International Technology Scanning Program • July 2009

Transportation Research 

Program Administration 

in Europe and Asia

TRPA 2008

EstablishING THE Research Framework ● Conduct of

Research ● Partnership Models ● Innovation Delivery

Sponsored by:

In cooperation with:

National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program
Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner 

that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize 

the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality 

issues and adjusts its programs and processes 

to ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-09-015

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Transportation Research Program Administration in 

Europe and Asia

5. Report Date

July 2009

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Debra Elston, David Huft, Barbara T. Harder, Joyce 

Curtis, Monique R. Evans, Christopher W. Jenks, 

Laurie McGinnis, Harold R. “Skip” Paul, Glenn 

Roberts, Eric Wingfield, J. B. “Butch” Wlaschin

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

and National Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored a scanning study of Europe and Asia to 

review transportation research program administration practices. The scan team sought policy initiatives and 

process improvements to enhance transportation research administration in the United States.

The team found that in the countries it studied, transportation research is directly related to national economic growth and competitiveness, transportation research efforts are promoted, transportation research and 

development (R&D) is accepted as a valuable contribution to the national good, and addressing intellectual 

property rights is a common practice that facilitates the delivery of transportation research results.

Team recommendations for U.S. application include building international relationships in transportation 

research to achieve global goals, developing a nationally coordinated research framework, and strengthening 

the innovation process by examining international research institutes that link the creation and application 

of knowledge.

17. Key Words

innovation, intellectual property rights, international 

scan, research and development, research framework, 

research institutes, R&D, technology deployment, 

transportation research

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public from the: Office of International Programs, 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classify. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classify. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

76

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Technical Report Documentation Page

Debra Elston (Cochair)

FHWA

David Huft (Cochair)

South Dakota DOT

Barbara T. Harder (Report Facilitator)

B. T. Harder, Inc.

Joyce Curtis

FHWA

Monique R. Evans

Ohio DOT

Christopher W. Jenks

Transportation Research Board

Laurie McGinnis

University of Minnesota

Harold R. “Skip” Paul

Louisiana Transportation Research Center

Glenn Roberts

New Hampshire DOT

Eric Wingfield

Ford Motor Company

J. B. “Butch” Wlaschin

FHWA

for

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program

Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team:

July 2009

Transportation Research 

Program Administration 

in Europe and Asia

TRPA 2008

EstablishING THE Research Framework ● Conduct of

Research ● Partnership Models ● Innovation Delivery
iv Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
This report was completed in cooperation with the scan 

team members and the transportation professionals and 

organizational representatives who hosted the scan team 

and gave their time and energy to organize presentations 

and site visits in the countries on the scan itinerary. 

Without their gracious hospitality and willingness to share 

their knowledge and experiences with the U.S. delegation, 

this report would not have been possible. 

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments v
The International Technology Scanning 

Program, sponsored by FHWA, the 

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

(NCHRP), evaluates innovative foreign technologies and 

practices that could significantly benefit U.S. highway 

transportation systems. This approach allows advanced 

technology to be adapted and put into practice much more 

efficiently without spending scarce research funds to 

re-create advances already developed by other countries.

FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from NCHRP, 

jointly determine priority topics for teams of U.S. experts to 

study. Teams in the specific areas being investigated are 

formed and sent to countries where significant advances 

and innovations have been made in technology, management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, 

and financing. Scan teams usually include representatives 

from FHWA, State departments of transportation, local 

governments, transportation trade and research groups, 

the private sector, and academia. 

After a scan is completed, team members evaluate 

findings and develop comprehensive reports, including 

recommendations for further research and pilot projects 

to verify the value of adapting innovations for U.S. use. 

Scan reports, as well as the results of pilot programs and 

research, are circulated throughout the country to State 

and local transportation officials and the private sector. 

Since 1990, more than 80 international scans have been 

organized on topics such as pavements, bridge construction and maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, 

organizational management, winter road maintenance, 

safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, 

and policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has 

resulted in significant improvements and savings in road 

program technologies and practices throughout the 

United States. In some cases, scan studies have facilitated joint research and technology-sharing projects with 

international counterparts, further conserving resources 

and advancing the state of the art. Scan studies have 

also exposed transportation professionals to remarkable 

advancements and inspired implementation of hundreds 

of innovations. The result: large savings of research 

dollars and time, as well as significant improvements in 

the Nation’s transportation system.

Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free of 

charge by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan reports 

are also available electronically and can be accessed on 

the FHWA Office of International Programs Web site at 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov..

International Technology

Scanning Program

vi Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
Safety 

Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users in 

Australia and Japan (2008)

Halving Roadway Fatalities: A Case Study From Victoria, 

Australia (2008)

Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems in 

Europe and Japan (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: 

Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in 

Europe (2005) 

Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and 

Australia (2004) 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003)

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety 

in Europe (2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice in 

Europe (2000) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in 

European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in 

Europe (1999) 

Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies 

(1997) 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: 

Europe and Australia (1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, 

and New Zealand (1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, 

and the Netherlands (1994) 

Planning and Environment 

Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and Utility 

Processes With Planning, Environmental, and Design 

Processes in Australia and Canada (2009)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in 

Congestion Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European 

Perspectives to U.S. Practice (2006)

Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway 

Construction Management (2006)

Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, 

England, and New Zealand (2005)

Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, 

Canada, Japan, and New Zealand (2004) 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways 

(2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway 

Environments (1999) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, 

and Technology (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Policy and Information 

Transportation Research Program Administration in 

Europe and Asia (2009) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce 

Development (2003) 

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter 

Operations in Japan (2003) 

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs 

and Services (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information 

From Abroad (1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation 

Information (1994) 

International Contract Administration Techniques 

for Quality Enhancement (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, 

and Technology (1994) 

Operations 

Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China 

(2008)

Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight 

Enforcement in Europe (2007)

International Technology Scan Reports vii

International Technology

Scan Reports

International Technology

Scanning Program:

Bringing Global Innovations

to U.S. Highways
viii Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in 

Congestion Management (2007)

Effective Use of Weigh-in-Motion Data: The Netherlands 

Case Study (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European 

Perspectives to U.S. Practice (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, 

Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and 

Specifications in Europe (2004) 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System 

Performance Through Better Operations (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in 

European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice 

in Europe (1999) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information 

Systems (1997) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—

Learning from Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm 

Countermeasure Manual (1990) 

Infrastructure—General 

Public-Private Partnerships for Highway

Infrastructure: Capitalizing on International 

Experience (2009)

Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and 

Innovatively Funded Projects in Europe (2006)

Construction Management Practices in Canada 

and Europe (2005) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce 

Development (2003) 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice 

in Europe (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and 

Europe (1999) 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993) 

Infrastructure—Pavements

Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)

Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and 

Canada (2007)

Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and 

Specifications in Europe (2004)

Asphalt Pavement Warranties: Technology and Practice 

in Europe (2004)

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, 

South Africa, and Australia (2003) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway 

Environments (1999) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway 

Technologies and Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992) 

European Asphalt Technology (1990) 

Infrastructure—Bridges 

Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe (2008)

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and 

Europe (2005) 

Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and 

South Africa (2005) 

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed 

Bridges in Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe 

and Japan (2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream 

Instability Countermeasures (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan 

(1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996)

European Bridge Structures (1995) 

All publications are available

on the Internet at 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.
Executive Summary .................... 1

Overview .............................. 1

Areas of Interest ......................... 1

Findings ............................... 2

Establishing the Research Framework....... 2

Partnership Models and Joint Research 

Activities............................. 2

Conduct of Research: Performance, Quality, 

and Value ............................ 3

Delivery: Getting Research Results Into 

Widespread Use ....................... 3

Scan Team Implementation Plan ............. 4

Item 1: Improving International Relationships. . 4

Item 2: Developing a Nationally Coordinated 

Transportation Research Framework ........ 5

Item 3: Strengthening the Innovation 

Process ............................. 5

Item 4: Exploring Benefits of Intellectual 

Property Applications in U.S. Transportation 

Research ............................ 6

Item 5: Exploring Global Use of Research 

Information ........................... 6

Item 6: Improving the Research Evaluation 

Process ............................. 7

Chapter 1: Introduction ................. 9

Scan Objectives and Primary Themes ......... 9

 Scan Objectives ....................... 9

 Four Primary Themes ................... 9

Amplifying Questions..................... 10

Desk Scan ............................ 10

Scan Organization ...................... 10

Team Composition ...................... 10

Chapter 2: Key Findings ............... 13

Establishing the Research Framework ........ 13

Partnership Models and Joint Research 

Activities .............................. 19

Conduct of Research: Performance, Quality, 

and Value ............................ 24

Delivery: Getting Research Results Into 

Widespread Practice ..................... 27

Chapter 3: Implementation ............. 31

Scan Team Implementation Plan ............ 31

STIP Items ............................ 31

Item 1: Improving International 

Relationships ........................ 31

Item 2: Developing a Nationally Coordinated 

Transportation Research Framework ....... 32

Item 3: Strengthening the Innovation 

Process ............................ 33

Item 4: Exploring Benefits of Intellectual 

Property Applications in U.S. Transportation 

Research ........................... 34

Item 5: Exploring Global Use of Research 

Information .......................... 35

Item 6: Improving the Research Evaluation 

Process ............................ 36

Appendix A: Amplifying Questions..... 39

Appendix B: Glossary ................. 43

Appendix C: International Contacts..... 45

Appendix D: Team Members........... 59

References............................ 63

Figures

Figure 1. European Commission research is integral 

to economic growth, creating knowledge-based 

leadership. ............................ 13

Figure 2. The Netherlands DVS integrated 

Strategy, Knowledge, and Innovation Agenda. . . 14

Figure 3. KICTEP research framework 

development: long-term plan (innovation 

roadmap) creating value .................. 15

Table of Contents ix

Table of Contents
x Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Figure 4. KICTEP developed 10 promising 

technologies aligned with common vision. ..... 17

Figure 5. European Union funding levels vary 

depending on type of R&D partner. .......... 19

Figure 6. Institute model: industry-academiagovernment relationship in R&D at MLIT 

in Japan............................... 21

Figure 7. Technical University of Madrid 

academic role in R&D..................... 22

Figure 8. Transport R&D model in Hungary..... 23

Figure 9. EU FP7 Transport R&D funding. ..... 25

Figure 10. VINNOVA assessment, monitoring, 

evaluation, and impact analysis. ............ 26

Figure 11. KICTEP whole-cycle project 

management process..................... 26

Figure 12. MLIT use and evaluation of new 

technologies. .......................... 28

Figure 13. VTI’s ideas to create a common 

platform for innovation sharing. ............. 29

Figure 14. ECTRI forums for sharing new research 

results internationally. .................... 29

Table

Table 1. Host countries, organizations, and 

programs visited.......................... 11
AASHTO American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

CORDIS Community Research and Development 

Information Service

DOT Department of Transportation

DRAST Department for Research and Scientific 

and Technical Coordination (France)

DVS Rijkswaterstaat Transport and 

Navigation Department 

(the Netherlands)

EC European Commission

ECTRI European Conference of Transport 

Research Institutes

ERTRAC European Road Transport Research 

Advisory Council

ERA-NET European Research Area–Network, 

including Road and Transport 

subthemes

EU European Union

FEHRL Forum of European National Highway 

Research Laboratories

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FP7 European Seventh Framework Program

GHD French National Road Agency, General 

Highways Department

IBS Institute of Behavioral Sciences (Japan)

IP intellectual property

IPR intellectual property rights

ITPS Institute for Policy Studies (Japan)

ITS intelligent transportation systems

INRETS National Institute for Transport and 

Safety Research (France)

KICT Korean Institute of Construction 

Technology

KICTEP Korean Institute of Construction and 

Transportation Technology Evaluation 

and Planning

KOTI Korean Transport Institute

KTI Institute for Transport Sciences 

(Hungary)

JICE Japanese Institute of Construction 

Engineering 

LCPC French Research Laboratory for 

Public Works 

MRI or Mitsubishi Research Institute 

MIRI

MLIT Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, 

Transport, and Tourism (Japan)

MOU memorandum of understanding

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program

NILIM National Institute for Land and 

Infrastructure Management (Japan)

NRA national research agency

PREDIT Program of Research, Experimentation, 

and Innovation in Land Transport 

(France)

PWRI Public Works Research Institute (Japan)

RiP Research-in-Progress

R&D research and development

RDT research, development, and technology

SKIA Strategy, Knowledge, and Innovation 

Agenda (the Netherlands)

SME small- to medium-sized enterprise

Abbreviations and Acronyms xi

Abbreviations and Acronyms
xii Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

SRA Swedish Road Administration

STIP Scan Team Implementation Plan

SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research 

(the Netherlands)

TRB Transportation Research Board 

TRIS Transportation Research Information 

Services

TRPA Transportation Research Program 

Administration

VINNOVA Swedish Governmental Agency for 

Innovation Systems

VTI Swedish National Road and Transport 

Research Institute

VTT Technical Research Center of Finland
Overview

I

n April 2008, a team of 11 transportation 

research, asset, and policy management experts 

from the United States visited Belgium (European 

Commission), France, Japan, the Netherlands, 

South Korea, and Sweden to review and assess transportation research program administration practices. The 

scan team members sought policy options and initiatives 

as well as process improvements to enhance the effectiveness of transportation research administrative activities in the United States. The team identified successful 

practices with potential for application to U.S. surface 

transportation research programs, particularly in the 

public sector. In addition, the team realized its presence 

in the countries visited would provide avenues for developing research partnerships and collaboration opportunities and that this unique experience would promote 

information sharing and technology transfer with international counterparts. The team also learned that transportation research, quality of life, and national economic 

competitiveness are inseparable in all of the countries 

visited, and it gained a greater appreciation of the 

necessity for robust links between the creation of 

knowledge via research and the application of knowledge 

in society. The scan team met with senior research 

program administrators from national governments and 

the European Commission, nongovernment national 

research consortia, institutes, centers of excellence, 

research foundations, and universities. 

This scan is the first solely dedicated to research 

program management practice. The scan topic originated 

through discussions among State department of transportation (DOT) research managers committed to improving 

the effectiveness of research program activities and 

increasing the stewardship of the resources directed to 

research. This scan is especially important for the U.S. 

transportation research community because it addresses 

program-level activities rather than technical projectbased efforts, and it provides concepts that can significantly enhance research program management in the 

United States. 

The Transportation Research Program Administration Scan 

was conducted through the International Highway Technology Scanning Program, jointly sponsored by FHWA and 

AASHTO in cooperation with the Transportation Research 

Board’s (TRB) NCHRP, the private sector, and academia. 

Areas of Interest

The scan team identified four primary themes that describe 

its areas of interest. Each theme incorporates an aspect 

of the research administrative process from early stage, 

determining the research framework, to late stage, getting 

the research results into widespread practice. The scan 

team also developed a series of amplifying questions 

detailing the information it sought on each theme. 

In the context of these four themes, the team focused on 

how the host countries administer their research programs 

and projects, including the methods, techniques, and tools 

they use to accomplish the broad spectrum of administrative functions. The scan team also investigated the roles, 

responsibilities, and working relationships among 

research entities in the various countries and within 

their international domains.

The following are the four primary themes:

1.Establishing the research framework—Practices used 

to determine where to put the emphasis and effort to 

solve current problems and emerging issues on local, 

national and federal, and international levels 

2.Partnership models and joint research activities—

Methods of cooperation that enhance technical capacity 

and increase fiscal and other resources required for 

research 

3.Conduct of research: performance, quality, and 

value—Tools and processes used to measure the 

Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary
performance, quality, and value of research programs 

and projects 

4.Delivery: getting research results into widespread 

practice—Keys to enhancing the effectiveness of 

deployment and increasing the use of research 

results

Findings

Scan team findings are organized by the four primary 

themes of inquiry. 

Establishing the Research Framework

Transportation research is directly related to national 

economic growth and competitiveness. In every 

country visited, the prevalent belief was “if you aren’t 

doing transportation R&D, then you won’t be globally 

competitive.” The international counterparts appreciated 

their R&D activities in the context of the entire world. 

Their perspective on transportation research differed 

greatly from the U.S. public sector model; the host 

countries see transportation research as an integral 

piece of their efforts to maintain or create a more 

robust national economy. 

Strategic and policy-driven frameworks for 

transportation research are the standard. 

Transportation research frameworks are developed 

nationally through a strategic process that is closely tied 

to national policy goals and objectives. These research 

frameworks are all-encompassing in that they include 

broad societal issues, not just transportation. 

Exemplary research frameworks are accompanied 

by well-defined processes to create comprehensive 

transportation research roadmaps. The scan team 

identified excellent examples of how expertise in developing research frameworks also affects downstream 

processes, such as fostering comprehensive roadmaps 

for determining effective research programs. 

The countries had an ability to align the transportation 

research framework with a common vision. 

In addition to demonstrating a clear and purposeful 

approach to establishing strategic frameworks, the 

countries focus on communicating the framework so 

that all stakeholders own it. This communication is done 

through effective and efficient planning and collaboration 

with industry and academia in building the common vision 

and accomplishing the research activities. The main 

drivers are societal goals rather than industrial 

goals, using transportation to improve the quality 

of life. 

Senior-level individuals frequently emerge as 

visionaries or champions and play an instrumental 

role in national program focus and support. In a 

number of host countries, very senior experts are often 

regarded as highly credible opinion leaders on the 

national level. The noteworthy aspect of this high regard 

is the access these individuals have to national policy 

formulation and decisionmaking. The availability of 

accurate and expert transportation R&D knowledge to 

national leaders is a key factor in the country’s support 

of the necessity for and value of R&D efforts.

National research frameworks had common topics in 

many of the host countries, and these frameworks are 

being addressed by cross-ministerial R&D activities. 

The host countries articulated framework items that are 

also concerns in the United States (e.g., climate change, 

aging population and mobility, workforce, aging infrastructure, congestion management, safety, and security). Host 

countries’ research programs look to solve these national 

priorities in a manner that uses a remarkably broad 

perspective—incorporating extensive cross-ministerial 

bodies that include land, infrastructure, energy, 

environment, culture, and sports, for example. 

Partnership Models and Joint Research Activities

In the host countries, transportation research 

partnerships and joint research efforts are essential, 

ubiquitous, and actively promoted. The role and use of 

partnerships and the collaboration of multiple players are 

integral elements of the research activities in the various 

countries visited. In many countries officials have a strong 

sense of “we know we can’t do all this separately.” With 

that knowledge, for example, the European Union (EU) 

international collaboration platform recognizes each 

country’s competitive stance. While each country is an 

EU member and can benefit by being part of a unified 

economic entity, each country is also an individual 

economic entity with unique country priorities.

Host countries’ transportation R&D collaboration 

activities begin substantially further upstream than in 

the United States. Host countries’ research programs 

incorporated academic and industry participation earlier 

in the research process than those of the United States. 

In the host countries there is a continuous flow that 

2 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
incorporates collaboration throughout the research 

process—from problem definition (which may include 

participation in establishing the research framework) 

through the conduct of the research and the delivery 

of research products. 

Research institutes are an important vehicle for 

exercising transportation partnerships and collaboration. Without exception, each host country had some form 

of research institute that is a primary vehicle to either fund 

and financially manage or foster, house, and accomplish 

collaborative research efforts. The formation and structure 

of the research institutes varied from country to country, 

but each example brought together government, foundations, academia, industry, and other independent organizations that enabled them to respond to the national strategic 

framework more effectively in collaboration than each 

organization could on its own. 

Academic partners are integral to transportation 

research performance. In every host country, academic 

partners in transportation R&D had a more integral and 

integrated role in research activities than is seen in 

comparable U.S. research efforts. Countries included the 

academic expertise for determining framework priorities, 

creating knowledge, accomplishing research and 

evaluation, and creating the future workforce. 

International research partnership models in 

transportation are similar to models used in the 

United States. The scan team found similarities in the 

partnership models used by its international counterparts. 

In fact, it was encouraging to see the operation of partnership models in the various international contexts 

because these similarities showed potential for future 

partnership and collaborative activities for U.S.-

international research efforts. While some aspects of the 

international partnerships were familiar, others provided 

learning opportunities for the team. Partnerships used in 

the countries visited tended to provide multidisciplinary, 

international research leadership and contribute to 

framework development, work sharing, and financing in 

ways not frequently used in the United States. 

Conduct of Research: Performance, Quality, 

and Value

Transportation R&D is accepted as a valuable contribution to the national or societal good. Transportation 

research programs and their outcomes are seen in the 

host countries as an important contribution to society. 

Transportation R&D is especially considered an economic 

growth generator and an essential element of global 

competitiveness. The programs reviewed did not have to 

continually justify expenditures as do most U.S. research 

programs. In fact, the acceptance of the value of research 

in the host countries promotes strong research programs, 

which in turn develops greater value—a virtuous cycle. 

International counterparts are funding transportation 

R&D at significantly high levels. Substantial program 

funding is committed to transportation research in the host 

countries. For the most part, the transportation research 

programs of host countries are significantly more integrated into broad research arenas such as model city, 

urban regeneration, or climate change impact. R&D 

funding is generally increasing to match the interest in 

achieving environmental and economic sustainability 

and global competitiveness.

