~rery-day routines, and constraints such
as limited resources, sunk costs, mBex~ble rules Aria regulations,
and limited personnel capacity (Kaufin~, 1971~. On the other
hand, organization do change and ingrate In response to such
internal and external forces as performance problems, internal ret
organizations' personnel changes, budget changes, and changing
technology. IN most cases an internal ~catalyst" is needed, such
as an individual or management team m.a dec~sion-mak~ng pm
sition, to overcome low recepti~rily to new procedures, processes,
or technology, to provide either greater productivity, lower cost,
unproved product or service, or to change or expand the Traction of
the organization. Such an implementer must anticipate these bar-
tiers or attitudes on the part of personnel within the org^Ti!zation
d devme ~ program for acceptance of change.
For Ample: A charter c}~nge ~ New Yorlc City in the early 1960e
transferred the jurisdiction {or the deign, contraction, Ad mam-
t~a~nce of all #rv ices from the five individual borough presidents to
the city-wide Department of Public World. Although the title had
changed, in en excellent example of bureaucratic inertia, the same
ind~riduale worked in the Ewe place under the same managers,
retaining the divergent old borongh-president design standards and
field crews using a wide spectrum of nonontform equipment. After
some years, a new public world director decided to integrate these
five disparate unite. A complete Aped tory ~ made, especially
Of personnel capability. Three mont}m of can did d~c~iom tools
place with the career civil ser~rants invohred, as well as with the
Lion representing Geld personnel. A uniform sewer management
OCR for page 34
34
information system ~ prepared in ad~ce. Information sheets
of proposed chang" were widely circulated. All personnel in~rol~red
were invited to ~ meeting promoting the proposed change Ed
timetable. The actual trader of dutice, shift of personnel, and
sharing of equipment succe~lly tooic place ~ one day with no
disruption of operation.
Frequently, in the case of 8 public agency, the agency must
conduct an effective public relations effort to bring about public
acceptance.
For Example: For 40 years, water pollution control plants through-
out the world had built sludge digesters huge concrete tanlce
in which putrescible raw sludge undergoes anaerobic digestion to
convert the sludge to a non-putr~cible soil conditioner. Typical
accepted design parameters were to provide one cubic foot of ~rol-
urne for 0.03 lbe of volatile matter per day. Enormous tanks were
provided, many with up to 300,000 cubic-ft capacity. A small
group of process engineers in New Yorlc City estimated that very
little of the tam: volume was in actual use; much of it was filled
with grit and scum. They verified, by the use of tracer salts, that
only a portion of the volume was circulated. They then demon-
strated on a full-pl~t scale that they could load rontme}y up to
0.20 lbs of volatile matter per day by Ming all the tam: volume
through the use of proper recirculation. When this was publicized,
some manufacturers tool: out ads and published articles attacking
the findings and urging cities to Stick to the tried Ed true con-
servati~rc standards,. despite the spectacular demonstration. This
campaign delayed for at least two years general acceptance of what
now is standard practice. In New Yorl: City alone, the earrings ~
an needed new construction over the next decade was at least S2SO
million.
1:NCOIJ}tAG~G Thy: DD?FUSION O1? INNOVATION
Despite these barriers to the adoption of innovation In infirm
structure systems, innovation continues to occur. The committee
believes, however, that the pace of innovation diffusion should be
accelerated to bring the performance of infrastructure up to the
level required to meet the needs of today's national and ~nterna-
tional economy. This suggests, first, that problems of diffusion of
innovation should be considered ~ designing the unplementstion
strategy for an infrastructure research agenda in order to max~-
Adze the likelihood that subsequent research will be desired and
therefore used by potential adopters, and, second, that barriers
to and incentives for diffusion be addressed explicitly withy the
research agenda itself.
OCR for page 35
35
The social science research literature includes studies of suc-
cessful strategies and techniques for promoting innovation. Un-
fortunately, none of the examples relate directly to infrastructure
systems. The main conclusion from these studies ~ that inno~ra-
tions do not implement them~el~res, and success can be difficult to
achieve. Deliberate policies and programs are required. Some of
the approaches include:
Peer Diffusion. Peer diEusion refers to the spread of inns
orations by a group of early adopters who help others to under-
stand and implement an innovation by sharing their experiences
with colleagues. Models include Public Technology, Idc., which
was created by the major urban public interest groups National
League of Cities, International City Managers Association, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and National Association of Counties to
promote innovative technologies, and, in the education field, the
National Diffusion Network. Peer diffusion ~ especially useful for
dealing with such barrier as skepticimn and lack of knowledge
about alternatives. Research shows that adoption ~ more likely
when the source of an Oration ~ a peer, when the innovation
is certified m3 valuable by a respected source, and when the in-
novating peer provides assistance in transferring the innovation
(Rogers, 1983; Rogers, tenth Shoemaker, 1971).