Program and project evaluation techniques varied in 

complexity and effectiveness. For the most part, every 

research program included some process for evaluating 

research results. Some programs were more successful 

than others, and some programs were more risk adverse 

than others, requiring extensive review to redirect work. 

Quantifying the benefits of research results is a 

continuing challenge for all host countries. As in the 

United States, the host countries find quantifying benefits 

of research activities a challenge. The efforts committed 

to determining the benefits varied, and no country had a 

completely satisfactory solution. The focus on justifying the 

program based on the benefits analysis was not a critical 

concern for any of the countries. 

A variety of successful techniques and processes 

are potential options for consideration in the United 

States. Some of the items the scan team noted included 

the role of research institutes in establishing research 

frameworks, longer term plans with multiyear programming, and closeness of government R&D activities to 

industry, for example.

Delivery: Getting Research Results Into 

Widespread Practice

Addressing intellectual property rights is a common 

practice that facilitates the delivery of transportation 

research results. The scan team observed decidedly 

Executive Summary 3
different perspectives than in the United States on the 

ownership of intellectual property generated from government-funded transportation research. Intellectual property 

(IP) development is seen as an opportunity to build a 

business based on the specific IP, generated fees were 

used as income sources for R&D, and numbers of patents 

and licensing opportunities were used as performance 

metrics. 

Development of common platforms among U.S. and 

international R&D organizations will facilitate research 

results delivery in all countries. The development of 

common platforms for a variety of research processes will 

substantially reduce barriers for R&D collaboration, foster 

international partnerships, and promote more widespread 

use of research results. 

The number of forums for international sharing of 

research results is increasing. Venues exist to share 

and enhance the likelihood of dissemination of research 

results, and for the global transportation research 

community those tools and opportunities are growing 

in capability and capacity. 

Scan Team Implementation Plan

The team identified a number of successful transportation 

research program administration practices in the host 

countries that can be applied in the United States. These 

practices are the basis for the Scan Team Implementation 

Plan (STIP). The STIP describes the six major implementation plan items, discusses each item, and identifies 

implementation strategies. The timeframe for implementing 

the STIP items ranges from the time the team returned to 

the United States through 2011 and beyond.

In addition, findings and best practices obtained from the 

scan will be widely disseminated throughout the transportation research community through presentations, workshops, 

reports, articles, and Web-based activities and discussions. 

Some of the recommendations and implementation strategies can be implemented within the existing transportation 

research infrastructure. Others may require policy-level 

studies and international joint activities to realize the 

desired outcomes and benefits. 

The following summary identifies the six STIP items, 

presents the scan team’s rationale for including each item, 

and highlights major strategies for accomplishing the 

implementation. 

Item 1: Improving International Relationships 

Build international relationships and institutionalize 

cooperation in transportation research to achieve 

global goals and leverage knowledge and 

resources. 

While the scanning study focused on research program 

administration, the team realized its presence in other 

countries would provide avenues for developing new 

research relationships and potential collaboration 

opportunities with its international counterparts, particularly 

on global issues such as climate change and highway 

safety. Each of the international host organizations visited 

expressed a desire for expanded collaborative research 

efforts with the United States. In addition, officials made 

repeated references to a need for better information 

sharing and global technology transfer of innovations. 

Efforts are already underway to institutionalize cooperation in transportation research between the European 

community and the United States, as well as between the 

United States and South Korean researchers—activities 

in which TRB has been instrumental. A variety of isolated 

partnerships also exist between agencies, institutes, or 

companies abroad and in the United States. To foster 

more of these beneficial international relationships, the 

scan team presents the following strategies: 

`Develop engagement plans—strategies, working 

processes, and products—to manage collaboration 

efforts with international research organizations. 

`Host a tour of the FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center for international researchers and 

research mangers in January 2009. 

`Create a communications package to facilitate international relationships that includes a factsheet with key 

messages from the scan, presentation materials, and 

summaries of host agencies’ responsibilities and 

activities. Enable subsequent additions of other 

international organizations. 

`As appropriate, inform international host organizations’ members about TRB committee activities and 

encourage their involvement. Add the names of those 

visited during the scan to the mailing and newsletter 

distribution list of the TRB Conduct of Research 

Committee. Offer them opportunities to write 

newsletter articles and help develop annual meeting 

sessions.

`Offer to help develop the scan agenda for the planned 

4 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
scanning study of the United States by the European 

Conference of Transport Research Institutes (ECTRI). 

Share the FHWA–AASHTO process for developing 

international scanning studies. 

`Recommend international collaboration as a theme 

at a future TRB annual meeting.

Item 2: Developing a Nationally Coordinated 

Transportation Research Framework

Promote the development and implementation of a 

nationally coordinated, multimodal transportation 

research framework. 

To remain globally competitive and continue to improve the 

quality of life for U.S. citizens, it is critical for the Nation to 

be an active player in the research community. There must 

be collaboration throughout the Nation to unleash the 

brilliance of its researchers and identify a national research 

framework that unites the various sectors of the country 

behind common research goals or themes. 

With this in mind, the scan team believes that a policy 

study should be undertaken to analyze the current process 

of many independently run research programs and 

evaluate the benefits of a nationally focused program in 

which more research dollars are spent on a few highly 

critical areas. If the results of the review point to a coordinated national program, the study would recommend a 

process to develop a coordinated national framework for 

U.S. transportation research. This framework would be 

collaboratively developed and flexible enough to address 

local and regional as well as national issues, and exhibit 

a broad-based fusion of top-down and bottom-up needs 

identification. Examples of effective research platforms are 

available to assist in this effort, including the European 

Union framework; the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism Technology Basic Plan; 

and South Korean roadmaps. In addition, models such as 

that used by the National Institutes of Health would be 

productive benchmark candidates.

The following are implementation strategies for developing 

a nationally coordinated research framework:

`Create a white paper that identifies the benefits of a 

nationally coordinated, multimodal transportation 

research framework. Using the white paper, conduct 

informal outreach to leaders in a broadly defined 

transportation community to determine their reception 

to the concept of a national research framework.

`Propose, advocate, and help staff a policy study that 

will comprehensively investigate the potential for and 

benefits of a nationally focused research effort.

`If the policy study recommends proceeding with a 

national research framework, host a symposium with 

representatives from all components that impact or are 

impacted by the transportation community to provide a 

multidisciplinary approach to transportation research 

and set a strategic framework.

`Explore the concept of a national research organization that brings together the research community—

Federal, State, and local governments; universities; 

foundations; institutes; and the private sector—to 

develop a focused research framework that keeps 

America at the leading edge.

Item 3: Strengthening the Innovation Process

Strengthen the innovation process by examining 

international research institutes and other models 

of collaboration to link knowledge creation and 

knowledge application. 

The scan team learned that the host countries use 

research institutes to bridge the gap between knowledge 

creation and knowledge application. Institutes often are 

the venues that bring together the knowledge creation, 

knowledge management, and knowledge application 

aspects of R&D and foster transportation partnerships 

and collaboration that lead to effective innovation.

Without exception, each host country had some form of 

research institute that is a primary vehicle to either fund 

and financially manage or foster, house, and accomplish 

collaborative research efforts. The formation and structure 

of the research institutes varied from country to country, 

but each example brought together government, government-funded independent organizations, academia, and 

industry in a unique manner that enabled them to respond 

to the national strategic framework more effectively than 

each organization could on its own. The United States 

does not have comparable entities to facilitate collaborative research on this level. Some U.S. structures can 

accomplish portions of the roles of these institutes, but 

such integration of responsibility in one institutional 

structure is clearly a non-U.S. model. 

The scan team implementation will consist of the following:

`Propose, advocate, and help staff a policy study to 

Executive Summary 5
review the structure of Federal transportation 

research in the United States, including an 

examination of the research institute model and 

additional models of collaboration employed in other 

parts of the world. The study should include a 

summary documenting characteristics of research 

institutes in the host countries. Institutes documented 

in the summary should include, among others, the 

French Research Laboratory for Public Works 

(LCPC), the French Carnot Institutes, the Korean 

Institute of Construction and Transportation Technology Evaluation and Planning (KICTEP), the Swedish 

Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems 

(VINNOVA), the Japanese Ministry of Land, 

Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism (MLIT), 

and members of ECTRI. 

`If the study concludes that other models of collaboration provide the desired structure to enable the United 

States to meet its innovation goals, the study should 

also outline how the structure might best be used in 

the United States. In addition, the recommendations 

should address the feasibility of using existing U.S. 

organizations in the new structure. 

Item 4: Exploring Benefits of Intellectual 

Property Applications in U.S. Transportation 

Research

Investigate the effects, applications, and potential 

for intellectual property rights in the United States 

and abroad. 

Among countries visited in the scan, the transportation 

research community demonstrated a noticeably greater 

concern for the value and importance of intellectual 

property than is sometimes evident in the United States. 

Safeguarding intellectual property was recognized as a 

critical component of the entire research process to spur 

innovation, encourage investment in technology development and refinement, and foster commercialization 

nationally and internationally. Ultimately, intellectual 

property was seen as a means to bolster national economies by adding companies that hire new employees and 

sell new products. These perspectives varied from the 

views and uses of IP in government sector transportation 

research in the United States. 

Differences in intellectual property laws can complicate or 

frustrate protection and licensing between organizations in 

different countries. Organizations in nearly every country 

visited in the scan voiced questions and concerns about 

international intellectual property rights.

The following are strategies to foster the potential benefits 

of IP applications in transportation research:

`Collaborate with TRB Committees on the Conduct of 

Research, Emerging Technology Law, and International Activities to sponsor and present technical 

sessions on domestic intellectual property law and 

international intellectual property law at the 2011 

TRB Annual Meeting. 

`Collaborate with the AASHTO Research Advisory 

Committee (RAC) Task Forces on Education and 

Training and on Program Management and Quality 

and with FHWA to develop an intellectual property 

short course and manual for transportation research 

managers. 

`Collaborate with FHWA to convene a workshop on 

international intellectual property law and transportation research at which a multinational panel identifies 

problems and opportunities related to international 

intellectual property law and transportation research. 

Distribute proceedings widely.

Item 5: Exploring Global Use of Research 

Information

Integrate and enhance accessible databases, 

Internet forums, portals, or other platforms to 

coordinate information and knowledge 

resources at a global level. 

Developing common platforms for a variety of research 

processes would substantially reduce barriers for R&D 

collaboration and international partnerships and promote 

more widespread use of research results. Improved 

awareness of research frameworks, existing collaborations, 

and intellectual property issues; sharing of research 

expertise for peer review activities; and widespread 

information exchange are just a few of the areas that could 

benefit from the development of linked databases, common 

access portals, or other platforms among global R&D 

collaborators. 

The scan team believes that such platforms should build 

on existing initiatives, such as those sponsored by 

TRB and AASHTO (e.g., Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS), the Research-in-Progress (RiP) 

database, various AASHTO transportation knowledge 

6 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
networks efforts, and the TRB Conduct of Research and 

the AASHTO RAC Task Group on Coordination and 

Collaboration). In addition, existing international resources 

including those presented in Sweden and the Netherlands 

should be integrated. Activities including the U.S. National 

Science Foundation’s model for accepting and cataloging 

requests for proposals should be benchmarked. 

The scan team implementation will consist of the following:

`By consulting existing U.S initiatives, develop a 

better understanding of the status, capabilities, 

and capacities of existing and planned information 

databases, portals, and platforms. Summarize 

international resources in visited countries. 

Determine how U.S. and international information 

sharing and exchange could best be integrated 

through joint platforms.

`Monitor the ongoing dialog between the TRB Library 

and international counterparts to determine if a 

potential model for information exchange with other 

countries emerges. 

`Offer assistance and participate in the “Borderless 

Access to Information—International Transportation 

Research Web Resources” workshop scheduled for 

the 2009 TRB Annual Meeting. 

`Provide recommendations on how best to achieve 

common platforms: connect, incorporate, or coordinate 

international information resources with those in the 

United States.

`Develop strategies for improved ability to translate 

materials in other languages.

Item 6: Improving the Research Evaluation 

Process

Promote a systematic and consistent practice for 

continuous research program evaluation and 

improvement.

The scan team considers the performance, quality, 

and value of research programs important factors for 

sustaining credible research programs. In light of this 

interest, host countries were asked how program quality 

and value were determined or measured, and how 

the results were communicated to sponsors and 

stakeholders. 

In each host country visited, the value of funding and 

conducting research was considered intrinsic to achieving 

societal and economic goals. That research is valued is a 

given. As a result, the scan team did not observe much 

concern about using performance measures or indicators 

or providing results to bolster program support. However, a 

number of the host countries presented extensive evaluation schemes at both the programmatic and individual 

project levels (e.g., Swedish, South Korean, and Japanese 

schemes used for process and outcome improvement). 

Based on these examples, there appear to be models and 

techniques for both program and project evaluation that 

should be shared with U.S. transportation research 

administrators and program managers. The countries 

expressed substantial interest in the Performance Measurement Toolbox created in NCHRP Project 20-63, 

“Performance Measurement Tool Box and Reporting 

System for Research Programs and Projects.” 

The following are strategies to accomplish this 

implementation item: 

`Host a symposium to provide an international 

exchange of ideas on techniques for program- and 

project-level evaluations. 

`Write articles for TR News, the TRB Conduct of 

Research Committee quarterly newsletter, and other 

TRB committee publications (e.g., Committee on 

Performance Measurement).

`Develop a session for the 2009 TRB Annual Meeting 

on “Research Program and Project Evaluations—

An International View.” Creating a TRB Transportation 

Research Circular from this session could be useful.

`Develop a presentation outlining the various evaluation 

techniques discovered during the scan to share with 

the transportation research community, in particular 

the TRB Committees on Conduct of Research and 

Performance Measures, and the AASHTO RAC.

Executive Summary 7
8 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
Scan Objectives and Primary Themes

Scan Objectives

There are exemplary international transportation research 

programs and activities that have mature and successful 

research administration processes. Recognizing that this 

rich body of knowledge is available to U.S. research 

managers, the Transportation Research Program 

Administration scan team set objectives to examine the 

management and administrative practices, policies, and 

experiences of other countries to better understand how 

they administer their research programs to solve difficult 

problems, produce more rapid adoption of innovation, 

and create more value for their research results. The 

team realized that its presence in the countries visited 

would also provide avenues for developing research 

partnerships and collaboration opportunities because this 

unique circumstance would promote information sharing 

and technology transfer with international counterparts. 

This scan is the first dedicated solely to research 

program management practice. The scan topic originated 

through discussions among State DOT research managers committed to improving the effectiveness of research 

program activities and increasing the stewardship of the 

resources directed to research. This scan is especially 

important to the U.S. transportation research community 

because it addresses program-level activities rather than 

technical project-based efforts, and it provides concepts 

that can significantly enhance research program management in the United States. The scan vision was that 

benefits from learning about and applying other countries’ 

successful administrative practices would not only have 

an impact on State DOT research programs, but also 

could cascade to other transportation research activities 

in academia, the private sector, and other organizations 

important to transportation research 

in the United States. 

The scan was conducted through the International 

Highway Technology Scanning Program, jointly 

sponsored by FHWA and AASHTO in cooperation 

with TRB’s NCHRP, the private sector, and 

academia. 

Four Primary Themes

The scan team identified four primary themes that describe 

its areas of interest. Each theme incorporates an aspect of 

the research administrative process from early stage, 

establishing the research framework, to late stage, getting 

the research results into widespread practice. The scan 

team also developed a series of amplifying questions 

(see Appendix A) detailing the information it sought within 

each theme. 

In the context of these four themes, the team focused 

on how the host countries administer their research 

programs and projects—the methods, techniques, and 

tools used to accomplish the broad spectrum of administrative functions. The scan team also investigated the 

roles, responsibilities, and working relationships among 

research entities in the various countries and within 

their international domains.

The following are the four themes:

1.Establishing the research framework—

Practices used to determine where to put the 

emphasis and effort to solve current problems 

and emerging issues on local, national and federal, 

and international levels 

2.Partnership models and joint research activities—

Methods of cooperation that enhance technical capacity 

and increase fiscal and other resources required for 

research 

3.Conduct of research: performance, quality, and 

value—Tools and processes used to measure the 

performance, quality, and value of research programs 

and projects 

4.Delivery: getting research results into widespread 

practice—Keys to enhancing the effectiveness 

of deployment and increasing the use of research 

results

Chapter 1: Introduction 9

Chapter 1: Introduction
Amplifying Questions

The scan team was particularly interested in how 

international transportation research programs and 

projects are managed. Through discussion with 

international counterparts, the team wanted to better 

understand the methods and techniques used to accomplish the broad spectrum of administrative responsibilities 

for research activities. To assist in determining this 

information, the team developed a list of detailed 

questions that were submitted to the organizations 

visited before the team’s arrival. The amplifying questions 

were translated into the language of each country visited 

to provide clarity and enhance understanding for those 

who graciously gave their time and expertise to meet 

with the team. 

The amplifying questions were organized into four 

primary themes reflecting the team’s interest. 

Questions within the four themes address the processes 

used, motivation for those processes, and successful 

practices. The team also asked about specific programlevel practices and differences between the treatment 

of program- and project-level activities. The questions 

enabled the host organizations to structure their 

presentations on the major themes and guide group 

discussions. The amplifying questions are in 

Appendix A. 

A glossary was distributed with the amplifying questions 

to assist the international contacts in understanding 

terminology that may have uniquely U.S. connotations. 

The glossary is in Appendix B.

Desk Scan

A review of international programs, called a desk scan, 

was prepared for the scan team to assist in determining 

the countries and research programs that would be most 

productive to visit. The report included information collected by e-mail, personal contacts, and Internet search. 

The desk scan identified key issues and opportunities and 

provided a broad summary of the activities and focus of 

transportation research programs worldwide.(1) From this 

document and the experiences of the International Technology Scanning Program staff, the scan team determined 

the most likely candidates for the scanning study. In 

addition to assisting the team in its decisionmaking, the 

desk scan is a useful resource that provides an overview 

of global transportation research program efforts.

Scan Organization

The scan team selected the organizations visited based 

on the potential to gain administrative management 

knowledge and apply transportation research program 

practices to similar contexts in the United States. The 

team also wanted to make best use of the opportunity to 

form or better solidify relationships with excellent transportation research programs worldwide. The team met 

with executive-level research program managers, including country managers of research activities and seniorlevel technical researchers. Host organizations presented 

the administrative complexities of their programs and 

provided the technical context in which the various 

administrative practices are applied.

The scan team divided its time during the 2-week study 

by spending 1 week in Europe and 1 week in Asia. In 

Europe, the team visited the European Commission (EC), 

EU transportation research stakeholder organizations, 

France, the Netherlands and Sweden. In Asia, the team 

met with officials in Japan and South Korea, as well as 

transportation research stakeholder organizations in both 

countries. Table 1 details the countries, host organizations, programs, and dates visited. The 2-week scan 

timeframe limited the number of countries and organizations the team could visit. However, the scan topic was 

well received by all host countries, and several European 

organizations scheduled meetings with the scan team 

during its visit to the European Commission in Brussels, 

Belgium. Visits to the other host countries also were 

organized to facilitate meetings with a variety of research 

organizations in one area or location, minimizing the 

travel time for the team and maximizing the time it 

could interact with a significant cross-section of 

transportation research program officials.

A list of the international contacts who participated in scan 

team meetings is in Appendix C.

Team Composition

The members of the Transportation Research Program 

Administration scan included representatives from 

FHWA field, program, and research offices; four State 

DOTs (one from each AASHTO region); the private 

sector, including Ford Motor Company (a large private 

enterprise) and B. T. Harder, Inc. (a small private 

enterprise); TRB; and the University of Minnesota. 

The variety of team member perspectives enabled 

10 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
a robust approach to the outcome of the scan that 

addressed the interests of the government, the private 

sector, and academia—all necessary parts of U.S. 

transportation research efforts. 

Chapter 1: Introduction 11

Country/Location Organization/Program Dates Visited

Sweden 	Swedish VINNOVA

	Swedish Road Administration (SRA)

April 13–14, 2008

The Netherlands 	Rijkswaterstaat Transport and Navigation Department

	Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV)

	TNO, Dutch private research contractor

April 15, 2008

European 

Commission and 

European Union 

Transportation 

Research 

Stakeholders

	EU European Research Area Network (ERA-NET) Transport and 

Road programs

	Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories 

(FEHRL) 

	European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC)

	ECTRI, including Hellenistic Institute of Transport, French National 

Institute for Transport and Safety, Transport Research Center of the 

Czech Republic, Polytechnic University of Madrid, German Aerospace 

Center, VTT Technical Research Center of Finland, and KTI Institute 

for Transport Sciences of Hungary

April 16–17, 2008

France 	French National Road Agency, General Highways Department

	Department for Research and Scientific and Technical Coordination

	National Institute for Transport and Safety Research (INRETS) 

	French LCPC

	Program of Research, Experimentation, and Innovation in Land 

Transport (PREDIT)

April 18, 2008

Japan 	Institute for Transport Policy Studies (ITPS)

	Institute of Behavioral Sciences (IBS)

	Japan Institute of Construction Engineering (JICE)

	MLIT

	National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management (NILIM)

	Public Works Research Institute (PWRI)

	Mitsubishi Research Institute

	University of Tokyo

April 21–23, 2008

South Korea 	KICTEP

	Korea Transport Institute (KOTI)

	Korean Institute of Construction Technology (KICT)

April 24–25, 2008

Table 1. Host countries, organizations, and programs visited.
Scan team members are listed below. Contact information 

and biographic information are in Appendix D.