Support for Innovation Champions. AD organizations have in-
novation ~champions." Sometimes they are managers, sometimes
professional, and sometunes office or field staff. Research on mno-
vation indicates that funding, training, and awards are important
resources to make avmIable to innovation champions to help them
foster innovation within organizations.
Dcmonstrattone and E:z:pemments. Experiments are conducted
to reduce uncertainty about the outcome of new processes or prod
ts being designed in the laboratory; demonstrations are con-
ducted to explore the technical feasibility, of innovation. Their
purpose is to reduce the uncertainty of potential users about the
practicality of the innovation by providing useful and accessible
information about the performance of the innovation under condi-
tions similar to those faced by potential users. Potential adopters
can be well aware of and even favor an innovation but be Pam
sine rejectors of it because of lack of clear unplementation steps.
Demonstrations are especially effective In countering this lack of
OCR for page 36
36
knowledge about unplementation problems. They pronde critical
operational knowledge. Accordingly, experiments and demonstrate
time should be encouraged especially public demonstrations of
very costly, la~ge~scale, or radically new innovations. Many of the
most important lemons to be reamed from demonstration emerge
from the experience of operating and maintaining a fuD system.
The funding of fi~-scale demons/ratio=, therefore, provides an
unportant stimulant to innovation, especially if attention ~ paid
to the lemons learned during actual operations.
Information on Costs and Benefits. One of the common few
tures of an innnovation ~ that its benefits and costs are not fully
known, yet such Formation ~ essential in adoption decisions.
Potential benefits are especially difficult to identify and measure,
which is one argument for conducting full-scale demonstrations.
Mechanisms for Rceolv~ng Convict. The diffusion of inno~
tions can be spurred by preventing or removing roadblocks that
stem from disputes between experts on the value of an innovation,
and from conflicts between citizen groups and government about
the desirability of an innovation. When experts disagree about the
need for and value of a particular innovation, this crested confusion
and doubt among potential adopters.
Expert panels, referees, and other mechanisms can be used
to develop area of agreement among experts that can spur inns
oration and its diffusion. Similarly, mechanisms for resolution of
disputes between citizen groups and government can provide the
same Unction (Rivkin Associates, 1987~.
Coopcrativc Research and Dcvciopment. There is evidence
from experience with previous innovations that barriers can be
overcome through cooperative cros~organizational research and
development that ~ continuous Id steady and that focuses on
greater understanding of research in each ink - tructure mode and
also of cro~modal research ~ areas such as system studies, stan-
dards setting, and materials (Wells, 1986~. The MCC (Microelec-
tropics and Computing Consortium) provides a current example
of such cooperative research "d development involving computer
and microelectronics industries, similar to the program managed
by the Electric Power Research institute for the nation's electric
utilities.
OCR for page 37
37
CONCIUSIONS
The barriers to innovation endemic in any industry are espe-
ciaDy formidable for infrastructure systems because of fragmented
responsibility, market limits, governmental procurement practices,
and other factom identified above. Although change add inns
vation nevertheless occur, these processes can be and must be
accelerated.
This review of barriers to research and its diffusion suggests
several desirable features of any attempt to stimulate innovation
in our infrastructure systems. First, a national effort to encourage
more and better research is required to ensure that research needs
and opportunities are identified systematically and comprehen-
sively, to encourage research efforts where they are lagging, and
to sponsor crosscutting research that is not adequately pursued
within the research communities of the individual infrastructure
modes.
Second, even if infrastructure research efforts are increased
and unproved, steps must be taken to ensure that the beneficial
results of such research are transferred to and adopted by man-
agers, suppliers, and users of infrastructure systetrm. Perhaps the
chief lemon to be learned from past efforts to transfer technology
is the need to involve the potential adopters early in the research
and development proce - . This ensures that the research focuses
on areas of high priority and that the development phase results
in useful products that can be used with a minimum of addi-
tional adaptation by users. Most put federal efforts to stimulate
technological i~no~ration have had limit succe - , ~ part because
they underestimated the problems ~ transferring innovations to
the field. Probably the most succe~fu! federal effort to improve
the productivity of an industry through research and development
has been the Agriculture Department's Cooperative Extension
Service, whose decentralized structure has been able to meet the
diverse needs of its many different users (Teich, 1985~.
Experience also shows the unportance of an in-house research
and development capability on the part of potential adopters
(Mowery, 1983~. Accordingly, it makes sense to use and strengthen
existing research capacities within the infrastructure modes rather
than to supplant them. For that reason, the institutional strategy
for stimulating research and innovation In infrastructure outlined
OCR for page 38
38
in the next chapter h" been designed specifically to involve in-
frastructure operators add supplied and to build on the existing
research capacities of the various infrastructure modes.
Third, the barriers to and incentives for innovation should
themmeives be the subject of public policy research as part of
a national infrastructure research agenda. Such research would
be aimed at identifying strategies for overcoming barriers and
improving the transfer of mno~rations to the primary operators of
the nation's infrastructure state ~d local.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
infrastructure research