Debra Elston (FHWA Cochair), Director, Office of 

Corporate Research and Technology, FHWA TurnerFairbank Highway Research Center

David Huft (AASHTO Cochair), Research Program 

Manager and Intelligent Transportation Systems 

Coordinator, South Dakota DOT

Barbara T. Harder (Report Facilitator), Principal, B. T. 

Harder, Inc.

Joyce Curtis, Director of Field Services–North, FHWA 

Monique R. Evans, Administrator, Office of R&D, 

Ohio DOT

Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research 

Programs, TRB

Laurie McGinnis, Associate Director, Center for 

Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota

Harold R. “Skip” Paul, Director, Louisiana Transportation 

Research Center, Louisiana Department of Transportation 

and Development

Glenn Roberts, Chief of Research, Bureau of Materials 

and Research, New Hampshire DOT

Eric Wingfield, Knowledge Specialist, Information 

Technology: Strategy and Organizational Development, 

Ford Motor Company

J. B. “Butch” Wlaschin, Director, Office of Asset 

Management, FHWA 

12 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
One of the most important aspects of the scan team’s 

experience is that we learned what we in the U.S. 

could do better, and we learned what we should do 

together globally. 

—Debra Elston, Scan Team Cochair

During the early days of the scan, the team approached 

gathering its findings in a segmented manner—looking at 

the important information discussed and exchanged 

organized by country and then by each of the primary 

themes. As the scan progressed, the significant aspects of 

the thematic areas emerged, forming a body of information 

for consideration of its applicability to U.S. research 

program administrative policies and practices. This chapter 

discusses the key findings of the team organized by the 

four primary themes of interest. 

Establishing the Research Framework

The transport research agenda is closely related to 

visions of society development, global competitiveness, citizen and company needs, [and] political 

government programs.(2)

—Matti Roine, Chief Research Scientist, VTT

Areas of interest within the research framework theme 

span subthemes such as identification and scope of the 

research frameworks, addressing consensus, and elements of program portfolios. Issues dealing with national 

policy and direction as well economic position were also 

important topics of consideration. 

Transportation research is directly related to national 

economic growth and competitiveness. In every 

country visited, the prevalent belief was that “if you aren’t 

doing transportation R&D, then you won’t be globally 

competitive.” The international counterparts appreciated 

their R&D activities in the context of the entire world. 

Their perspective on transportation research differed 

greatly from the U.S. public sector model; the host 

countries saw research as an essential piece of their 

efforts to maintain or create a more robust national 

economy. Individually as well as collectively through the 

European Union, European countries clearly saw a role 

for transportation and infrastructure research activities as 

a major avenue to achieve a higher global competitive 

stance. They viewed the outcome of research as an 

economic stimulus to start new businesses and increase 

economic growth. 

For example, the European Research Area (ERA), a 

European Commission program, is using knowledge as 

its basic building block to achieve leadership for Europe 

(figure 1). This knowledge-based society is created 

through a strong triangle of research, education, and 

innovation. These three aspects of science and technology 

produce sustainable growth and employment. Transportation research is an integral part of ERA and is continually 

associated with the opportunities and vision for producing 

economic advantage for Europe.(3)

South Korea and Japan, while expressing the economic 

competitive stance in different terms (such as “for societal 

good”), were well aware of the powerful relationship 

between research outcomes and creating economic value. 

In fact, creating value and quality of life enhancements in 

Chapter 2: Key Findings 13

Figure 1. European Commission research is integral to

economic growth, creating knowledge-based leadership.

© EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Chapter 2: Key Findings
14 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

both countries was a commonly expressed goal of transportation research. The vision for KICTEP’s long-term plan 

is “contributing to the enhancement of the quality of life in 

the future society.” In figure 3, societal benefit is a core 

value expressed in terms of sustainable growth, more 

high-value-added industries, and creation of future growth 

engines. Similarly, long-term strategic objectives of the 

KICT include building a safe social infrastructure and using 

land and resources efficiently.(4)

Moreover, every country visited had recent legislation 

for research and technology efforts, which addressed 

more clearly the issue of transportation R&D value 

and its direct relationship to economic advantage. 

Certainly, the concept of transportation R&D as a 

lever to create value for the economy was a 

dominant concern. 

Strategic and policy-driven frameworks for transportation research are the standard. The scan team found 

that in the countries it visited transportation research 

frameworks are developed nationally through a strategic 

process closely tied to national policy goals and objectives. These research frameworks include broad societal 

issues, and transportation is a primary focus area 

integrated with other topics to address national concerns. 

In nearly every country, the effort committed to preparing 

and using a national research framework was notable. 

In conjunction with the national perspective, a number 

of countries, especially in Europe, have well-defined 

mechanisms to incorporate the country’s operational 

and user needs into the framework. 

Comprehensive planning and identification of a European 

research agenda by the European Commission benefits 

Sweden, which incorporates and uses as a guide the ERA 

agenda for determining where it will direct its research 

resources. The Swedish Road Administration cites three 

basic principles that link its work to the European research 

framework(5): 

`European countries share a common view on how 

roads and road transportation should be developed.

`The problems and challenges Europe confronts are 

so complex that no player is capable of solving them 

alone.

`Because the problems and challenges are not unique 

to Sweden, neither are the solutions. 

Particularly exemplary are the activities the Rijkswaterstaat 

Transport and Navigation Department (DVS) in the 

Netherlands performs. DVS uses an integrated Strategy, 

Knowledge, and Innovation Agenda (SKIA), which is used 

throughout the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works, 

and Water Management. (See figure 2.) “Given the close 

connection between knowledge and innovation, and the 

importance of both for policy, implementation, and supervision, both knowledge and innovation [are] incorporated 

into one agenda.” Both knowledge and innovation are 

required to “realize the future societal challenges against 

acceptable costs . . . action is required now in order to 

be prepared for the future. Therefore: start ‘thinking for 

tomorrow’ today.”(6) The process for defining a research 

framework at DVS involves a top-down approach fused 

with strong bottom-up input. Corporate considerations 

linked to policy outcomes are incorporated 

with regional experiences and linked to daily 

operations. Workshops with a broad reach in 

the organization are conducted to facilitate 

the identification of research program 

portfolios and topics of importance to 

the field organizations.

Other countries’ framework development 

models included multitiered strategic 

planning activities. France develops a 

medium-term plan that includes its strategic 

priorities for a 4-year period. The example 

provided to the scan team included five 

thematic priorities (each having a corresponding research program) in the mediumterm plan, each priority having about 10 

research areas and each area having three 

Figure 2. The Netherlands DVS integrated Strategy,

Knowledge, and Innovation Agenda.

© DUTCH MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, PUBLIC WORKS, AND WATER MANAGEMENT

knowledge

 knowledge knowledge 

 knowledge knowledge 

 knowledge knowledge 

 knowledge knowledge

 knowledge knowledge

 knowledge knowledge

 knowledge 

What is the SKIA?

• Strategy, Knowledge and Innovation 

agenda in one document

• Knowledge is fundament for policy 

and building block for innovation

• Both knowledge and innovation are 

needed to face the challenges of the 

future successfully

• Actualization of SKIA 2010-2020 and 

Innovation programme Mobility and 

Water, both June 2006

Societal goals

Strategic tasks

Five innovative

prospects
Chapter 2: Key Findings 15

to four topics yielding 150 to 200 research problems. 

Top-down strategic orientation is used to accomplish this 

planning process, but bottom-up origination proposals are 

received for describing and conducting the research. 

The example of a model transportation research 

framework shown at the KICTEP was a process 

established through formalized strategic planning. 

There were some similarities to the French system, 

such as meshing top-down guidance for long-term 

strategic direction with bottom-up response for midterm 

project identification. For KICTEP, planning processes 

were very well defined.(7) KICTEP’s strategic approach 

includes a long-term planning process (innovation 

roadmap) leading to its “value creator” vision, as shown 

in figure 3. The ultimate vision is to seek enhancement 

of the societal good. To reach this vision, core values 

are integral. They include comprehensive areas that 

address providing sustainable, economic, and quality 

benefits; management excellence; and a focus on 

future growth. KICTEP uses seven R&D programs 

to achieve its value contribution. Programs focus on 

topics such as innovation of construction technologies, 

implementation of more efficient transportation systems, 

and development of technological infrastructure policies. 

These programs are developed by incorporating strategic 

needs and including continuity with existing projects, 

ministerial cooperation, technology trends, and private 

and public sector demands. Furthermore, strategies 

that allow accomplishment of these programs are 

establishment of a balanced R&D portfolio, expanded 

participation by stakeholders, expanded investment in 

infrastructure, and efficiencies in operation. Elements of 

this long-term planning process are familiar to U.S. 

transportation research managers. However, a key 

to the success of the KICTEP model is the level of 

commitment to developing a process, assuring that 

the process serves the organization well and that the 

process provides integration with the national strategic 

framework. 

The long-term plan or innovation roadmap is one part of 

the planning process that enables KICTEP to contribute 

to the national strategic framework. KICTEP assesses the 

national R&D policy against its construction and transportation R&D policy every 5 years. For its program response, 

KICTEP develops a long-term plan every 10 years 

(with periodic assessments during the 10-year timeframe). 

A midterm plan is developed every 5 years, and action 

plans and project plans are developed annually. The 

process is detailed and comprehensive and allows the 

organization to contribute effectively to national priorities.

Figure 3. KICTEP research framework development: long-term plan (innovation roadmap) creating value. 

© KICTEP
16 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Exemplary research frameworks are accompanied 

by well-defined processes to create comprehensive 

transportation research roadmaps. The Netherlands 

and South Korea are excellent examples of how expertise 

in developing research frameworks affects downstream 

processes, such as fostering comprehensive roadmaps 

for determining effective research programs. To show the 

widespread application of this finding, however, another 

example from Japan is useful. The Japanese MLIT uses 

a highly developed process to determine its research 

framework and projects for research. The outcome of the 

process is the MLIT Technology Basic Plan (currently for 

2008–2012).(8)

MLIT’s Technology Basic Plan uses as guidance the 

Japanese Cabinet-adopted “Long-Term Strategy 

Guideline,” which provides the following society-wide 

objectives: 

`Society in which everyone can stay healthy throughout 

life

`Safe and secure society

`Society that embraces diversity in life

`Society that contributes to solving global issues

`Society that is open to the world

`A roadmap for technology innovation that promotes 

strategic R&D and accelerates the transfer of results 

to society

Further input to the Technology Basic Plan is provided 

through an Innovation Promotion Outline, also adopted 

at the national level. Items in the outline that address 

infrastructure include the following:

`Geographic and spatial information infrastructure

`Infrastructure for connecting people, goods, vehicles, 

and places with information 

`Enhancement of the efficiency of infrastructure development and management and productivity improvement

The Technology Basic Plan is a component of the 

country’s Science and Technology Basic Plan—

the national research framework.

The Technology Basic Plan is developed by technology 

working groups of councils established through law. These 

working groups seek input by analyzing prior plans and 

activities; surveying regional organizations, research 

institutions, private sector organizations, and industry 

groups; and conducting management of technology and 

R&D workshops that incorporate perspectives of academic 

experts and other private sector participants. The output of 

the working groups is consistent with other government 

plans, such as those provided for infrastructure development. As with other plans, the Technology Basic Plan 

receives public comment. 

The current Technology Basic Plan identifies eight 

problems requiring urgent attention:

`Frequent natural disasters

`Traffic accidents and global terrorism

`Rapidly aging infrastructure

`Aging population 

`Intensifying international competition

`Possible depletion of resources and energy

`Effects of ecosystem disturbances

`Ongoing global warming

Using these identified problems and societal aims, officials 

develop R&D priorities that give R&D results back to 

society, establish a common foundation for innovation, and 

provide international contribution. The plan continues to 

detail measures to assure these three priorities are 

achieved. Additional information about the plan is in 

this section under the Conduct of Research theme. 

All of the research projects that we undertake concern 

policy issues relevant to actual societal needs.( 9)

—Professor Dr. Shigeru Morichi, President, 

Institute for Transport Policy Studies

The countries had an ability to align the transportation research framework with a common vision. In 

addition to a clear and purposeful approach to establishing strategic frameworks, the countries demonstrated a 

notable focus on communicating the frameworks to 

stakeholders, including the public. For European countries, the strategic framework developed for transportation 

research at the EU level was fully understood and incorporated as part of the vision and mission for the individual 

EU countries visited.(10) In Sweden the scan team heard 

that “there is a common view shared in Europe on how 

European roads and road transport should be developed, 

[and] Sweden has adopted the European way ahead for 

the renewal of roads and road transport.”(11)

For KICTEP, the common vision of the national research 

framework extends deeply into the program portfolio and 
Chapter 2: Key Findings 17

project definition aspects of its research planning process 

(see figure 4). Twenty strategic projects are identified that 

lead to the development of 10 promising technologies. The 

process through which these projects and technologies are 

identified reaches broadly throughout the transportation 

community, including expert workshops and government 

council participation. The 10 promising technologies focus 

on creating value to enhance of the quality of life in the 

future society.

South Korea and Japan have a unique cultural emphasis 

on the coordinated society, which helps communicate the 

framework to support a common vision for research 

activities.(12) Japan places a great deal of emphasis on 

responsibility to society, trust, and regard of traditions, 

which may make it easier to create and accomplish 

research based on common vision. The Public Research 

Institute of Japan (PRWI) articulates its research philosophy as follows:

`Research that is responsible to the society of 100 

years later

`Research that is evaluated by academic societies 

and trusted by regional communities

`Research that is rich in enterprising spirit while 

regarding traditions

All of the host countries give a great deal of attention to 

assuring the vision is communicated well and owned by 

all stakeholders. They do it through effective planning 

and extensive incorporation of industry and academia 

in building the common vision and accomplishing the 

research activities. The main drivers are societal rather 

than industrial goals, using transportation to improve 

the quality of life. 

The issue of common vision also is evident in the way 

the various modes and elements of the transportation 

industry are brought together to perform R&D efforts. 

In the European host countries (France, for example) 

the vision for transportation research was to solve larger 

issues—such as reinventing the city, climate change, or 

creating knowledge for economic advancement—thus 

bringing autos, trucks, roads, safety, environment, 

technology, private sector, quasi-public and public 

sectors, academia, and other areas together to work 

on the problems at hand. In the Seventh Framework 

Program (FP7), the European Union’s comprehensive 

research initiative for reaching growth, competitiveness, 

and employment goals, the research subtheme on 

sustainable surface transportation includes activities that 

address environmental concerns, congestion and mobility, safety, and the economy (see box on next page). 

Figure 4. KICTEP developed 10 promising technologies aligned with common vision.

© KICTEP
18 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Senior-level individuals frequently emerge as visionaries or champions and play an instrumental role in 

national program focus and support. In a number of the 

entities and host countries visited, such as the European 

Union and Japan, senior experts who have earned a 

respected place in the transportation community are often 

regarded as highly credible opinion leaders on a national 

level. These influential individuals are likely directors of 

R&D institutes, provide counsel to government and joint 

research activities through personal contact and various 

organizations, and possess extensive networks through 

which they operate. Because of their positions, expertise, 

and contact with a wide network, these senior-level people 

also serve as champions for unique research issues, 

advancing research in a way that attracts financial 

resources, technical expertise, and political influence. 

The noteworthy aspect of these individuals is their access 

to national policy formulation and decisionimaking. 

The scan team observed that the accurate and expert 

transportation R&D knowledge these champions provide 

to national leaders is a key factor in a country’s support 

of the necessity for and value of R&D efforts. 

One of the best examples is the role, accomplishments, 

and valuable contribution made by the president of ITPS in 

Japan. This highly respected professional works within a 

broad network that includes academia, government 

councils, semipublic organizations (foundations), private 

sector entities, and transportation and policy institutes. His 

knowledge of the transportation arena is often sought by 

national policy figures. His expertise and support from the 

institute and others provide Japan’s leaders with reliable, 

high-quality information that enables them to make 

effective decisions. 

National research frameworks had common topics in 

many of the host countries, and these frameworks are 

being addressed by cross-ministerial R&D activities. 

It is understandable that many of the European countries 

had common topics for their national research framework. 

Considerable effort has been made by the European 

Union to reach consensus and communicate the 

common themes to the member countries. The host 

countries’ national frameworks had a remarkable series 

of topics that were independent of country or location, 

yet were highly relevant to each country. Problems 

included in national frameworks tended to be global 

concerns as well as country concerns. Many issues 

articulated in Europe were also important to Japan and 

South Korea:

`Climate change 

`Environmental considerations in transportation

`Aging population and mobility

`Workforce capacity

`Aging infrastructure

`Congestion management

`Safety and security

Not only were most of these framework topics brought up 

in individual country contexts, but solutions to these vitally 

important national issues were also being addressed by 

broad resources in the countries. National problems were 

being solved by incorporating extensive cross-ministerial 

bodies that include land, infrastructure, energy, environment, culture, and sports, for example. In some countries, 

the primary ministry that sponsored transportation 

research incorporated the wider perspective. In France, 

the LCPC is a state-owned institute under the authority of 

two ministries, including the Ministry for Ecology, Energy, 

Sustainable Development, and Spatial Planning. In Japan, 

the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism 

incorporates surface and air transportation as well as land 

use and other infrastructure topics. 

The value of having cross-ministerial or cross-functional 

organizational structures perform transportation research 

is that they bring a greater body of resources to finding 

transportation solutions. Transportation problems include 

not only facilities and infrastructure, but also energy, 

ecology, mobility, and land use. The scan team found 

that many countries address national priorities in such 

a comprehensive manner. 

It was evident that topics of concern in the international 

transportation research community are also of concern to 

U.S. researchers. The United States has many opportunities to initiate joint efforts to solve some of these pressing 

`Greening surface transport

`Encouraging modal shift and decongesting transport corridors

`Ensuring sustainable urban mobility

`Improving safety and security

`Strengthening competitiveness

EU Seventh Framework Program

Research Activities Subtheme:

Sustainable Surface Transport
Chapter 2: Key Findings 19

problems. Furthermore, there are excellent examples 

of the use of multi- or cross-discipline sponsors and 

resources for transportation research activities for 

the United States to consider. 

Partnership Models and Joint 

Research Activities

Understand, Trust, Commit (EU Success Factors)(13)

In the host countries, transportation research 

partnerships and joint research efforts are essential, 

ubiquitous, and actively promoted. The role and use of 

partnerships and the collaboration of multiple players are 

integral elements of the research activities in the various 

countries visited. For Europe, the effort of creating a 

single economic market is a catalyst for fostering joint 

research. The European FP7 research activities spawned 

a number of independently formed venues for collaboration, including ERTRAC and ECTRI. Furthermore, there 

is a strong sense of “we know we can’t do all this separately,” and organizations such as the FEHRL are actively 

promoting the attractiveness and effectiveness of stewardship and leveraging of resources for all research 

processes (program portfolio content to implementation 

and deployment). 

Typical partnership concepts in use in Europe are 

as follows:

`EU research activities require multicountry 

participation (at least three). 

`The European Union encourages third-country 

or E12 (newest EU members) participation in 

research, as well as the participation of 

countries outside the European Union.

`There is an emphasis on incorporating 

small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 

with a goal to foster the creation of new 

business opportunities. 

`There is high respect for and use of 

academic expertise. 

`In most European host countries and EU 

research programs, research grant money 

is distributed according to the size 

(e.g., large business or SME) and type 

(e.g., private sector, institute, academia) 

of partner (see figure 5.)

`The EU international collaboration platform 

recognizes each country’s competitive stance. 

While each country is an EU member and can 

benefit by being part of a unified economic entity, 

it is also an individual economic entity with unique 

country priorities.

`The European Union views itself as a world partner.

Host countries’ transportation R&D collaboration 

activities begin substantially further upstream 

than in the United States. Research programs 

in host countries incorporated academic and industry 

participation in research activities earlier in the 

research process than in the United States. In the 

host countries, collaboration flows throughout the 

research process—from problem definition (which 

may include participation in establishing the research 

framework) through the conduct of the research and 

the delivery of research products. All programs 

reviewed had more integration among the various 

elements of the research process than in the United 

States. U.S. research activities tend to be divided 

into discrete elements (e.g., problem definition, 

researcher selection, conduct of research, technology 

transfer and implementation, and full deployment). 

U.S. research administrators are tempted to involve 

partners only in the later research processes, such 

as implementation activities or deployment. In the 

host countries, industry and academia were integral 

to the problem definition and worked in conjunction 

with research administration throughout the research 

effort, accruing numerous benefits to host country 

programs. For example, in some host countries, 

the early incorporation of academia provided added 

potential for the research to develop knowledge 

as well as provide resources to build workforce 

capacity for sustainable economies and global 

Figure 5. EU funding levels vary depending on type of R&D partner.

© ECTRI

Maximum 

reimbursement

RTD

activities

Demonstration 

activities

Management of 

consortium/

other activities

Collaborative 

project

50

75

50 100

Coordination & 

support action 100

Network of 

excellence

50

75

100

non-profit 

public bodies

academic & 

research 

organizations

SMEs

security related 

research 

(in certain cases)
20 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

competition. Likewise, the integration of industry early in 

the process confirmed that research is a factor in growing 

national income-generation opportunities. Host countries 

noted that academia provided knowledge creation and 

industry provided knowledge application. Encouraging 

these collaborative activities early in the research 

process enables a more robust result with a higher 

likelihood of producing benefits. 

Research institutes are an important vehicle for 

exercising transportation partnerships and 

collaboration. Without exception, each host country had 

some form of research institute that is a primary vehicle to 

either fund and financially manage or foster, house, and 

accomplish collaborative research efforts. The formation 

and structure of the research institutes varied from country 

to country, but each brought together government, 

quasi-government organizations, foundations, government-funded independent organizations, academia, and 

industry to more effectively respond to the national 

strategic framework than each organization could on its 

own. Institutes often were the venues bringing together 

the responsibilities for knowledge creation, knowledge 

management, and knowledge application aspects of R&D. 

In a number of instances, R&D collaboration is written 

into law, facilitating industry, university, and government 

collaboration. The United States does not have comparable unique entities to facilitate collaborative research on 

this level. Some U.S. structures can accomplish portions of 

the roles of these institutes, but integration of the various 

responsibilities in one institutional structure is clearly a 

non-U.S. model. 

An example of the use of institutes is LCPC, which facilitates partnerships with the French National Research 

Agency, universities, and industry for precompetitive 

research (research on topics that are not product specific 

or that have no identified industrial application or capability 

for commercial exploitation), for research calls by the EU 

framework program, and for work with FEHRL and other 

European technology platforms such as ERTRAC (private 

sector). LCPC promotes research pools of expertise to 

address research topics, executes memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to accomplish research domestically and 

internationally, and promotes activities of the Centers for 

Competitive Capacity, a multipartner R&D effort. 

The French commitment to research partnerships extends 

also to a premier institute structure, the Carnot Institute 

network. This network includes 13,000 researchers at 33 

member institutes, such as the INRETS, located throughout France. The “Carnot” label connotes research partnerships to foster innovation and competitiveness for major 

economic and social challenges. The Carnot Institute 

network competencies address seven major themes, one 

of which is environment, energy, propulsion (including 

transport), and chemistry. The institute structure is one of 

the largest European research and technology organization collaborations. The Carnot Institute network and the 

institute structures in Sweden, Japan, and South Korea, 

for example, clearly demonstrate the value placed by host 

countries on this organizational arrangement to accomplish effective transportation R&D.

An important role for research institutes was fostering 

coordination of research activities and programs. 

Frequently, the institute structure allowed experts on a 

topic to come together and provided a forum to advance 

research efforts, more effectively use resources, and 

prevent duplication of effort. In addition, research 

institutes often incorporated private sector organizations 

that were essential to the research problem design and 

research conduct and well positioned to put the research 

results into practice. The Safer Vehicle and Traffic Safety 

Center in Chalmers, Sweden, is a consortium institution 

with 22 partners, including the Swedish Road Administration, the University of Gothenburg, vehicle manufacturers, 

transportation institutes, and other private sector technology organizations. Safer is a joint research unit with a 

physical location, staff resources, and equipment, but 

it is not an entity of any of the member organizations. 

Funding sources are one-third government, one-third 

university, and one-third private sector. Partners provided 

a 10-year commitment—2006–2016—to accomplish 

research.

Institute structures like Safer also focus on innovation. 

The structural organization of an institute is designed by 

an agreement that is workable for all parties. Often such 

flexibility in structure allows greater diversity of partners 

and provides for a greater level of expertise and resources 

to solve difficult problems. With commitments for funding 

stability and long-term research efforts, institutes often 

were formed to produce innovation or leaps in technology 

rather than small, incremental steps that may come from 

isolated research project efforts. 

Another example of the usefulness of institutes is the KICT 

experience with exchange agreements with 37 organizations, including the Republic of Korea Air Force, the Korea 
Chapter 2: Key Findings 21

Institute of Industrial Technology, and the Incheon Free 

Economic Zone. The institute makes its resources available, including opening its laboratories to construction 

specialists and students, as part of its role as a learning 

center that combines classroom theory with field-based 

research.(14)

An example of the central role of institutes in accomplishing research is illustrated in figure 6 from MLIT in Japan.(15) 

A similar model was used in myriad contexts at host 

organizations. Each of the three partners of the institute 

has specific roles and responsibilities. In the MLIT model, 

universities bring unbiased thought and research capacity, 

can develop future workforce skills, and are vehicles to 

promote cooperation; private sector members bring the 

perspective of economic advantage to the research efforts; 

and government at various levels sets direction and policy, 

assists in research results implementation, and provides a 

link to other necessary government entities. Independent 

research institutes take the responsibilities of the partners 

and add their capabilities to conduct research; promote 

cooperation among the government, industry, and academic partners; and provide an essential third-party 

perspective for evaluation. 

Academic partners are integral to transportation 

research performance. In every host country, academic 

partners in transportation R&D had a more integral and 

integrated role in research activities than seen in comparable U.S. research efforts. In Europe, academics were 

always incorporated into an innovation group that also 

could include industry, government, and policy players, 

whether the structural organization was a research 

institute or other form of research partnership. The 

situation was similar in the Japanese research institutes 

model. Furthermore, the contribution of academic partners in generating and transferring knowledge was seen 

as a significantly more important outcome of transportation research partnerships than experienced in U.S. 

public sector transportation research efforts. Figure 7 

(see next page) is an illustration from the Technical 

University of Madrid, an ECTRI member, showing the role 

of the academic partner in R&D, particularly in interacting 

with the industrial sector.(16) This university is also a 

Figure 6. Institute model: industry-academia-government relationship in R&D at MLIT in Japan.

© MLIT
22 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

participant in EU FP7 activities, which may fund some 

of the research this figure models. Note the university 

mission is related to knowledge. Knowledge is developed 

through R&D and transferred to users for economic 

advantage. Knowledge is used to build greater 

knowledge and impact society. 

When officials discussed academic expertise during the 

scan meetings, they mentioned the multiple benefits the 

academic sector brought to the research effort. Academic 

partners participated in determining research framework 

priorities, created knowledge through R&D, provided 

unbiased third-party assessment and evaluation, helped 

create the future workforce, and provided advantage for 

the economy. 

International research partnership models in transportation are similar to models used in the United States. 

The scan team found similarities in the models for partnerships used by its international counterparts. In fact, it was 

encouraging to see the operation of partnership models in 

the various international contexts because these similarities showed potential for future partnership and collaborative activities for U.S.-international research efforts. While 

some aspects of international partnerships were familiar, 

others provided learning opportunities for the team. 

VINNOVA, the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, exhibits a center of excellence model for 

accomplishing collaborative research.(17) The VINN Centers 

of Excellence provide a forum for collaboration among the 

private and public sectors, universities and colleges, 

research institutes, and other organizations that conduct 

research. The centers deal with both basic and applied 

research and work to ensure that new knowledge and 

technological developments lead to new products, 

processes, and services. The following are major 

characteristics of the centers:

`Provide multidisciplinary, international research 

leadership.

`Create new collaborations among the public sector, 

business, universities, and other research 

organizations. 

`Contain a market-driven focus.

`Accomplish research programs that are designed, 

carried out, and funded jointly by the participants.

`Include a geographic focus and use a university or 

college with a strong research and innovation 

environment as the organizational center.

`Feature management by a director and board of 

directors.

`Include long-term partnerships with extensive periodic 

evaluations.

Many of these characteristics are familiar to U.S. transportation research administrators. However, a few items, 

such as a focus on international research leadership and 

Figure 7. Technical University of Madrid academic role in R&D.

© Technical University of Madrid
Chapter 2: Key Findings 23

long-term sustainability, may be areas for further 

investigation for application to U.S. programs. 

Four collaboration models identified by the European 

Research Area Network for Roads (ERA-NET Roads)(18) 

are another example of successful partnerships. 

These models address the lowest to highest levels 

of cooperation: 

`The Common Program is the lowest level of 

cooperation:

–Participants agree to align their national program in 

a common program.

–The themes, time schedules, and dissemination are 

aligned.

–Projects undertaken in the national program 

remain national (e.g., funding, procurement, and 

publishing).

`The Common Project involves more cooperation:

–The national research agencies (NRA) have 

national programs with common objectives and 

agree on a common project.

–Research on a common project is divided into 

subprojects that contribute to the final goal.

–Each NRA is responsible for one subproject, 

including funding and procurement.

–One subproject includes the lead of the common 

project to align the results, timing, and final 

common report.

`The Common Obligation (program or project) is also 

called the “virtual common pot”:

–The NRAs agree on a theme for a common 

program or project.

–A project executive board made up of the participating NRAs develops an agreement on all aspects of 

the study and cooperation.

–One NRA takes the lead in project governance and 

procurement.

–All NRAs make a budget reservation. At the end of 

the (approved) project or project phase the NRAs 

pay their share to the lead NRA; they pay on 

demand.

–The results of the study are available to all 

participating NRAs.

`The real Common Pot is the highest level of 

cooperation:

–The NRAs also agree on a common program or 

project, a common budget, and on a project or 

program leader.

–In contrast to the Common Obligation Model, the 

whole budget is transferred in advance to the 

leading NRA.

–Involved NRAs have equal ownership of the results.

Elements of these models are found in various U.S. R&D 

activities, but aspects of framework creation, work sharing, 

and financing continue to present challenges to some. 

Further investigation of international programs’ partnership 

practices will be beneficial to U.S. transportation research 

programs.

A typical model of research partnerships found during the 

scan is Hungary’s transport R&D model, shown in figure 

8. Like others, the roles of government, industry, and 

academia are essential. In this model, industry, municipalities, the national office for research and innovation, 

and international research programs all interface with 

those performing research, KTI, the Institute of Transport 

Sciences, universities, consulting organizations, and 

SMEs in the R&D field. The performance of research 

focuses on a two-faceted center, transportation policy 

and R&D policy.

Similarities in partnership models also extended to the 

types of partners. In many countries, strong partnerships 

exist with automotive manufacturers. For Sweden, the 

automotive industry is the top exporter, and in keeping 

with its focus on maintaining economic competitiveness 

Sweden has a model partnership program—the Swedish 

Figure 8. Transport R&D model in Hungary.

© KTI 
24 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Automotive Research Program.(19) This program 

subscribes to the Swedish goal of “Vision Zero” for road 

fatalities and strictly adheres to European emissions 

standards. The partnership includes truck manufacturers 

(Volvo and Scania) as well as premium auto manufacturers (Volvo and SAAB). The research partnership’s annual 

budget is $200 million, a substantial growth since its 1994 

inception. The program’s administrative organization 

includes an independent state-appointed chair, the secretariat at VINNOVA, and a cooperative agreement among 

government agencies and industry. Similar to other 

research initiatives in Sweden, the program negotiates 

long-term agreements between government and industry; 

ensures strong industry involvement for framework 

development, creating research agendas, and project 

selection; operates with a small central staff; and fosters 

continual improvement through program evaluations. 

Like Sweden, many countries have active collaborative 

arrangements with the automotive industry for initiatives in 

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and other precompetitive automotive research efforts, such as Japan’s 

government partnership activities with Mitsubishi. 

USA partners are very rare up to now; American 

participation in [European Union] Framework 

Programs would be very useful.

—Andres Monzon, ECTRI

Conduct of Research: Performance, 

Quality, and Value

DVS wants to be a leading expert, a smart buyer, and 

knowledge chain director.(20)

—Rudd Smit, Center for Transport and Navigation,

 DVS

Transportation R&D is accepted as a valuable contribution to the national or societal good. Transportation 

research programs and their outcomes are seen in the 

host countries as an important contribution to society. 

In fact, R&D activities are directly associated with value 

creation. That value may be the vision KICTEP expresses 

in “contributing to the enhancement of the quality of life 

in the future society” (figure 3), or the French research 

program focus on megacities and the comfort, quality, 

and safety of urban areas.(21) Transportation R&D is 

considered an economic growth generator and an 

essential element in global competitiveness, both in the 

context of large established business opportunities and 

the creation of startup businesses based on innovative 

research results. Research is also a major contributor to 

environmental sustainability, a critical issue on the global 

stage and in every host country the scan team visited. 

In discussions throughout the scan, transportation 

R&D was continually credited with providing positive 

impact.

Because transportation research activities were accepted 

as a means to achieve value, the programs reviewed did 

not have to continually justify expenditures, as do most 

U.S. research programs. In fact, the acceptance of the 

value of research in the host countries promotes strong 

research programs, which in turn develops greater value—

a virtuous cycle. For example, academic partners, in 

particular, focus on knowledge creation and understand 

the contribution this makes to producing societal and 

economic value. Value is received through research 

programs that are closely aligned with priority frameworks 

that address essential problems for the country and 

society. Value is also an outcome of research collaboration, which provides for more efficient use of resources by 

using the unique contribution of each member of a partnership. Furthermore, the value of research is considered in 

the broad context of the quality of life in which benefits 

from transportation R&D translate into, for example, 

healthier and safer citizens, a cleaner environment, and 

sustainable economies.

International counterparts are funding transportation 

R&D at significantly high levels. Substantial program 

funding is committed to transportation research in the host 

countries, and in Europe the EU FP7 adds another large 

funding source. For the most part the transportation 

research programs of the host countries are more integrated into broad research arenas such as model city, 

urban regeneration, or impact of climate change than in 

the United States. Funding for transportation research in 

the United States is often directly linked to the specific 

modal area and is not integrated with larger society or 

economic goals. Therefore, comparisons between funding 

levels for transportation R&D in the United States and 

international programs are not easy. What can be noted, 

however, is the high level of funding by international 

programs, funding that is generally increasing to match the 

interest in achieving environmental and economic sustain-
Chapter 2: Key Findings 25

ability and global competitiveness (e.g., KOTI reported a 

60 percent budget increase over the last 3 years). 

The following are representative budget figures included in 

scan meeting presentations:

`The 2008–2012 budget for PREDIT, the French 

national platform for research and experimentation 

and innovation support, is €360 million (US$560 

million).

`The annual budget for infrastructure research in the 

Netherlands is €150 million (US$235 million).

`The KICTEP budget for transportation and 

construction R&D for 2008 is $339 million.

An example of the funds being committed to transportation 

research is shown in figure 9. This figure highlights the 

European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (2007–

2013) transportation R&D budget as a portion of the full 

research activities: €4.1 billion (US$6.4 billion), or 12.8 

percent. The budget includes surface and air transportation R&D activities. 

Program and project evaluation techniques varied in 

complexity and effectiveness. For the most part, every 

research program included some process for evaluating 

the results of the conduct of research. Some programs 

were more successful than others, and some programs 

were more risk adverse than others, requiring extensive 

review to redirect work. 

VINNOVA and KICTEP provide two examples 

of well-proven evaluation processes. VINNOVA conducts 

evaluations at a variety of stages during the research 

project: a preproject assessment, an evaluation during the 

conduct of the research (performance monitoring), an 

assessment at the midterm or at the completion of the 

research performance, and an impact analysis after 

implementation.(22) Its “ambitions and work [are] to understand and to increase the impact from efforts in research, 

innovation and sustainable growth in Sweden.”(23) Evaluation of impact is accomplished at four stages during and 

after the conduct of research, including an impact logic 

assessment on the proposed research, progress monitoring during the course of the research, an evaluation of the 

Figure 9. EU FP7 transport R&D funding.

© EUROPEAN COMMISION
26 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

research performed, and an impact analysis of the 

research results in context with other programs and 

research efforts. Since 2002, VINNOVA has conducted five 

impact analysis studies that showed a wider and deeper 

understanding of the R&D studies conducted, demonstrated the use of research results by industry and the 

public, and provided useful material for policy decisionmaking, such as the design of the VINN Excellence 

Center program in 2005.(24) (See figure 10.)

A similar example is shown in the KICTEP model for 

project management.(25) Project evaluation is an important 

aspect of the conduct of research. In figure 11 (see next 

page), KICTEP’s concept of whole-cycle project management includes planning and developing performance 

objectives and evaluation indices, and managing and 

evaluating the project by these elements. Project scope 

and budgets are adjusted according to evaluation feedback and after-performance management evaluation 

tracking. Tracking of implementation results are included 

as critical to the overall whole-cycle management process. 

Additional material provided by KICTEP also shows how 

integrated evaluation is to the business of research at this 

organization. The KICTEP evaluation process 

includes award review, research progress monitoring, interim evaluation, and final evaluation. 

A unique feature of the KICTEP performance 

management system is the tracking evaluation for 

research projects that have been completed for 

2 years. The evaluation surveys the outcome 

application status (or determines the cause of 

implementation failure). It also analyzes successfully implemented projects, disseminates the 

successful methodology to other projects, gives 

incentives to outstanding researchers through 

awards of new projects for the next 2 years, and 

provides awards for outstanding researcher 

efforts.(26)

Evaluation is also an important 

technique included in Japan’s 

R&D activities. The scan team 

received the National Guidelines 

for Evaluating GovernmentFunded R&D (tentative version, 

March 29, 2005), produced by the 

Prime Minister of Japan. This 

document contains comprehensive descriptions of evaluation 

processes for R&D. The following 

are some of the major topics 

discussed in this document:

`Basic concepts and framework of 

R&D evaluation

–Significance of evaluation

–Responsibilities of evaluating 

organization, evaluators, and 

researchers

`Common principles in conducting 

Figure 11. KICTEP whole-cycle project management process. evaluation

© KICTEP

Figure 10. VINNOVA assessment, monitoring, evaluation,

and impact analysis.

© VINNOVA
Chapter 2: Key Findings 27

–Evaluation objectives

–Selection of evaluators

–Evaluation methods

–Use and handling of evaluation results

–System administration and implementation 

improvement

`Evaluation of R&D measures, themes, organizations, 

and researcher performance

The implementation of such evaluation processes is of 

interest to U.S. research managers, and further interchanges among U.S. and Japanese counterparts could 

provide mutually beneficial best-practice sharing.

Quantifying the benefits of research results is a 

continuing challenge for all host countries. As in the 

United States, the host countries find quantifying benefits 

of research activities a challenge. The efforts committed 

to determining the benefits varied, and no country had a 

completely satisfactory solution. While the information 

from such benefit analysis is valuable to research programs, the focus on justifying programs based on such 

analyses was not a critical concern for any of the countries. In fact, the value of research is fully accepted. 

Cost-benefit analysis in Japan, for example, was not 

perceived as needed or considered part of the R&D 

assessment processes. Because the research funding 

structure is changing in Japan, with organizations such 

as PWRI moving toward a more competitive funding 

process, cost-benefit issues may become more important 

in the future. A number of the host countries considered 

the United States a leader in quantifying benefits for 

research results. Several expressed an interest in the 

United States sharing the research program performance 

measurement tools developed through NCHRP.(27)

A variety of successful techniques and processes 

are potential options for consideration in the United 

States. The following are some of the items the scan 

team noted:

`In Japan, success measures were determined by the 

project sponsor, and customer surveys were used to 

determine whether the research results worked as 

planned.

`Research institutes and academia play a significant 

role in determining the specific projects to 

research. They also provide a broad perspective 

on what research is needed to fulfill strategic 

frameworks.

`Host countries developed longer term plans with 

multiyear programs ranging from 3 to 5 years.

`LCPC in France supports 10 percent of the researcher’s time for “blue-sky” research activities (topics 

selected at the researcher’s discretion).

`In some countries, researchers had close contact with 

industry (e.g., education paid for by industry, research 

funding contributed by industry). This connection 

facilitates implementation of research results.

`Because of the government’s close association via 

R&D collaboration with its partners—independent 

institutes and industry in particular—these partners 

are sufficiently informed to be effective advocates 

with legislative bodies. R&D collaborations are a 

means to incorporate technical expertise into the 

legislative process.

`All research, basic or applied, has an inherent level 

of risk for arriving at the anticipated results. In many 

of the host countries, these risks appeared to be well 

understood and usually tolerable, and failures were 

viewed as valuable learning opportunities.

Delivery: Getting Research Results Into 

Widespread Practice

It is not so complicated to invent a new measure, 

but it is difficult to get it delivered.

—Fred Wegman, Managing Director, SWOV

Addressing intellectual property rights (IPR) is a 

common practice that facilitates the delivery of transportation research results. Europe has a decidedly 

different perspective than the United States on the ownership of intellectual property generated from governmentfunded transportation research. IPR is addressed before 

the transportation research is initiated and included in the 

research partnership contract. In general in Europe, 

development is seen as an opportunity to build a business 

based on the specific IP, creating an economic engine for 

the country. There is no barrier to government-funded 

organizations seeking patents. In fact, for France’s 

LCPC, the number of patents, along with the results of 

application, is a performance measure used to evaluate 

the program. 

In conjunction with the intellectual property issue, an 

important element of Japan’s MLIT Technology Basic Plan 

is dissemination of R&D results by tracking and facilitating 
28 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

use and evaluating new technologies. The New Technology Information System includes a private sector intellectual property strategy, which fosters the introduction of new 

technologies into public works projects and promotes R&D 

in the private sector. Benefits of this process include better 

data for use in the evaluation information system; a more 

robust process for promoting use of research results, new 

technology, or innovation; increased speed in producing 

evaluation results, which speeds deployment; and 

strengthened cooperation and information sharing with 

local governments, which play a large role in dissemination 

and deployment activities. (See figure 12 on next page.)

Japan’s PWRI also tracks and uses as an indication of 

“practicalization” (application to practice) of its research 

efforts the number of patents owned and applications for 

patents and registrations. Fees received through ownership of intellectual property help fund the dissemination of 

research results. This means the direct financial benefits 

of the intellectual property are invested in the application 

of new technologies and innovations. 

One item that came up in discussions with European host 

countries is the need for the United States to “figure out its 

IP issues.” In particular, U.S. methods for addressing IPR 

for surface transportation do not fit well within the 

European context. This issue can be a barrier to 

U.S.–European collaborative activities. 

Development of common platforms among U.S. and 

international R&D organizations will facilitate research 

results delivery in all countries. The development of 

common platforms such as linked databases or common 

access portals for a variety of research processes will 

substantially reduce barriers for R&D collaboration, foster 

international partnerships, and promote more widespread 

use of research results. Topics such as the IPR issues, 

sharing of research expertise for peer review activities, 

and development of joint databases for information 

exchange are just a few of the areas that could benefit 

from common platforms among global R&D collaborators. 

Information management is a prime area for developing 

common platforms. Sweden’s VTI Library and Information 

Center is already establishing contacts with the TRB 

Library. Items for cooperation focus on incorporating 

research reports into the countries’ respective information 

databases through the use of common platforms for 

information sharing.(28) (See figure 13.) This collaborative 

effort shows great potential as a model for others to 

Figure 12. MLIT use and evaluation of new technologies.

© MLIT
Chapter 2: Key Findings 29

develop more tools and processes to aid in better 

communication and delivery of research results. 

Another example of where common platforms and databases may be beneficial is the Community Research and 

Development Information Service (CORDIS). The CORDIS 

Web site for science, research, and development states 

that it is the official information source on EU FP7 calls 

for proposals. It offers interactive Web facilities that link 

researchers, policymakers, managers, and key players in 

the research field. Its mission is to facilitate participation 

in European research activities, enhance exploitation of 

research results with an emphasis on sectors crucial to 

Europe’s competitiveness, and promote dissemination of 

knowledge fostering innovation for enterprises and the 

societal acceptance of new technology. Use of CORDIS 

is free of charge. It makes available to its users briefing 

material on European innovation and research activities 

and stakeholders, profiles of partners to facilitate collaboration, research results services, and document library 

services.(29) Additional investigation of the structure, 

organization, and use of such a model for U.S. research 

activities could be helpful for domestic and international 

collaborative R&D.

The number of forums for international sharing of 

research results is increasing. ECTRI and many of the 

host countries identified a variety of venues and forums 

that exist to increase the use of research results. There 

were a variety of contexts within industry and the scientific 

community, through strategic research initiatives and 

political bodies, in connection with unique research themes 

and organizations, and based on geographic location.(30) 

Figure 14 lists some of the forums for sharing new 

research results used in ECTRI. This list is just one 

example of the many MOUs, agreements, research 

collaborations, joint partnerships, and other vehicles 

that have allowed diverse international partners to share 

and benefit from valuable research results. 

The scan team observed other examples of this type of 

activity in South Korea, where research institutes create 

forums for international sharing using workshops, showcases, and demonstration of research activities. KICT 

explained in one of its presentations that it had international agreements for exchange and cooperation with 24 

organizations and conducted regular joint construction 

technology seminars with Japanese, Chinese, and 

Russian counterparts. International cooperation was 

also a focus for KOTI, which collaborates with a variety 

of institutes and international organizations, including the 

East-West Center at the Texas Transportation Institute; 

INRETS in France; organizations in China, Russia, and 

Taiwan; and international organizations such as the 

European Conference of Ministers of Transport and the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

International academic forums are additional venues that 

focus on technology transfer and educational opportunities 

that enhance the potential for increased implementation or 

delivery of research results. 

During the course of the scan, the team also learned of 

existing collaborative venues of U.S. academic and 

• Federate search in TRIS and Transguide

• Swedish project information in RiP

• TRB information imported to Transguide

• Transguide information imported to TRIS

• Joint database for e-documents

• Joint database for upcoming conferences

• International committee?

Figure 13. VTI’s ideas to create a common 

platform for innovation sharing.

Co-operation with TRB. Ideas

© VTI

• Industrially—Through ERTICO and the European national 

ITS associations.

• Scientifically—Through Networks of Excellence, and 

specific bodies like the European Forum for Transport 

Research, etc.

• Strategically—Through EU supported “initiatives” (e.g., 

the e-Safety initiative), the Technology Platforms (e.g., 

ERTRAC, ERRAC, WATERBORNE, ACARE), etc.

• Politically—Through special Agencies (e.g., the new 

Agency supervised by the five DGs of the EC that is 

preparing an Action Plan on ITS on Roads).

• Regionally/Thematically—Through support to networking 

activities (e.g., ECTRI, FEHRL, FERSI, SETREF in 

southeastern Europe, the national ITSs).

• Internationally—Through major Conferences (e.g., TRA)

Figure 14. ECTRI forums for sharing new

research results internationally.

“Forums” for sharing new research 

results internationally

© GIANNOPOULOS
30 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

international research organizations. While these research 

consortia or joint efforts have been developed to create 

knowledge on specific topics, the associated function of 

disseminating research results is also a mission of the joint 

efforts. Most of these U.S.-international activities are only 

known among those directly associated with the activity or 

particularly informed about the research topic. Because of 

these and similar activities, models or networks are 

already established that could demonstrate methods to 

build capabilities and capacity for more effective dissemination of research results. More work needs to be done. 

Opportunities such as this scan and the implementation 

strategies developed from it can make a difference in the 

way researchers throughout the world communicate, 

collaborate, and benefit from the work of their international 

counterparts. 
Chapter 3: Implementation 31

Scan Team Implementation Plan

The team identified a number of successful transportation 

research program administration practices in the host 

countries that can be applied in the United States. This 

chapter outlines the STIP, including a brief discussion of 

and implementation strategies for each item. The timeframe for implementing the STIP items ranges from the 

time the team returned to the United States through 2011 

and beyond.

Findings and best practices obtained from the scan will be 

widely disseminated throughout the transportation 

research community through presentations, workshops, 

reports, articles, and Web-based activities and discussions. Some of the recommendations and implementation 

strategies can be implemented within the existing transportation research infrastructure. Others may require policylevel studies and international joint activities to realize the 

desired outcomes and benefits. 

STIP Items

Item 1: Improving International Relationships 

Build international relationships and institutionalize 

cooperation in transportation research to achieve 

global goals and leverage knowledge and 

resources. 

Background

While the scan focus was research program administration, the team realized its presence in other countries 

would provide avenues for developing new research 

relationships and potential collaboration opportunities with 

international counterparts, particularly on global issues 

such as climate change and highway safety. All of the 

international host organizations expressed a desire for 

expanded collaborative research efforts with the United 

States. They also made repeated references to a need for 

better information sharing and global technology transfer 

of innovations. Several host countries, for example, 

expressed interest in the research program performance 

measures product developed through NCHRP.

Efforts are already underway to institutionalize cooperation 

in transportation research between the European community and the United States. An MOU signed in 2006 by 

TRB and its closest European counterpart, ECTRI, has 

facilitated improved communication and cooperative 

opportunities abroad and is a model for expanded efforts 

moving forward. 

An MOU signed by TRB and KICTEP in spring 2008 is 

intended to facilitate information exchange between 

KICTEP and SHRP2, the second Strategic Highway 

Research Program. TRB leaders reported that considerable enthusiasm was expressed at the Transport Research 

Arena Europe 2008 meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, for 

more cooperation and collaboration, and a joint AASHTO–

FHWA–TRB meeting was held in July 2008 to discuss 

institutionalizing such partnerships. The scan team’s 

implementation activities should include monitoring and 

enhancing these ongoing efforts.

The scan team discovered that a number of other isolated partnerships exist between agencies, institutes, 

universities, and companies abroad and U.S. counterparts. Projects including researchers from the University 

of Minnesota, North Carolina State University, and the 

Texas Transportation Institute were cited. These efforts 

are not widely known in the U.S. transportation research 

community and more could be done to publicize such 

relationships.

Strategies

Scan team implementation will consist of the following:

`Develop engagement plans to manage collaboration 

efforts with international research organizations. 

As part of the effort, identify collaboration topics 

and appropriate international research organizations, 

establish knowledge of U.S. Department of State 

framework agreements, develop and document 

Chapter 3: Implementation
32 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

collaboration work plans to implement actions, 

and establish a protocol and process to facilitate 

professional exchange. 

`Host a tour of the FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center for international researchers and 

research mangers in January 2009. 

`Create a communications package to facilitate international relationships that includes a factsheet with key 

messages from the scan, a presentation featuring 

scanning study highlights and lessons learned, and 

summaries of the international agencies, commissions, institutes, and universities visited during the 

scan along with contact information. The summary 

should be readily expandable to eventually include 

countries not involved in the scan. 

`Ask the TRB Conduct of Research Committee to add 

the names of those visited during the scan to their 

mailing and newsletter distribution lists. Invite scan 

team members and foreign hosts to write articles for 

the committee’s newsletter. Assist in developing TRB 

Annual Meeting sessions related to the scan (e.g., 

framework development and evaluation) and provide 

seed funds for targeted presentations by international 

research administrators.

`Offer to help develop the agenda for the planned 

ECTRI scanning study of the United States. Share the 

FHWA–AASHTO process for developing international 

scanning studies. Advise and help convene groups, 

bring U.S. people together, and suggest people for 

visitors to meet.

`Help fit international researchers and administrators 

to TRB committees. Contact international hosts and 

inform TRB committee chairs. Identify TRB international membership opportunities. Embellish U.S. 

representation and involvement with TRB international 

committees. 

`Recommend international collaboration as a theme at 

a future TRB annual meeting.

Item 2: Developing a Nationally Coordinated 

Transportation Research Framework

Promote the development and implementation of a 

nationally coordinated, multimodal transportation 

research framework. 

Background

To remain globally competitive and continue to improve the 

quality of life for U.S. citizens, it is critical for the Nation to 

be an active player in the research community. There must 

be collaboration throughout the Nation to unleash the 

brilliance of its researchers and identify a national research 

framework that unites the various sectors of the country 

behind common research goals or themes. 

With this in mind, the scan team believes that a policy 

study should be done to analyze the current process of 

many independently run research programs and evaluate 

the benefits of a nationally focused program in which 

more research dollars are spent on a few highly critical 

areas. The study would evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that may evolve from a 

national program, compared to the value of the current 

system for determining research products. The policy 

study would include not just partners in the transportation 

community, but also bring in expertise from sectors such 

as the environmental and energy communities to see 

how transportation might better leverage research funds. 

As input to this study, a national forum could be conducted to bring together transportation stakeholders 

from government, academia, and industry to pursue a 

policy study that looks at the needs, benefits, barriers, 

and overall process in developing a national research 

framework. 

If the results of the review point to a coordinated national 

program, the study would recommend a process to 

develop a coordinated national framework for U.S. transportation research. The framework must be collaborative 

and not directive, and allow for the continued delivery of 

research programs focused on more local or regional 

needs in addition to national needs.

The team observed several examples of effective 

platforms, including the European Union framework, 

Japanese MLIT Technology Basic Plan, and South 

Korean roadmaps. In addition, models such as that used 

by the National Institutes of Health would be productive 

benchmark candidates. The team believes that an 

effective forum to approach the framework development 

effort will be characterized by a fusion of top-down and 

bottom-up needs from all parts of the Nation impacted by 

transportation. Cross-pollination with other sectors will 

ensure that overall societal and economic goals are 

articulated and met. Thematic working groups (e.g., 

environment, energy, quality of life, and asset management) would allow key ideas and perspectives to be 

collected. Citizen involvement can be obtained through 
Chapter 3: Implementation 33

periodic capture of public input. Finally, the frameworkbuilding cycle would include measurable goals, 

continuous assessment and renewal, and 

improvements based on the assessments. 

Strategies

Implementation will consist of the following:

`Create a white paper that identifies the benefits of a 

nationally coordinated, multimodal transportation 

research framework. This would include such topics as 

the leveraging of resources (both people and dollars), 

reduced duplication of effort, and the ability to expand 

potential research topics. Using the white paper, 

conduct informal outreach to leaders in a broadly 

defined transportation community to determine their 

reception to the concept of a national research 

framework.

`Propose, advocate, and help staff a policy study to do 

the following:

–Benchmark and evaluate research efforts, policies, 

and procedures for identifying and doing research 

in other sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and 

health care. Identify what works well and the basic 

framework of that research, and use it as a 

potential benchmark for future transportation 

research.

–Host a symposium with attendees from a variety of 

sectors to discuss the pros and cons of a unified 

national research framework or, as a minimum, a 

transportation research framework.

–Research the national framework development 

processes of the international transportation 

community, and the barriers and constraints that 

could limit successful implementation of a national 

transportation research framework.

–Host a symposium with representatives from the 

various components affected by the transportation 

community. This will provide a multidisciplinary 

approach to transportation research and set a 

strategic framework.

–Explore the concept of a national research 

organization that brings together the research 

community—Federal, State, and local governments; universities; foundations; institutes; and 

the private sector—to develop a transportation 

research framework that keeps America at the 

leading edge.

Item 3: Strengthening the Innovation Process

Strengthen the innovation process by examining 

international research institutes and other models 

of collaboration to link knowledge creation and 

knowledge application. 

Background

In the United States, a gap frequently exists between 

the creation and application of knowledge. Sponsors of 

research, usually government agencies, often attempt to 

bridge that gap by requiring knowledge creators to identify 

a process or plan for pushing the knowledge toward 

application, but too often this is done without the involvement of or connection to industry. The result is that much 

new knowledge falls short of its full innovation potential 

because the necessary collaborative structure does not 

exist to support success. 

The scan team learned that the host countries use 

research institutes to bridge the gap between knowledge 

creation and knowledge application. Institutes often are 

the venues that bring together the knowledge creation, 

knowledge management, and knowledge application 

aspects of R&D and foster transportation partnerships 

and collaboration that lead to effective innovation.

Without exception, each host country had some form of 

research institute that is a primary vehicle to either fund 

and financially manage or foster, house, and accomplish 

collaborative research efforts. The formation and structure of the research institutes varied from country to 

country, but each example brought together government, 

government-funded independent organizations, academia, and industry to more effectively respond to the 

national strategic framework in collaboration than each 

organization could on its own. The United States does 

not have comparable unique entities to facilitate collaborative research on this level. Some U.S. structures can 

accomplish portions of the roles of these institutes, but 

such integration of responsibility in one institutional 

structure is clearly a non-U.S. model. 

Strategies

Implementation will consist of the following:

`Propose, advocate, and help staff a policy study to 

review the structure of Federal transportation research 

in the United States, including an examination of the 
34 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

research institute model and additional models of 

collaboration employed in other parts of the world. The 

study should include a summary of the characteristics 

of research institutes in the host countries, such as the 

roles of institutes and organizations, funding models, 

mechanisms to engage industry early and sustain its 

involvement, administrative structures, and intellectual 

property standards. Institutes documented in the 

summary should include, among others, LCPC 

(France), the Carnot Institutes (France), KICTEP 

(South Korea), VINNOVA (Sweden), MLIT (Japan), 

and members of ECTRI (EU). 

` If the study concludes that other models of collaboration provide the desired structure to enable the United 

States to meet its innovation goals, it should include 

recommendations on how to best use the structure in 

the United States. The recommendations should 

combine the best elements of the various research 

models observed during the scan. In addition, the 

recommendations should address the feasibility of 

using existing U.S. organizations in the new structure. 

Item 4: Exploring Benefits of Intellectual 

Property Applications in U.S. Transportation 

Research

Investigate the effects, applications, and potential 

for intellectual property rights in the United States 

and abroad. 

Background

The transportation research community is charged with 

finding solutions to problems. Those solutions often involve 

new processes and technologies that represent intellectual 

property with potential economic value. 

Among countries visited in the scan, the transportation 

research community demonstrated a noticeably greater 

concern for the value and importance of intellectual 

property than is sometimes evident in the United States. 

Safeguarding intellectual property was recognized as a 

critical component of the entire research process to spur 

innovation, encourage investment for technology development and refinement, and foster commercialization 

nationally and internationally. Ultimately, intellectual 

property was seen as a means to bolster national economies by adding companies that hire new employees and 

sell new products. Successful management of intellectual 

property was associated with greater trade and foreign 

global investment.

In the United States, public agencies have traditionally 

taken the position that they should retain rights to intellectual property derived from their research. While the intent of 

this policy has been to maintain public ownership of 

intellectual property, an unintended result has been to 

impede development. Frequently, Federal agencies have 

lacked the resources and impetus to commercialize 

technology or license it to others, and in the absence of 

intellectual property protection, private concerns have been 

reluctant to invest in its development. Other public agencies, such as State DOTs, have taken a similar approach 

with similar results. In contrast, organizations visited during 

the scan viewed protection and licensing of intellectual 

property as essential enablers of technology deployment.

Furthermore, many transportation agencies in the United 

States lack effective policies on employees’ rights to 

intellectual property. For example, any new product or idea 

that relates to a Federal agency’s goals and objectives is 

owned by the agency because Federal employees are 

required to assign their intellectual property rights to the 

government. Undefined policies or policies that preclude 

employees from sharing intellectual property rights create 

little incentive for innovation in State and Federal 

transportation agencies.

A significant barrier to more effective management of 

intellectual property is the lack of understanding among 

public transportation agencies of domestic and international intellectual property law. Although the Bayh-Dole Act 

governs intellectual property developed in federally 

sponsored research, Federal and State agencies often 

lack expertise on the fairly complicated and often expensive processes needed to secure and protect intellectual 

property rights domestically or internationally. Few public 

transportation agencies have legal staff or retain counsel 

specializing in intellectual property law. 

Finally, differences between intellectual property laws can 

complicate or frustrate protection and licensing between 

organizations in different countries. Organizations in nearly 

every country visited during the scan voiced questions and 

concerns about international intellectual property rights.

Strategies

`Collaborate with TRB Committees on the Conduct 

of Research, Emerging Technology Law, and 
Chapter 3: Implementation 35

International Activities to sponsor and present 

technical sessions on domestic intellectual property 

law and international intellectual property law at the 

2011 TRB Annual Meeting. Each technical session 

should address the value and importance of intellectual property management, essential elements of 

law governing intellectual property, and practical 

considerations of patents and other intellectual 

property processes.

`Collaborate with the AASHTO RAC Task Forces on 

Education and Training and on Program Management 

and Quality and with FHWA to develop an intellectual 

property short course and manual for transportation 

research managers. The short course and manual 

should address the value and importance of intellectual property management, essential elements of law 

governing intellectual property, and practical considerations of patents and other intellectual property 

processes.

`Collaborate with FHWA to convene a workshop on 

international intellectual property law and transportation research at which a multinational panel identifies 

problems and opportunities related to international 

intellectual property law and transportation research.

Item 5: Exploring Global Use of Research 

Information

Integrate and enhance accessible databases, 

Internet forums, portals, or other platforms to 

coordinate information and knowledge 

resources at a global level. 

Background

The development of common platforms for a variety of 

elements in the research cycle would substantially reduce 

barriers for R&D collaboration and international partnerships and promote more extensive use of research results. 

Improved awareness of research agendas and existing 

collaborations, intellectual property issues, sharing of 

research expertise for peer review activities, and widespread information exchange are just a few of the areas 

that could benefit from the development of linked databases, common access portals, or other platforms 

among global R&D collaborators. 

The scan team believes that such a platform should build 

on existing or ongoing initiatives, such as TRIS, the RiP 

database, transportation knowledge networks discussed 

in TRB Special Report 284, Transportation Knowledge 

Networks, work being done through NCHRP Project 

20-75, “Implementing Transportation Knowledge Networks,” and Web tools being implemented through the 

TRB Conduct of Research and AASHTO RAC Task 

Group on Coordination and Collaboration. Existing 

international resources such as those presented in 

Sweden and the Netherlands should be integrated. 

Sweden’s VTI Library and Information Center, for 

example, has already established contact with the 

TRB Library. 

Items for cooperation include incorporating research 

reports into the countries’ respective information databases through the use of common platforms for information sharing. In addition, the European Union’s CORDIS 

and in the United States the National Science Foundation’s model for accepting and cataloging requests for 

proposals should be benchmarked.

The team envisions a tool that facilitates all aspects 

of the research cycle, including needs statements, 

opportunities for collaboration, available research 

opportunities, calls for proposals, research in progress, 

Web discussions, inventories of technical knowledge 

and human expertise, cataloging capabilities, and 

model operating processes for use in cooperative 

R&D agreements. Wiki elements and the ability to 

translate materials to other languages would remove 

barriers and enhance more effective collaboration 

and information sharing. 

Strategies

Implementation will consist of the following:

`Consult with appropriate contacts engaged in ongoing 

information management initiatives in the United 

States (e.g., TRB Committees on Library and Information Science for Transportation, Technology Transfer, 

and Conduct of Research; NCHRP Project 20-75 

researchers and panel; and AASHTO RAC Task 

Groups on Coordination and Collaboration and on 

Transportation Knowledge Networks) to understand 

the status, capabilities, and capacities of existing and 

planned information databases, portals, and platforms. 

Summarize international resources in the countries 

visited. Determine how U.S. and international information sharing and exchange could best be integrated 

through joint platforms.
36 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

`Monitor the ongoing dialog between the TRB Library 

and international counterparts such as the VTI 

Library in Sweden. Evaluate this activity as a 

potential model for information exchange with other 

countries. The discussion reportedly includes a 

federated search and sharing of information between 

TRIS and Transguide (VTI’s information portal), 

international project information in the RiP database, 

a joint database for e-documents and upcoming 

conferences, and a potential international committee 

for information management. 

`Offer assistance to and participate in the “Borderless 

Access to Information—International Transportation 

Research Web Resources” workshop scheduled for 

the 2009 TRB Annual Meeting. 

`Provide recommendations on how best to achieve the 

tool envisioned in the background statement above, 

and how best to connect, incorporate, or coordinate 

international information resources with those in the 

United States.

`Develop strategies for improved ability to translate 

materials in other languages.

Item 6: Improving the Research Evaluation 

Process

Promote a systematic and consistent practice for 

continuous research program evaluation and 

improvement.

Background

The scan team considered performance, quality, and value 

of research programs as important factors for sustaining 

credible research programs. In light of this interest, host 

countries were asked how program quality and value were 

determined or measured, and how the results were 

communicated to sponsors and stakeholders. Were 

evaluations or performance measures used at both the 

program and project levels? Were both tangible and 

intangible benefits considered? Among the U.S. transportation research community it is generally perceived that 

demonstrating the performance, quality, and value of 

research programs is essential to maintain or increase 

limited research funding.

In each host country visited, the value of funding and 

conducting research was considered intrinsic to achieving 

societal and economic goals. That research is valued is a 

given, so there was not as much concern about using 

performance measures or indicators for program justification. However, several host countries presented extensive 

evaluation schemes for process and outcome improvements at both the programmatic and individual project 

levels. There was substantial interest in the Performance 

Measurement Toolbox created in NCHRP Project 20-63, 

“Performance Measurement Tool Box and Reporting 

System for Research Programs and Projects.” 

Sweden presented a continuous evaluation process that 

began before the program started with an ex ante logic 

impact assessment, followed by periodic evaluations 

during the conduct of research, an ex post evaluation, and 

a cross-cutting impact analysis study. South Korea has a 

similar whole-cycle project management process that 

takes a project from conception through implementation. 

Japan presented a detailed document issued by the Office 

of the Prime Minister providing National Guidelines for 

Evaluating Government-Funded R&D. This document 

covers evaluations at both the program and project levels. 

It includes the basic concepts of R&D evaluations, principles for conducting the evaluation, and evaluation criteria 

and indicators for the programs, research organizations, 

and individual researchers. 

There may be models and techniques for both program 

and project evaluation that should be shared with U.S. 

transportation research administrators and program 

managers. Internal and external audits and reviews, 

extended post-implementation evaluations, and impact 

analyses can enable the transportation community to 

improve on its research investment. The finely detailed 

evaluation criteria and definitions are well thought through 

and provide opportunities for systematic and continuous 

evaluation.

Strategies

`Host a symposium to provide an international 

exchange of ideas on techniques for programand project-level evaluations. This could include 

presentations on NCHRP Project 20-63, “Performance 

Measurement Tool Box and Reporting System for 

Research Programs and Projects,” which was of 

particular interest to the host countries. Such a 

symposium could address the question: “Is there 

a need for a standardized research program and 

project evaluation?” 

`Write articles for TR News, the TRB Conduct of 

Research Committee quarterly newsletter, and other 
Chapter 3: Implementation 37

TRB committees as appropriate (e.g., Committee on 

Performance Measurement).

`Develop a session for the 2009 TRB Annual Meeting 

on “Research Program and Project Evaluations—An 

International View.” After a presentation outlining the 

scan team findings, presentations on the VINNOVA 

impact analyses, South Korean project management, 

Japanese National Evaluation document, and Performance Measurement Toolbox will give attendees an 

overview of what some countries are doing. Case 

histories of impact studies, project evaluations, 

evaluation criteria, evaluation successes, and how 

the evaluations were communicated, received, and 

perceived could be presented.

`Develop a presentation outlining the various evaluation 

techniques discovered during the scan. This could be 

used as the basis for input to the above strategies. 

This could be presented to the TRB Committees on 

Conduct of Research and Performance Measures 

and the AASHTO RAC.
38 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
Appendix A: Amplifying Questions 39

To facilitate meeting discussions at the host 

organizations, the team developed a list of 

detailed questions that were submitted to the 

organizations visited before the team’s arrival. 

The questions are organized by the four primary themes 

of the team’s interest. Note: as the scan team prepared its 

report and implementation items, it determined that the 

phrase “setting the research agenda” was more effectively 

worded as “establishing or developing the research 

framework.” The amplifying questions reflect the former 

wording, while the report and implementation discussion 

use the more recent wording.

1.Setting the Research Agenda—Practices used to 

determine where to put the emphasis and effort to solve 

current problems and emerging issues on local, national 

or federal, and international levels 

1.1 Have research programs found ways to identify 

and actively address consensus research agendas? 

1.1.1 How does your research program identify and

establish a strategic research agenda that is 

supported by all stakeholders? What are the 

mechanisms used?

1.1.2 How does your research program identify and 

prioritize transportation research needs within 

agencies, localities, and countries and with 

other countries to address national priorities 

as well as agency goals and objectives? 

1.1.3 Who participates in forming the research 

agendas?

1.1.4 Are there opportunities for top-down and 

bottom-up contributions to the research 

agendas? If yes, how is this accomplished?

1.1.5 What percentage of the overall investment in 

transportation does research represent? How 

is this determined?

1.1.6 Does your research program add intermodal 

coordination to the research agenda and, if 

yes, how is this done? 

1.1.7 Do you select the research agenda to include 

aspects related to other nontransport areas, 

such as public health, economic development, and 

global competition? If so, to what extent?

1.2 How is a portfolio of research projects established 

to comprise the research program? 

1.3 Does the research program contain projects that 

address short-term and long-term research needs? 

If yes, is there a predetermined amount of each type 

(number of projects or level of funding), and how are 

these projects identified and prioritized?

1.4 Does the research program contain projects that 

address varying levels of risk (e.g., high-risk, 

low-risk)? If yes, is there a predetermined amount 

of each type (number of projects or level of funding), 

and how are these projects identified and 

prioritized?

1.5 Does the research program contain projects 

that address a variety of research topics (e.g., 

technical topics, policy issues, multimodal, 

other areas)? If yes, is there a predetermined 

amount of each type (number of projects or 

level of funding), and how are these projects 

identified and prioritized?

1.6 Does the research program contain projects that 

address ad hoc or quick-response research 

activities for meeting emergency or immediate 

needs? If yes, is there a predetermined amount of 

each type (number of projects or level of funding), 

and how are these projects identified and 

prioritized?

1.7 Does the research program contain basic and 

applied research projects? If yes, what is the level 

of commitment to each type? If no, what is the 

reason for the current commitment to either basic or 

applied research activity?

1.8 What scope does the research program address—

national level, state or regional level, local level, or 

a mix of the three? What is the commitment to each 

level addressed and why?

1.9 What is the source of research funding and how are 

research budgets established and developed for 

agency programs and for major national research 

activities?

Appendix A: Amplifying Questions
40 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

1.9.1 What trends, if any, have been observed over 

the last decade on availability of research 

funding?

1.9.2 What other uses compete for transportation 

research funding? 

1.9.3 What role do performance measures have in 

establishing funding levels and priorities for 

research?

1.10 What methods are used to reduce duplication of 

research effort?

1.11 What processes are used to maximize synergy 

with other research programs?

2.Partnerships and Joint Research Activities—

Methods of cooperation that are an effective means to 

enhance technical capacity and increase fiscal and 

other resources required for research

2.1 How does your program establish and use 

partnerships for research within the agencies, 

localities, and countries; with other countries; and 

with industry and academia? What kinds of 

partnerships and examples of joint research activity 

are most beneficial and why? 

2.1.1 Please describe the types of partnerships 

used and their formation, participants, 

structure, function, performance, funding, and 

results. How do partnerships produce value?

2.1.2 Please provide examples of joint research 

activities, describing their creation, 

participants, process, and benefits. 

2.1.3 Does your agency consider private industry a 

partner?

2.1.4 How does your government impact the use 

of partnerships in accomplishing research?

2.2 What opportunities do partnerships or joint research 

provide? 

2.2.1 Does your program maximize or enhance 

resources through the use of partnerships and

joint research activities? If so, how is this 

done?

2.2.2 Do you find that partnerships and joint 

research provide for more efficient use of 

research funds? If yes, how is this 

accomplished?

2.2.3 What is the level of participation of academic 

institutions in the research performed by your 

agency, and do these institutions have a role 

in fostering education in the transportation 

arena?

2.2.4 Do partnerships allow enhanced 

implementation of research results or 

innovation and deployment activities? If yes, 

how is this accomplished?

2.3 What barriers are there to forming partnerships 

and joint research activities? What techniques are 

used to overcome these barriers?

2.4 How are proprietary issues and intellectual 

property rights addressed with partners (e.g., 

industry, consultants, academic institutions, 

others)?

2.5 How can joint activity and coordination of research 

between country or multicountry programs and the 

United States be fostered and increased? 

3.Conduct of Research: Performance, Quality, and 

Value—Tools and processes used to measure the 

performance, quality, and value of research programs 

and projects 

Performance and Quality—Program Level 

3.1 How are program quality and value determined 

and measured and then communicated to 

stakeholders? 

3.2 How are intangible benefits of program value 

included, such as stronger relationships or 

increased resources (e.g., funds, staff, facilities)? 

3.3 What techniques are used to measure and improve 

program performance? 

3.4 How is innovation measured?

Performance and Quality—Project Level 

3.5 Are performance measurements and evaluation 

efforts applied at the project level? What 

mechanisms are used? Are tangible and intangible 

benefits from research measured? (e.g., tangible, 

such as dollars saved, and intangible, such as 

workforce development)

3.6 How is quality addressed in the selection of 

researchers for the conduct of research?

3.7 Who performs the research sponsored by your 

organization? 

3.8 How are time delays, cost overruns, and other 

challenges in the conduct of research addressed, 

and how are they mitigated? 

3.9 Before research is initiated, what types of literature 

searches are conducted? 

Staffing 

3.10 What is the staffing level of your organization? 
Appendix A: Amplifying Questions 41

(If available, please provide an organization chart 

showing the staffing.) 

3.11 What are the roles and responsibilities of the 

research administrative personnel? 

3.12 How is the research administrative and technical 

staff expertise maintained? 

3.13 What resources are available and used to train 

professionals in both the conduct and 

administration of research? 

Information Management and Access

3.14 How do researchers that perform your agency’s 

research use knowledge management systems 

and libraries? (Knowledge management comprises 

a range of practices used by organizations to 

identify, create, represent, and distribute 

knowledge.) 

3.15 What knowledge management systems and 

libraries are available to the researchers and how 

accessible are they? 

3.16 What mechanisms are used to make others in the 

research community aware of your agency’s 

in-progress research projects?

3.17 What mechanisms are used to share results of 

research within the research community, with other 

stakeholders, with prospective users, and with the 

public?

3.18 How can the U.S. research program facilitate or 

increase access to international research results 

and also facilitate access to its research results by 

international programs? 

4.Delivery: Getting Research Results into Widespread 

Practice—Keys to enhancing the effectiveness of 

deployment and increasing the use of research results

Program or Agency Actions 

4.1 How does your government impact the 

administration and implementation (getting results 

put into practice) of research? 

4.2 How does your organization’s leadership ensure 

that research results are integrated into the 

agency’s business practices? 

4.3 How is funding provided for implementation or 

deployment activities, and how is the amount 

determined? 

4.4 Does your agency identify and accept products and 

methods developed by the private sector or 

academia and put them into practice? If yes, what 

are the procedures for accomplishing this?

4.5 How are research results used to formulate 

effective policy? 

4.6 What is your forum for sharing new research 

results internationally?

Project-Level Actions

4.7 What are the processes or mechanisms used to 

put beneficial research results into practice so that 

their deployment produces a change in standard 

practice? 

4.8 Are incentives used to facilitate putting research 

results into practice and, if so, what are they and 

how do they work?

4.9 Are innovative contracting procedures an aid to 

speed or foster getting results into practice? If so, 

what types of procedures are most beneficial?

4.10 Do specific institutional arrangements contribute 

to adoption of changed practice? What are some 

of the most productive arrangements?

4.11 Is there a training component to increase the 

knowledge of the users of the research results? 

If yes, what types of training are performed?

4.12 Who participates in getting research results put 

into practice?

4.13 How is success of implementing a new technology 

or innovation measured (e.g., the percentage of 

the affected parties using the innovation, dollars 

saved, other methods)? 

4.14 What challenges do you face in your efforts to get 

research results put into practice, and how do you 

define success? What lessons have you learned 

from unsuccessful efforts?
42 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
advanced research The study of phenomena relating to 

high-risk, high-payoff research and innovations to solve 

critical challenges.

applied research The study of phenomena relating to 

a specific known need in connection with the functional 

characteristics of a system; the primary purpose of this 

kind of research is to answer a question or solve a 

problem.

basic research The study of phenomena whose specific 

application has not been identified; the primary purpose of 

this kind of research is to increase knowledge. 

collaboration Working together on a shared problem or 

project in which all parties have a sense of ownership and 

are jointly involved in creating the solutions or outcomes; 

synonymous with partnership. 

cooperation Acting together or in compliance or to 

associate with others for mutual benefit. Unlike collaboration, cooperation does not require shared ownership of the 

project or joint responsibility for creating outcomes.

coordination Working together harmoniously, typically to 

bring about a goal or effect.

deployment A five-phase process to gain acceptance and 

use by stakeholders of a process, product, or regulation. 

The five phases outlined by the FHWA’s Research 

Development and Technology Program are 1) planning 

and research, 2) promotion, 3) delivery and reassessment 

of goal, 4) achievement of goal, communication of accomplishments, and removal from Market-Ready Technology 

list, and 5) measurement of results and benefits of 

technology. 

development At FHWA, the translation of basic or applied 

research results into prototype materials, devices, techniques, or procedures for the practical solution of a specific 

transportation problem.

implementation To put into practical effect. To ensure 

actual fulfillment. This is similar to deployment and sometimes used synonymously. Deployment is a step toward 

implementation or full adoption of a product or service. 

innovation A new concept, technique, policy, procedure, 

product, or process that is ready to use and will improve 

the transportation system by making it safer, building it 

faster, or helping it perform more effectively.

innovation life cycle The approach illustrating that 

research and technology development and deployment 

are not insular activities, but integrated processes that 

together constitute a system.

knowledge management A process for optimizing the 

effective application of intellectual capital or communal 

expertise to achieve organizational objectives. It involves 

systematically and actively managing (e.g., identifying, 

storing, organizing, updating, and accessing) and leveraging internal and external information.

knowledge management system An integrated system 

or framework for managing the processes that create, 

store, and distribute knowledge or communal expertise 

throughout an organization.

market-ready technology and innovation A ready-touse technology or innovation that will improve the transportation system by making it safer, building it faster, or 

improving how it performs.

outsourcing The delegation of specific operations from 

internal production to an external entity. Using an entity 

outside the organization to perform specific tasks that the 

organization once performed itself.

partnership See collaboration.

policy research Applied research that involves 

determining the impact of policies on targets. Useful for 

those responsible for policy interventions. (This can 

Appendix B: Glossary 43

Appendix B: Glossary
44 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

include research designed to develop effective policy or 

research to determine the impacts of an existing policy.) 

program performance Used to define whether the 

targets, goals, and objectives for a particular functional 

area or discipline are being met. For example, for an 

agency spending money on transportation safety, an 

assessment of how well the safety program is performing 

in reducing transportation-related fatalities.

research A systematic, controlled inquiry involving 

analytical and experimental activities that primarily seeks 

to increase the understanding of underlying phenomena. 

research program performance measurement The 

ongoing monitoring and reporting of tangible accomplishments of a research program’s established goals and 

objectives. Ideally, performance measures should address 

the results of the products and services delivered by the 

program (outcomes). However, performance indicators 

such as the type or level of program activities conducted 

(process) and the direct products and services delivered 

by the program (outputs) may also be used.

resource leveraging A process by which assets of others 

can be used to move a product or service further along.

strategic research Careful, systematic study to establish 

facts in a specific field, or research and technological 

development priorities for the medium to long term. 

Designed to accomplish a specific measurable outcome 

on completion. Strategic research often involves input from 

and coordination with multiple stakeholders. 

technology transfer Activities that lead to the adoption of 

a new technique or product by users. Involves dissemination, demonstration, training, and other activities that lead 

to eventual deployment.
Appendix C: International Contacts 45

SWEDEN

Prof. Per Eriksson

Director General

VINNOVA

Master Samuelsgatan 56

SE-101 58 Stockholm

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 8-473-3001

Fax: (011-46) 8-473-3005

E-mail: per.eriksson@vinnova.se

Magnus Blinge

Chief of Transport Division

VINNOVA

Master Samuelsgatan 56

SE-101 58 Stockholm

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 8-473-3180

Fax: (011-46) 8-473-3005

E-mail: magnus.blinge@vinnova.se

Dr. Peter Stern

Analyst, Strategy Development Division

VINNOVA

Master Samuelsgatan 56

SE-101 58 Stockholm

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 8-473-3096

Fax: (011-46) 8-473-3005

E-mail: peter.stern@vinnova.se

Mattias Lundberg

Senior Program Manager, Innovation Actions Divison

VINNOVA

Master Samuelsgatan 56

SE-101 58 Stockholm

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 8-473-3178

Fax: (011-46) 8-473-3005

E-mail: mattias.lundberg@vinnova.se

Dr. Hans Ingvarsson

Research Director

Swedish Road Administration

SE-781 87 Borlange

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 243 756 88

Fax: (011-46) 70 688 85 68

E-mail: hans.ingvarsson@vv.se

Lennart Axelson

Director, International Secretariat

Swedish Road Administration

SE-781 87 Borlange

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 243 754 33

Fax: (011-46) 70 595 38 80

E-mail: lennart.axelson@vv.se

Dr. Gunnar Lindberg

Research Director, Department of Transport Economics

VTI

Box 55685

102-15 Stockholm

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 8-555-770-26

Fax: (011-46) 8-285-043

E-mail: gunnar.lindberg@vti.se

Birgitta Sandstedt

Head of Library and Information Center

VTI

581-95 Linkoping

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 13-204-214

Fax: (011-46) 13-141-436

E-mail: birgitta.sandstedt@vti.se

Appendix C: International Contacts
46 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Dr. Lennart Lubeck

Chairman, Automotive Research Program Board

VINNOVA

Master Samuelsgatan 56

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 705-276-210

E-mail: lennart.lubeck@ssc.se

Dr. Anna Nilsson-Ehle

Director

SAFER

PO Box 8077

SE-402 78 Goteborg

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 31-772-3655

E-mail: anna.nilsson-ehle@chalmers.se

Dr. Ake Skarendahl

Managing Director

BIC

Vasag 52

SE-111 20 Stockholm

Sweden

Telephone: (011-46) 8-411-1640

Fax: (011-46) 8-411-1635

E-mail: ake.skarendahl@bic.nu

THE NETHERLANDS

Dr. Joris Al

General Director

Transport Research Center

Boompjes 200

PO Box 1031

3000 BA Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 10-282-5605

Fax: (011-31) 10-282-5639

E-mail: joris.al@rws.nl

Max Klok

Head of Section, Passenger Transport

Transport Research Center

Boompjes 200

PO Box 1031

3000 BA Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 10-282-5756

Fax: (011-31) 10-282-5014

E-mail: max.klok@rws.nl

Richard van der Elburg

Senior Advisor

Transport Research Center

Boompjes 200

PO Box 1031

3000 BA Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 10-282-5929

Fax: (011-31) 10-282-5644

E-mail: r.w.vdelburg@avv.rws.minvenw.nl

Dr. Jean Marie Stam

Coordinator, International Affairs

Transport Research Center

Boompjes 200

PO Box 1031

3000 BA Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 6-1098-2423

Fax: (011-31) 320-298-710

E-mail: jean-marie.stam@rws.nl

Gerben Bootsma

Senior Advisor

Transport Research Center

Boompjes 200

PO Box 1031

3000 BA Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 10-282-5988

Fax: (011-31) 10-282-5842

E-mail: gerben.bootsma@rws.nl

Dr. Hedi Poot

Advisor

Ministry of Transport, Public Works, & Water Management

Plesmanweg 1-6

Postbus 20901

2500 EX Den Haag

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 70-351-6190

Fax: (011-31) 70-351-6118

E-mail: hedi.poot@minvenw.nl
Appendix C: International Contacts 47

Dr. A.F. van Ommen

Policy Process Manager

Ministry of Transport, Public Works, & Water Management

Plesmanweg 1-6

Postbus 20901

2500 EX Den Haag

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 70-351-7678

Fax: (011-31) 70-351-7550

E-mail: ad.van.ommen@minvenw.nl

Prof. C.J. Ruijgrok

Managing Director

TNO, Traffic and Transport

Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6

PO Box 49

2600 AA Delft

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 15-269-6843

Fax: (011-31) 15-269-7782

E-mail: cees.ruijgrok@tno.nl

Fred Wegman

Managing Director

SWOV

PO Box 1090

2260 BB Leidschendam

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 70-317-3332

Fax: (011-31) 70-320-1261

E-mail: fred.wegman@swov.nl

BRUSSELS (European Commission)

Luisa Prista 

Head of Unit, Scientific Culture and Gender (DG RTD/L4)

Head of Unit, Surface Transport at time of scan

European Commission, DG-Research 

SDME 7/96

1049 Brussels 

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-296-1598 

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-3307

E-mail: luisa.prista@ec.europa.ec

Arnoldas Milukas

Head of Unit, Horizontal Aspects

European Commission, DG-Research

CDMA 04/184

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-299-8414

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-4299

E-mail: arnoldas.milukas@ec.europa.eu

Dr. Lionel Banege

Policy Officer, Horizontal Aspects & Coordination—

Transport

European Commission, DG-Research

CDMA 04/184

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-227-4911

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-4299

E-mail: lionel.banege@ec.europa.eu

Dr. Karsten Krause

Policy Officer, Horizontal Aspects & Coordination—

Transport

European Commission, DG-Research

CDMA 04/179

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-295-2725

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-4299

E-mail: karsten.krause@ec.europa.eu

Maria Cristina Marolda

Programme Officer, Surface Transport Unit

European Commission, DG-Research

CDMA 04/182

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-295-8391

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-3307

E-mail: maria-cristina.marolda@ec.europa.eu

Myriam Coulon-Canteur

ICT for Transport, DG-Information, Society & Media

European Commission

BU31 04/59

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-299-4156

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-9548

E-mail: myriam.coulon-canteur@ec.europa.eu
48 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Anna Livieratou

Transport Research Coordination

European Commission, DG-Energy & Transport

DM28 02/83

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-299-0774

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-0421

E-mail: anna.livieratou@ec.europa.eu

Ben van Houtte

Head of Unit: Logistics, Innovation, Intelligent Transport, & 

Co-Modality

European Commission, DG-Energy & Transport

DM28 04/64

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-295-0494

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-0421

E-mail: ben.van-houtte@ec.europa.eu

Upton van der Vliet

Policy Officer, International Scientific Cooperation

European Commission, DG-Research

SDME 05/78

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-295-0843

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-9824

E-mail: upton.van-der-vliet@ec.europe.eu

BRUSSELS (FEHRL/ERTRAC)

Steve Phillips

Director, ERTRAC Secretariat

ERTRAC

Rue du Trone 98

1050 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-775-8238

E-mail: steve.phillips@ertrac.org

Oliver Althoff

Research Management

TUV Rheinland Consulting GmbH

51101 Koln

Germany

Telephone: (011-49) 221-806-4165

Fax: (011-49) 221-806-3496

E-mail: oliver.althoff@de.tuv.com

Sieds Halbesma

KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport

Jan van Nassaustraat 125

PO Box 20901

2500 EX Den Haag

The Netherlands

Telephone: (011-31) 70-351-1970

Fax: (011-31) 70-351-7576

E-mail: sieds.halbesma@minvenw.nl

Patrick Brenier

Deputy Head of Unit

European Commission, DG-Research

SDME 05/70

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-295-4342

Fax: (011-32) 2-296-9824

E-mail: patrick.brenier@ec.europa.eu

Patrick Mallejacq

Director, International Affairs

LCPC

58 blvd. Lefebvre

75732 Paris, Cedex 15

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4043-5028

Fax: (011-33) 1-4043-5492

E-mail: patrick.mallejacq@lcpc.fr

BRUSSELS (ECTRI)

Guy Bourgeois

General Director

INRETS

2 ave. du General Malleret-Joinville

94114 Arcueil Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4740-7058

Fax: (011-33) 1-4740-7090

E-mail: guy.bourgeois@inrets.fr
Appendix C: International Contacts 49

Dr. -Ing. Dietmar Wurzel

Representative Transport

DLR Brussels Office

Secretary General, ECTRI at time of scan

1050 Brussels

Belgium

Telephone: (011-32) 2-5000-846

Fax: (011-32) 2-5000-840

E-mail: dietmar.wurzel@dlr.de

Josef Mikulik

Institute Council Chair

Transport Research Center

Lisenska 33a

636 00 Brno

Czech Republic

Telephone: (011-420) 548-423-737

Fax: (011-420) 548-423-712

E-mail: josef.mikulik@cdv.cz

Prof. George Giannopoulos

Director

Centre for Research & Technology Hellas

6th km. Charilaou–Thermi Rd.

PO Box 60361

570 01 Thermi, Thessaloniki

Greece

Telephone: (011-30) 2310-498-263

Fax: (011-30) 2310-498-269

E-mail: anagi@otenet.gr

Caroline Almeras

Project Officer

ECTRI (c/o INRETS)

Case 24

25 ave. Francois Mitterand

69675 Bron Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 4-7214-2322

Fax: (011-33) 4-7214-2307

E-mail: caroline.almeras@ectri.org

Prof. Andres Monzon

Director, Transport Research Center

Universidad Politecnica de Madrid

E.T.S.I. de Caminos, Canales y Puertos

Profesor Aranguren s/n

28040 Madrid

Spain

Telephone: (011-34) 91-336-5373

Fax: (011-34) 91-336-6656

E-mail: amonzon@caminos.upm.es

Dr. Christian Piehler

Program Director, Transport

German Aerospace Center

Secretary General, ECTRI

Linder Hohe

51147 Koln

Germany

Telephone: (011-49) 2203-601-3630

Fax: (011-49) 2203-601-4712

E-mail: christian.piehler@dlr.de

Dr. Matti Roine

MLR Transport Expertise

Yla-Fallantie 34

00690 Helsinki

Finland

Telephone: (011-358) 451-309-267

E-mail: mattileo.roine@vtt.fi

Dr. Laszlo Ruppert

Managing Director

KTI Institute for Transport Sciences

PO Box 107

1518 Budapest

Hungary

Telephone: (011-36) 1-371-5808

Fax: (011-36) 1-205-5951

E-mail: ruppert.laszlo@kti.hu
50 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

FRANCE

Pierre Valla

Deputy Director

Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport

Arche Sud

92055 La Defense Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4081-2951

Fax: (011-33) 1-4081-6396

E-mail: pierre.valla@equipement.gouv.fr

Francesco Gaeta

Advisor, Europe

Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport

Arche Sud

92055 La Defense Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4081-8852

Fax: (011-33) 1-4081-1229

E-mail: francesco.gaeta@equipement.gouv.fr

Antoine Averseng

Office of International Affairs

Ministry for Ecology

Arche Sud

92055 La Defense Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4081-1871

Fax: (011-33) 1-4081-1866

E-mail: antoine.averseng@equipement.gouv.fr

Bernard Duhem

Secretary General

PREDIT–Office of the Permanent Secretary

Arche Sud

92055 La Defense Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4081-1413

Fax: (011-33) 1-4081-1522

E-mail: bernard.duhem@equipement.gouv.fr

Karima Nahhal

Ministry of Ecology

Arche Sud

92055 La Defense Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4081-1411

Fax: (011-33) 1-4081-1522

E-mail: karima.nahhal@i-carre.net

Dr. Sylvie Niessen

Project Manager

ANR

212 rue de Bercy

75012 Paris

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-7809-8068

E-mail: sylvie.niessen@agencerecherche.fr

Guy Bourgeois

General Director

INRETS

2 ave. du General Malleret-Joinville

94114 Arcueil Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4740-7058

Fax: (011-33) 1-4740-7090

E-mail: guy.bourgeois@inrets.fr

Erik Bessmann

Executive Manager, Europe & International

INRETS

25 ave. Francois Mitterand

69675 Bron Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 4-7214-2627

Fax: (011-33) 4-7237-8424

E-mail: erik.bessmann@inrets.fr

Dr. Remi Pochat

Scientific Director

LCPC

58 blvd. Lefbvre

75732 Paris Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4043-5011

Fax: (011-33) 1-4043-5494

E-mail: remi.pochat@lcpc.fr

Dr. Jean Bonny

Programs Director

LCPC

58 blvd. Lefbvre

75732 Paris Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4043-5017

Fax: (011-33) 1-4043-6507

E-mail: jean.bonny@lcpc.fr
Appendix C: International Contacts 51

Sylvie Proeschel

International Affairs Office

LCPC

58 blvd. Lefbvre

75732 Paris Cedex

France

Telephone: (011-33) 1-4043-5199

Fax: (011-33) 1-4043-5492

E-mail: sylvie.proeschel@lcpc.fr

JAPAN

Dr. Shigeru Morichi

President

Institute for Transport Policy Studies (ITPS)

3-18-19 Toranomon

Minato-ku, Tokyo 

105-0001 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5470-8415

Fax: (011-81) 305470-8419

E-mail: morichi@jterc.or.jp

Hitoshi Honda

General Manager, Social & Public Affairs Business Unit 

Social System Research Division

Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.

3-6 Otemachi, 2-chome

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

100-8141 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-3277-0703

Fax: (011-81) 3-3277-3460

E-mail: honda@mri.co.jp

Dr. Hideo Tokuyama

Director

MLIT, Road Bureau

2-1-3 Kasumigaseki

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

100-8918 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5253-8111

Fax: (011-83) 3-5253-1622

E-mail: tokuyama-h2xw@mlit.go.jp

Hitomi Godo

Director for Environment Safety

MLIT, Road Bureau

2-1-3 Kasumigaseki

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

100-8918 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5253-8111

Fax: (011-83) 3-5253-1536

E-mail: godou-h28y@mlit.go.jp

Hidetoshi Murayama

MLIT, Road Bureau

2-1-3 Kasumigaseki

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

100-8918 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5253-8111

Fax: (011-83) 3-5253-1536

E-mail: murayama-h2b7@mlit.go.jp

Jun’ichi Matoba

Executive Director

JICE

Nissay Toranomon Bldg.

3-12-1 Toranomon

Minato-ku, Tokyo

105-0001 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-4519-5000

Fax: (011-81) 3-4519-5010

E-mail: j.matoba@jice.or.jp

Masahito Ohno

Director, Highway Division

JICE

Nissay Toranomon Bldg.

3-12-1 Toranomon

Minato-ku, Tokyo

105-0001 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-4519-5002

Fax: (011-81) 3-4519-5012

E-mail: m.ohno@jice.or.jp

Toshimichi Sato

Director, ITS Division

JICE

Nissay Toranomon Bldg.

3-12-1 Toranomon

Minato-ku, Tokyo

105-0001 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-4519-5007

Fax: (011-81) 3-4519-5017

E-mail: t.sato@jice.or.jp
52 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Yoshiyuki Kato

Research Engineer, Highway Division

JICE

Nissay Toranomon Bldg.

3-12-1 Toranomon

Minato-ku, Tokyo

105-0001 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-4519-5002

Fax: (011-81) 3-4519-5012

E-mail: t2.232@jice.or.jp

Hiromitsu Yajima, P.E. Jp

Director, Public Involvement Research Division

IBS

2-9 Ichigayahonmura-cho

Shinjuku, Tokyo

162-0845 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-3268-9927

Fax: (011-81) 3-5206-1680

E-mail: hyajima@ibs.org.jp

Dr. Kazuhiko Mashita

Director

Planning & Research Administration Department

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-2211

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-2826

E-mail: mashita-k92ta@nilim.go.jp

Dr. Ryuutarou Ooishi

Research Coordinator for Evaluation

Planning & Research Administration Department

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-2211

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-1527

E-mail: ooishi-r92ta@nilim.go.jp

Kiyohiro Shirai

Research Coordinator for Codes and Standards

Planning & Research Administration Department

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-2211

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-1527

E-mail: shirai-k92tb@nilim.go.jp

Tatsuya Tsutsumi

Head, Planning Division

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-4343

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-1527

E-mail: tsutsumi-t2ie@nilim.go.jp

Rikako Kishida

Head, Research Administration & Evaluation Division

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-4412

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-4322

E-mail: kishida-r2pq@nilim.go.jp

Hiroaki Teramoto

Head, International Research Division

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-4457

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-4322

E-mail: teramoto-h92tb@nilim.go.jp

Yoshiro Sato

Research Coordinator for Road Affairs

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-2300

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-0178

E-mail: sato-y92te@nilim.go.jp

Tetsya Owaki

Senior Researcher, Traffic Engineering Division

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-4464

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-3784

E-mail: owaki-t24r@nilim.go.jp
Appendix C: International Contacts 53

Dr. Satoshi Ueda

Director

PWRI

1-6 Minamihara

Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-8516 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-879-6718

Fax: (011-81) 29-879-6731

E-mail: s-ueda@pwri.go.jp

Shinsuke Setoshita

PWRI

1-6 Minamihara

Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-8516 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-879-6751

Fax: (011-81) 29-879-6752

E-mail: setoshita@pwri.go.jp

Dr. Yasuhiko Wakizaka

Director of Material & Geotech Research Group

PWRI

1-6 Minamihara

Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-8516 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-879-6720

Fax: (011-81) 29-879-6798

E-mail: wakizaka@pwri.go.jp

Minoru Kikuchi

Research Coordinator

PWRI

1-6 Minamihara

Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-8516 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-879-6700

Fax: (011-81) 29-879-6732

E-mail: mkikuchi@pwri.go.jp

Takuya Seo

Director of Road Technology Research Group

PWRI

1-6 Minamihara

Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-8516 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-879-6725

Fax: (011-81) 29-879-6738

E-mail: t-seo@pwri.go.jp

Atsushi Yoshioka

Acting Director of CAESAR

PWRI

1-6 Minamihara

Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-8516 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-879-6726

Fax: (011-81) 29-879-6739

E-mail: yoshioka@pwri.go.jp

Masayuki Yabu, P.E. Jp

Deputy Team Leader, Road Technology Research Group

PWRI

1-6 Minamihara

Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-8516 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-879-6789

Fax: (011-81) 29-879-6738

E-mail: yabu@pwri.go.jp

Hideyuki Kanoshima

ITS Division (MLIT)

NILIM

1 Asahi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki

305-0804 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 29-864-7493

Fax: (011-81) 29-864-0565

E-mail: kanoshima-h92ta@nilim.go.jp

Prof. Hitoshi Ieda

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Tokyo

7-3-1 Hongo,

Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo

113-8656 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5841-1270

Fax: (011-81) 3-5841-8506

E-mail: ieda@civil.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Prof. Noboru Harata

Department of Urban Planning

The University of Tokyo

7-3-1 Hongo,

Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo

113-8656 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5841-6233

Fax: (011-81) 3-5841-8527

E-mail: nhara@ut.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
54 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Prof. Takayuki Ueda

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Tokyo

7-3-1 Hongo,

Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo

113-8656 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5841-6116

Fax: (011-81) 3-5841-6116

E-mail: tueda@civil.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Dr. Hironori Kato

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Tokyo

7-3-1 Hongo,

Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo

113-8656 Japan

Telephone: (011-81) 3-5841-7451

Fax: (011-81) 3-5841-7496

E-mail: kato@civil.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

SOUTH KOREA

Dr. Chang-se Kim

President

KICTEP

1600 Kwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu

Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

431-060 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-389-6400

Fax: (011-82) 31-381-9922

E-mail: cskim@kictep.re.kr

Dr. Dae-yeon Cho

Director, Planning Division

KICTEP

1600 Kwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu

Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

431-060 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-389-6421

Fax: (011-82) 31-389-6436

E-mail: doholcho@kictep.re.kr

Dr. TaeHee Kim, P.E.

Director, Transportation Division III

KICTEP

1600 Kwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu

Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

431-060 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-389-6440

Fax: (011-82) 31-476-8857

E-mail: theekim@kictep.re.kr

Dr. Seung-Il Kim, P.E.

Senior Research Manager, Transportation Division III

KICTEP

1600 Kwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu

Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

431-060 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-389-6441

Fax: (011-82) 31-476-8857

E-mail: slkim@kictep.re.kr

Dr. Young Seong Koo, P.E.

Director, International Relations Team

KICTEP

1600 Kwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu

Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

431-060 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-389-6424

Fax: (011-82) 31-389-6436

E-mail: harrykoo@kictep.re.kr

Dr. Jun-Hwan Kim, P.E.

Senior Research Manager, International Relations Team

KICTEP

1600 Kwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu

Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

431-060 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-389-6428

Fax: (011-82) 31-389-6436

E-mail: jhkim@kictep.re.kr

Hee-Jin Ye

Research Manager, International Relations Team

KICTEP

1600 Kwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu

Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

431-060 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-478-0804

Fax: (011-82) 31-381-9922

E-mail: heejin@kictep.re.kr
Appendix C: International Contacts 55

Dr. Hyungjin Kim

President

KOTI

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-701 South Korea

E-mail: hjkim@koti.re.kr

Dr. Jaehak Oh

Director

Department of Land Transport & Advanced Technologies 

KOTI

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-city, Gyeonggi-do

411-701 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-910-3111

Fax: (011-82) 31-910-3228

E-mail: jhoh@koti.re.kr

Dr. Jaehoon Sul

Senior Research Fellow

Department of Land Transport & Advanced Technologies

KOTI

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-701 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-910-3220

Fax: (011-82) 31-910-3235

E-mail: jaehoonsul@koti.re.kr

Dr. Nakmoon Sung

Senior Research Fellow

Department of Land Transport & Advanced Technologies 

KOTI

1160 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-701 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-910-3204

Fax: (011-82) 31-910-3235

E-mail: sungnakm@koti.re.kr

Dr.Youn-Soo Kang

Head Research Fellow

Department of Land Transport & Advanced Technologies 

KOTI

1160 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-701 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-910-3184

Fax: (011-82) 31-910-3228

E-mail: ykang@koti.re.kr

Dr. Young-Jun Moon

Research Fellow

Department of Land Transport & Advanced Technologies

KOTI

1160 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-702 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-910-3037

Fax: (011-82) 31-910-3228

E-mail: yjmoon@koti.re.kr

Dr. Taehyung Kim

Associate Research Fellow

Department of Land Transport & Advanced Technologies

KOTI

1160 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo-gu, 

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-702 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-910-3027

Fax: (011-82) 31-910-3228

E-mail: thkim@koti.re.kr

Dr. Hyo Seop Woo, P.E.

Acting President

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-0034

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-005

E-mail: hswoo@kict.re.kr

Dr. Jung Gon Sung

Director/Research Fellow, Highway Research Division

KICT

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-179

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-746

E-mail: jgsung@kict.re.kr
56 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Dr. Jun-Hwa Jeong, P.E.

Research Fellow, Highway Research Division

KICT

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-171

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-161

E-mail: jhjeong@kict.re.kr

Dr. Jong Min Kim

Senior Researcher, Highway Research Division

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-173

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-161

E-mail: kimbellsky@kict.re.kr

Dr. Yong-Seok Kim

Senior Researcher, Highway Research Division

KICT

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-178

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-161

E-mail: safeys@kict.re.kr

Dr. In Kyoon Yoo, P.E.

Director, Highway Facility Research Division

KICT

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-171

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-161

E-mail: ikyoo@kict.re.kr

Dr. Pyeong Jun Yoo

Senior Researcher, Highway Facility Research Division

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-168

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-161

E-mail: pjyoo@kict.re.kr

Dr. Sung Do Hwang

Senior Researcher, Highway Facility Research Division

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-180

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-161

E-mail: sdhwang@kict.re.kr

Dr. Hee Mun Park

Senior Researcher, Highway Facility Research Division

KICT

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-323

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-161

E-mail: hpark@kict.re.kr

Dr. Hyun Suk Kim

Senior Researcher, Advanced Highway & Traffic Research 

Division

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-176

Fax: (011-82) 31-9195-694

E-mail: hskim3@kict.re.kr

Dr. Hyoungsoo Kim

Senior Researcher, Advanced Highway & Traffic Research 

Division

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-177

Fax: (011-82) 31-9195-694

E-mail: hsookim@kict.re.kr

Dr. Sung Taek Oh

Senior Researcher, Policy Research Division

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-543

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-091

E-mail: stoh@kict.re.kr
Appendix C: International Contacts 57

Dr. Haewoon Yoo

Director, International Cooperation & Public Relations 

Division

KICT

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-112

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-111

E-mail: hwyoo@kict.re.kr

Choi Young-hee

Senior Technician, International Cooperation & Public 

Relations Division

KICT

1190 Simindae-ro, Ilsanseo–gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82) 31-9100-113

Fax: (011-82) 31-9100-111

E-mail: choiyh@kict.re.kr

Dr. Youngho Kim

Research Associate

Department of Land Transport & Advanced Technologies

KICT

2311 Daehwa-dong, Ilsanseo-gu

Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

411-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82)-31-910-3131

Fax: (011-82) 31-910-3225

E-mail: ykim@kict.re.kr

Ki-Bum Park

Deputy Director

Department of Research & Development Planning

Ministry of Construction & Transportation

88, Gwanmun-Ro, Gwacheon-City 

Gyeonggi-do

427-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82)-2110-8854

Fax: (011-82) 9769-8265 

E-mail: bummyp@moct.go.kr

Dr. Heonsang Koo

Director, Road Environmental Division

Ministry of Land Transport and Maritime Affairs

1, Joongang-Dong, Gwacheon-City 

Gyeonggi-do

427-712 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82)-2110 8741

Fax: (011-82) 504-3259 

E-mail: koohs@mltm.go.kr

Professor Seung-Bok Leigh

College of Engineering

Yonsei University

134 Shinchong-dong, Seodaemun-gu

Seoul 

120-749 South Korea

Telephone: (011-82)-2123-5782

Fax: (011-82) 365-4668 

E-mail: sbleigh@yonsei.ac.kr
58 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia
Appendix D: Team Members 59

Contact Information

Debra Elston 

(FHWA Cochair)

Director, Office of Corporate Research and Technology 

(HRTC-01)

FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike, Room F218A

McLean, VA 22101

Telephone: (202) 493-3181

Fax: (202) 493-3475 

E-mail: debra.elston@dot.gov

David Huft 

(AASHTO Cochair)

Research Program Manager & ITS Coordinator

South Dakota Department of Transportation

700 E Broadway Ave., Becker-Hansen Building

Pierre, SD 57501-2586

Telephone: (605) 773-3292 

Fax: (605) 773-4713

E-mail: dave.huft@state.sd.us

Barbara T. Harder

(Report Facilitator)

Principal

B. T. Harder, Inc.

1610 Spruce St., 3rd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: (215) 735-2482

Fax: (215) 735-9586 

E-mail: btharder@verizon.net

Joyce Curtis

Director of Field Services–North 

FHWA

10 S Howard St. 

Suite 4000 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

Telephone: (410) 962-0739

Fax: (410) 962-3655 

E-mail: joyce.curtis@fhwa.dot.gov

Monique R. Evans

Administrator

Office of Research & Development

Ohio Department of Transportation

1980 West Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43223

Telephone: (614) 728-6048

Fax: (614) 995-7047

E-mail: monique.evans@dot.state.oh.us

Christopher W. Jenks

Director, Cooperative Research Programs

Transportation Research Board

500 Fifth St. NW

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: (202) 334-3089

Fax: (202) 334-2006

E-mail: cjenks@nas.edu

Laurie McGinnis

Associate Director

Center for Transportation Studies

University of Minnesota

200 Transportation and Safety Building

511 Washington Ave. SE

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Telephone: (612) 625-3019

Fax: (612) 625-6381

E-mail: mcgin001@umn.edu

Harold R. “Skip” Paul

Director

Louisiana Transportation Research Center

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

4101 Gourrier Ave.

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Telephone: (225) 767-9101

Fax: (225) 767-9108 

E-mail: harold.paul@la.gov 

Appendix D: Team Members
60 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Glenn Roberts

Chief of Research, Bureau of Materials and Research

New Hampshire Department of Transportation

PO Box 483 

Concord, NH 03302

5 Hazen Dr.

Concord, NH 03301

Telephone: (603) 271-3151

Fax: (603) 271-8700 

E-mail: groberts@dot.state.nh.us

Eric Wingfield

Information Technology: Strategy and Organizational 

Development

Ford Motor Company

1333 Fairlane Circle, IT Headquarters–Bldg. A

Allen Park, MI 48101

Telephone: (313) 206-9160

Fax: (313) 845-2606

E-mail: ewingfie@ford.com

J. B. “Butch” Wlaschin

Director, Office of Asset Management

FHWA, E75-115, (HIAM-1)

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: (202) 366-6377

Fax: (202) 366-9981

E-mail: butch.wlaschin@dot.gov

Biographical Sketches

Debra Elston (FHWA cochair) serves as the director of 

the FHWA’s Office of Corporate Research, Technology, 

and Innovation Management. She is also the director of 

the Research and Technology Program Development and 

Partnership Team. Elston oversees key strategic initiatives in research and technology, such as the exploratory 

advanced research program, budget and legislative 

development, and marketing and communication strategies for FHWA’s Research and Technology program. Her 

collaborative leadership style includes membership on 

TRB’s Conduct of Research Committee and involvement 

with the European Conference of Transport Research 

Institutes. Elston presented a paper at the 11th World 

Conference on Transport Research entitled “Closing 

the Gap Between Research, Policy, and Practice.” 

Her experience in the transportation field spans more 

than 27 years, 19 with FHWA. Elston has received 

numerous awards, including three Secretarial Awards 

for “Partnering for Excellence.”

Dave Huft (AASHTO cochair) is the research program 

manager and intelligent transportation systems coordinator 

for the South Dakota Department of Transportation 

(SDDOT). SDDOT’s Office of Research addresses a 

broad range of research topics in transportation design, 

construction, operations, maintenance, planning, administration, and market research. Huft has been active in 

national research activities and is a past chair of the 

AASHTO Research Advisory Committee (RAC). He is a 

member of the AASHTO Standing Committee on 

Research (SCOR) and the AASHTO Technology Implementation Group, and is cochair of the Transportation 

Research Program Management scan. Huft is a recipient 

of the AASHTO President’s Award for Research and the 

Alfred E. Johnson Award for Outstanding Achievement.

Barbara T. Harder (report facilitator) is the principal of B. 

T. Harder, Inc., a consulting firm focusing on transportation 

research management, technology implementation, 

transportation policy development and analysis, and 

program and performance assessment. She assisted 

FHWA in examining issues of quality, performance, and 

relevance of research activities. With FHWA she developed program policy and administrative procedures, 

including the Expert/Peer Review Handbook used in the 

process. In addition, she is part of a team creating an 

innovation infrastructure for the Pennsylvania Department 

of Transportation to enable products of research and other 

innovations to be systematically deployed and institutionalized as standard practice throughout the department. 

Harder was the lead author for the NCHRP Synthesis 355: 

Technology Transfer Successes, Challenges, and Needs. 

She also produced a TRB study to determine the tools of 

strategic value for technology transfer and implementation. 

In the past several years, Harder has prepared several 

studies, including a National Strategic Plan for Transportation Information Management for AASHTO (coauthor), 

NCHRP’s Synthesis 312: Facilitating Research Partnerships in Transportation Research, and NCHRP’s Synthesis 

280: Seven Keys to Building a Robust Research Program 

(coauthor). Harder holds a master’s in business administration in technology management and a bachelor’s 

degree in mathematics with a concentration in physics. 

She is cochair of the TRB Committee on the Conduct of 

Research, a member of the TRB Strategic Management 

committee, a member of the Women’s Transportation 
Appendix D: Team Members 61

Seminar, an associate member of the American Society 

of Civil Engineers, and a member of its Transportation 

and Development Institute Research Committee. 

Joyce Curtis is the director of Field ServicesNorth for FHWA. Curtis leads the 18 Divisions in the 

northern United States in helping States administer the 

Federal-aid program. She also is the regional emergency 

coordinator for a Federal region, overseeing transportation’s response to natural and manmade emergencies. 

As the director of the FHWA Resource Center, Curtis 

led a multidisciplinary staff of 168 technical and 

administrative personnel who provide technical and 

program assistance to FHWA Division offices, State 

DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations and other 

partners. Curtis has served on a number of the agency’s 

national task forces and work groups, including the 

Workforce Planning and Professional Development 

Task Force and the I-81 Task Force chaired by former 

Defense Secretary Jack Marsh. Curtis served 

as assistant division administrator for FHWA’s Virginia 

Division and director of engineering and operations for 

the former FHWA Regional Office in Baltimore. Curtis 

graduated from Villanova University with a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering. She is the past secretary 

of the TRB Committee on Urban Transportation 

Data and Information Systems, and a member of 

the American Society of Civil Engineers and the 

Women’s Transportation Seminar. 

Monique R. Evans is the administrator of the Ohio DOT 

Office of R&D, where she manages a robust transportation 

research program of about 100 active projects with a 

budget of about $9 million. She is responsible for delivering a fair and competitive program that is aligned with 

departmental strategic initiatives, is fiscally responsible, 

and produces practical results with a strong emphasis on 

accountability and implementation. Evans has been 

employed at the Ohio DOT for 17 years and also has 

private-sector experience in structural engineering and 

architectural design. She is a member of several professional organizations, including the Women’s Transportation 

Seminar and the TRB Conduct of Research Committee, 

for which she chairs the Subcommittee on Strategic 

Planning. She has been involved in several NCHRP 

project panels and is a member of the NCHRP’s Domestic 

Scan Program. Evans is also the AASHTO RAC Region 3 

vice chair, the RAC Funding Task Group leader, and the 

AASHTO SCOR/RAC Reauthorization Task Force cochair. 

She is a certified public manager, a registered professional 

engineer in Ohio, and a graduate of the University of 

Cincinnati with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering, 

specializing in structures. 

Christopher W. Jenks serves as director of Cooperative 

Research Programs for the TRB, a unit of the National 

Academies in Washington, DC. In this capacity, he is 

responsible for administering five cooperative research 

programs with a combined annual budget of about $67 

million. Each cooperative research program provides 

industry-driven, problem-solving applied research to a 

particular segment of the transportation industry, including 

State departments of transportation, public transportation 

operators, airports, and the freight and hazardous materials transportation communities. Research programs 

administered include the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Airport Cooperative Research Program, National 

Cooperative Freight Research Program, and Hazardous 

Materials Cooperative Research Program. In the past, 

Jenks served as an associate director for business 

planning and development at the Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transit Authority and chief of transit service planning 

and operations for the Fairfax County (VA) Department of 

Transportation in suburban Washington, DC. He also held 

positions with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in 

western Massachusetts and the Pennsylvania Department 

of Transportation. He has an engineering degree from 

Cornell University. 

Laurie McGinnis is the associate director of the University 

of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies. She 

provides overall leadership for the center in identifying 

program opportunities, securing funding, directing programs, guiding program delivery, overseeing center 

operations, and establishing future directions in transportation research, education, and outreach. Before her work 

with the university, McGinnis was a project manager and 

bridge designer at HNTB, where she participated in the 

design of several bridges for State and local agencies. 

McGinnis has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from 

the University of Wisconsin and master’s degrees in public 

affairs and business administration from the University of 

Minnesota. She is a registered professional engineer in 

Minnesota and Wisconsin. Nationally, McGinnis is active 

in TRB, for which she is the immediate past chair of the 

Committee on the Conduct of Research and is a member 

of the Committee on Women’s Issues in Transportation. 

She is also a member of Women’s Transportation Seminar 

and serves on its International Advisory Board.
62 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

Harold R. “Skip” Paul has served the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development for more than 

30 years in both the research section and, since 1986, 

the Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC). 

He is now the director of LTRC after serving as associate 

director for research since 1995. Paul has also served as 

an engineer-in-training, bituminous research engineer, and 

materials research engineer. As a researcher, he has had 

more than 40 publications published by TRB, the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, and technical 

publications. Paul has also served TRB in a number of 

positions and on NCHRP panels, culminating as the 

Technical Division A chair, responsible for more than 

3,500 professionals on more than 200 committees. He 

was named an associate of the National Academies for his 

service. Paul is a former board member of the Association 

of Asphalt Paving Technologists, has participated on many 

FHWA advisory groups, and now serves on a Federal 

advisory committee. Paul graduated from Lehigh University with bachelor’s degrees in mechanical engineering 

and English. He is a licensed engineer in Louisiana.

Glenn Roberts is the chief of research for the New 

Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 

Roberts directs the NHDOT Research Program, supervises product evaluation and qualification activities, and 

oversees a program of bridge deck condition surveys 

for existing structures. His research emphasis includes 

effective and efficient delivery of applied research solutions, implementation, and enhancing and demonstrating 

the value of research. After joining NHDOT in 1987, 

Roberts served 5 years as a geotechnical engineer before 

assuming his present role in research. His prior experience 

included nearly 6 years in the private sector with United 

Engineers and Constructors, Inc. working as a structural 

and field engineer in the nuclear power plant construction 

industry. Roberts has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of New Hampshire. He is a licensed 

professional engineer and septic system designer in New 

Hampshire and a certified public manager. He serves on 

several committees of AASHTO, TRB, and the New 

England Transportation Consortium.

Eric Wingfield is an internal consultant in Information 

Technology: Strategy and Organizational Development at 

Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, MI. Wingfield focuses 

on organizational learning with an emphasis on developing 

collaboration and improving decisionmaking across Ford. 

In addition, Wingfield is reviewing the future impact of 

transportation infrastructure, information technology, and 

mobility on social and environmental sustainability. In the 

past, Wingfield studied biofuels infrastructure and developed simulations to learn more about the potential impacts 

of biofuels on food availability, transport demand, and 

ecology. Wingfield is a graduate of the University of 

California at Berkeley in civil engineering. He graduated 

from a joint degree program at the University of Michigan 

coordinated by the Erb Institute to bridge issues in environment, society, and business. He earned a master’s degree 

in natural resource, policy, and behavior and a master’s 

of business administration through the program.

J. B. “Butch” Wlaschin is the director of FHWA’s Office 

of Asset Management. He provides national leadership in 

maintaining, operating, and upgrading highway transportation assets efficiently over time. He leads a national effort 

of system management and performance monitoring, 

construction, and system preservation. As an office 

director in the FHWA Office of Infrastructure, Wlaschin 

oversees the coordination of innovation and technology 

programs across Infrastructure. He represents FHWA 

before State and local governments, the business and 

industry community, engineering organizations, and 

academia on transportation asset management. He is 

the secretary of the AASHTO Planning Subcommittee 

on Asset Management and the Highway Subcommittee 

on Construction. Previously, Wlaschin was director of the 

Office of Program Development in the FHWA Office of 

Federal Lands Highway. As a member of the Federal 

Lands leadership team, he was responsible for the development of policies, standards, and fund distribution and 

accountability for the $1.2 billion annual Federal Lands 

program. Wlaschin is a graduate of Lamar University with 

a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. He received a 

master’s degree in geotechnical engineering from Georgia 

Tech. He is a registered professional engineer and a 

member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and 

ASTM International.
1

 Harder, B.T., Transportation Research Program 

Administration International Technology Scanning Program 

Desk Scan, Federal Highway Administration, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

and National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 

Washington, DC, November 2007.

2

 Roine, M., “Setting the Research Agenda, Transport 

Research in Finland,” TRPA scan presentation, ECTRI 

meeting, April 17, 2008.

3

 Prista, L., “Research panorama in Europe, the EU 

System, focus on Transport,” TRPA scan presentation, 

European Union/ERTRAC meetings, April 16, 2008. 

4

 Korean Institute of Construction, TRPA scan 

presentation, KICT meeting, April 25, 2008. 

5

 Ingvarson, H., “The Swedish Way Ahead for Research 

and Innovation,” TRPA scan presentation, Swedish 

programs meetings, April 14, 2008.

6

 Poot, H., “Strategic Knowledge and Innovative Agenda, 

Thinking for Tomorrow,” TRPA scan presentation, DVS 

meeting, April 15, 2008.

7

 Cho, D.Y., “R&D Planning, KICTEP, South Korea,” TRPA 

scan presentation, KICTEP meeting, April 24, 2008.

8

 Godo, H., “MLIT Technology Basic Plan,” TRPA scan 

presentation, MLIT meeting at ITPS, April 21, 2008.

9

 Morichi, S., “Policy Research in an Age of Changes, 

Activities of Institute for Transport Policy Studies,” TRPA 

scan informational handout, ITPS meeting, April 21, 2008.

10 van Houtte, B., “Transport research in FP7 and its policy 

dimensions,” TRPA scan presentation, European Union/

ERTRAC meetings, April 16, 2008.

11 Ingvarson, H., “The Swedish Way Ahead for Research 

and Innovation,” TRPA scan presentation, Swedish 

programs meetings, April 14, 2008.

12 Ueda, S., “An Outline of PWRI,” TRPA scan 

presentation, PWRI meeting, April 22, 2008.

13 Mallejacq, P., “ERA-NET ROAD, Coordination and 

Cross-Border Funding of Road Research in Europe,” 

TRPA scan presentation, European Union/ERTRAC 

meetings, April 16, 2008.

14 Korean Institute of Construction, TRPA scan 

presentation, KICT meeting, April 25, 2008.

15 Godo, H., “MLIT Basic Technology Plan,” TRPA scan 

presentation, MLIT meeting at ITPS, April 21, 2008.

16 Monzon, A., “Conduct of Research at European and 

National Levels,” TRPA scan presentation, ECTRI 

meeting, April 17, 2008.

17 Lundberg, M., “VINN Excellence Center, Centers of 

Excellence in Research and Innovation,” TRPA scan 

presentation, Swedish programs meetings, April 14, 2008, 

and at http://www.vinnova.se/In-English/Activities/

Strong-research-and-innovation-environments/

VINN-Excellence-Center/.

18 Mallejacq, P., “ERA-NET ROAD, Coordination and 

Cross-Border Funding of Road Research in Europe,” 

TRPA scan presentation, European Union/ERTRAC 

meetings, April 16, 2008.

19 Lubeck, L., “Public-Private Partnership in Automotive 

Research, The Swedish Model,” TRPA scan presentation, 

Swedish Automotive Research Program, Swedish 

programs meetings, April 14, 2008.

20 Smit, R., “Conducting the Research Agenda, DVS, 

Center for Transport and Navigation,” TRPA scan 

presentation, Dutch programs meeting, April 15, 2008.

References 63

References
64 Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia

21 “Transportation Research Policy, Ministry of Ecology, 

Energy, Sustainable Development and Territorial 

Development,” TRPA scan presentation, French programs 

meeting, April 18, 2008.

22 Stern, P., “VINNOVA’s Focus on Impact, A Joint 

Approach for Impact Logic Assessment, Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Impact Analysis,” TRPA scan presentation, 

Swedish programs meetings, April 14, 2008.

23 Stern, P., “VINNOVA’S Focus on Impact, A Joint 

Approach for Impact Logic Assessment, Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Impact Analysis,” TRPA scan presentation, 

Swedish programs meetings, April 14, 2008.

24 Stern, P., “VINNOVA’S Focus on Impact, A Joint 

Approach for Impact Logic Assessment, Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Impact Analysis,” TRPA scan presentation, 

Swedish programs meetings, April 14, 2008. Report 

available: VINNOVA’s Focus on Impact—A Joint Approach 

for Impact Logic Assessment, Monitoring, Evaluation, and 

Impact Analysis, VA 2008, Stockholm, Swedish National 

Agency for Innovation Systems.

25 Cho, D.Y., “R&D Planning, KICTEP, South Korea,” TRPA 

scan presentation, KICTEP meeting, April 24, 2008.

26 Kim, T., “R&D Program Management,” TRPA scan 

presentation, KICTEP meeting, April 24, 2008.

27 Krugler, P., M. Walden, B. Hoover, Y. Lin, and S. Tucker, 

“Performance Measurement Tool Box and Reporting 

System for Research Programs and Projects,” NCHRP 

Web Document 127, April 2006, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w127.pdf.

28 Sandstedt, B., “Information management and access, 

VTI’s Library and Information Centre,” TRPA scan 

presentation, Swedish programs meetings, April 14, 2008.

29 CORDIS, the Community Research and Development 

Information Service for Science, Research, and 

Development, http://cordis.europa.eu/guidance/

welcome_en.html.

30 Giannopoulos, G., “Getting research results into 

‘widespread’ practice,” TRPA scan presentation, 

ECTRI meeting, April 17, 2008.

Publication No. FHWA-PL-09-015 HPIP/07-09(3.5)EW

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001

OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636

Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov