Research on Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation for Departments of Transportation

Julie Lorenz Danny Rotert Amy Link Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Kansas City, MO

Joe Crossett High Street Consulting Group, LLC Pittsburgh, PA

Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-108 Submitted February 2018

Web-Only Document 248:

NCHRP

NCHRP Web-Only Document 248:

Research on Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation for Departments of Transportation

Julie Lorenz Danny Rotert

Amy Link Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

Kansas City, MO

Joe Crossett High Street Consulting Group, LLC

Pittsburgh, PA

Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-108

Submitted February 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.

Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.

DISCLAIMER

The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors.

The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-

governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for

outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the

practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.

Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National

Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions

to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,

objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.

The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase

public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing

leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that

is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000

engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all

of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal

agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals

interested in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 248

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Andrew C. Lemer, Senior Program Officer Sheila A. Moore, Program Associate Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Scott E. Hitchcock, Senior Editor Jennifer Correro, Senior Editorial Assistant

NCHRP PROJECT 20-108 PANEL Field of Special Projects

Charlene R. McArthur, Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID (Chair) Socorro "Coco" Briseno, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Rachel L. Bain, Massachusetts DOT, Boston, MA Ghada M. Gad, California State Polytechnic University-Pomona, Pomona, CA Jason J. Siwula, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, KY Llans E. Taylor, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, MO David Kuehn, FHWA Liaison Lloyd Brown, AASHTO Liaison James W. Bryant, Jr., TRB Liaison

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Tables .................................................................................................................................. v

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 – Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 – Research Process ..................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 – Literature Review Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5

Key Themes for Embracing Innovation ................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 – Case Study Survey Summary .................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 – Florida DOT Case Study ............................................................................................................................ 9

6.0 – Innovation Lab Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................14

7.0 – Defining a Culture of Innovation .............................................................................................................16

8.0 – Guide Validation Purpose & Results ........................................................................................................18

Key Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Focus Group Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 19

Addressing Risk ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

Survey Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 22

DOT Roles of Respondents .................................................................................................................................... 22

Survey Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 23

Overall Survey Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 23

9.0 – Implementing the Research ....................................................................................................................24

10.0 – Future Research Opportunities .............................................................................................................26

References ......................................................................................................................................................27

Appendix A – Literature Review References .................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B – Case Study Survey Results........................................................................................................ B-1

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................... C-1

Qualitative Responses to the Building Block Sections ........................................................................................ C-5

Responses to Open-Ended Questions ................................................................................................................. C-6

Recommendations for Improvements ................................................................................................................ C-7

v

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: The NCHRP 20-108 research process. ........................................................................................................ 4

Figure 2: 20-108 Innovation Lab .............................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 3: Examples of transportation-related branding efforts .............................................................................. 24

Table 1: Average Focus Group Rating...................................................................................................................... 19

Table 2: DOT Role of Focus Group Participants. ...................................................................................................... 22

Table 3: Survey Results by Guide Section ................................................................................................................ 23

1

ABSTRACT National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-108 – Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation provides guidance for transportation agency leaders and practitioners who want to build a thriving innovation ethos over the long term. It provides a self-assessment to help you determine where your agency falls on the continuum of innovation efforts, introduces five themes that are necessary to build and sustain a culture of innovation – leadership, communication, empowerment, recognition, and measurement and provides practical examples to help you jump start and sustain your culture of innovation. While many of the principles are applicable to any public or private organization that seeks to embrace innovation, this guide is particularly focused on the unique challenges transportation agencies may encounter as they implement this type of cultural change. The research is based on a literature review, public and private sector case studies and responses from more than 300 transportation professionals.

2

1.0 – OVERVIEW This report summarizes the research process and key findings associated with developing the National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP 20-108 – Guide to Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation (“the Guide”). It also summarizes recommendations for implementing the research.

Presented as a separate document, and at the direction of the NCHRP 20-108 oversight panel, the Guide is designed to be user-friendly, and thus provides a significant number of examples of innovation efforts from state departments of transportation (DOTs), is graphic-rich and is focused on practical, implementable steps related to creating and sustain a culture of innovation.

The purpose of NCHRP 20-108 is to create a guide for creating and sustaining a culture of innovation within state departments of transportation.

3

2.0 – RESEARCH PROCESS The following key components of the research effort were undertaken from the spring of 2016 to the fall of 2017. The research team initially identified Leadership, Empowerment and Collaboration as the key principles of creating and sustaining a culture of innovation. Based on results of the literature review and outreach to the transportation community through an online survey, those initial three principles were refined to form the five building blocks, which make up the guidance: Leadership, Empowerment, Communication, Recognition, and Measurement.

► Literature Review: The research team reviewed more than 50 publications to identify key themes of an innovation culture and the challenges to establishing it. The results of the literature review were used to formulate the questions for a survey distributed to transportation officials. The full literature review is available in Section 3 and citations are provided in Appendix A.

► Case Study Survey Results: More than 300 people responded to the electronic survey from July 28 to August 26, 2016. The research team distributed the case study survey to more than 800 potential recipients, including DOT chief executive officers through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). It was also sent to the following AASHTO Committees: SCOH, RAC, SCOA, SCOE, SCOFA, SCOP, SCOPM, SCOPT, SCORT, and SCOWT. Additionally, it was distributed to the TRB ABC30: Performance Management Committee, TRB ABC 20: Management and Productivity Committee, TRB ABC 10: Strategic Management Committee, State Transportation Innovation Councils, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region’s (PNWER) Innovation Working Group and the Transportation Lean Forum. The research team sent panel members a draft of a transmittal email for them to distribute the survey to anyone of their choosing. The overwhelming majority of respondents (96%) who answered the demographic questions indicated they are employed by transportation agencies. Respondents ranged in age from 28 to 62, were geographically diverse, and represented a variety of disciplines and levels of authority in their respective agencies. In addition to identifying some of the challenges DOTs face as they encourage more innovation, the survey helped identify potential case study organizations. The survey results summarized in Section 4 and complete results are presented in Appendix B.

► 20-108 Innovation Lab: In a unique approach for NCHRP, the research team launched the Innovation Lab website and mobile application (app) to allow users to review and provide input on the research as it unfolded. Through the lab, users could comment on the draft building blocks and case studies articles and offer their own examples of innovation. Notably, a case study about the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was submitted and is presented in Section 5. The Innovation Lab has received 1,339 unique visitors and 3,747 page views since its launch at the TRB Annual Meeting in January 2017. It can be viewed at www.transportationlab.org. Lessons learned from creating a crowdsourcing platform for TRB research are presented Section 6.

► Culture of Innovation Definition: As part of project, the team researched and sought to define “a culture of innovation.” Culture is difficult to define as demonstrated by the literature review results and panel input which provided many different options for how it could be defined. The research team also sought input on the topic in the case study survey – and received 226 different responses for how innovation culture could be defined. At its core, the culture of innovation is about how innovative efforts are achieved in an agency. The most common themes include the following: “A culture of innovation is found in organizations where employees at all levels in an organization work routinely and organically together to propose and implement new approaches for achieving desired organizational outcomes [regardless of magnitude]. Workplaces that

4

foster a culture of innovation believe innovation is not only for top leadership, but can come from anyone in the organization.” For more information on defining a culture of innovation, see Section 7.

► Guide Validation Plan: To assess the effectiveness of the draft guide, focus group webinars were conductedwith California, Massachusetts and Nebraska DOTs. Participants, which included DOT executives, innovationteam leaders and influential team members, reviewed the guide in advance of the focus group and thenwere asked a series of questions to evaluate the guide’s effectiveness during the webinar. To gather moreinput on the draft guide, an online survey was distributed to 300 members of the project’s community ofinterest. The survey was available from June 8, 2017 to August 3, 2017. Recipients had the opportunity torespond to a survey about the entire guide or to offer feedback on certain sections of the guide. Theresearch team received 20 responses to the surveys. For more information about the focus group findingsand an overview of the survey results, see Section 8. Detailed responses to the survey are presented inAppendix C.

► Implementing the Research: To maximize the value of the guide, the information team has developed aseries of recommendations for implementing the research. For more about these recommendations, seeSection 9.

► Future Research Opportunities: Based on input from case studies, surveys and focus groups, the researchteam has identified future research topics for consideration. For more about future research opportunities,see Section 10.

The graphic in Figure 1 depicts the NCHRP 20-108 research process which combined a traditional approach of literature review, case studies and guide validation supported by more innovative approaches like an electronic survey and an open research space delivered via Innovation Lab, a website and mobile app.

Figure 1: The NCHRP 20-108 research process.

5

3.0 – LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY The research team conducted a literature review to assess the current state of innovation across the public and private sectors and inform the development of the Transportation Innovation Lab modules, which are organized around leadership, collaboration, and empowerment. This section highlights specific areas where the research suggests adjustments should be made to the module content.

In general, the findings from the literature review supported the team’s original approach. However, as a result of the research, the team recommended expanding the scope of several modules and adding one new module: Leadership – Process Definition. These changes are highlighted in the “before” and “after” graphics on the next two pages. Those graphics are followed by a summary of the literature the team reviewed, organized by module. It should be noted that several organizations and sources provided content that informed more than one module. The complete list of literature review references is presented in Appendix A.

Key Themes for Embracing Innovation

LEADERSHIP

► Be willing to commit to a long-term strategy.

► Make the case for change.

► Define innovation, and be clear it can be found at all levels.

► Create a name brand for the agency-wide initiative.

► Protect the dissenters. ► Track innovations and use metrics.

COLLABORATION

► Include stakeholders and partners beyond the agency.

► Explore ways to cultivate and gather ideas from diverse sources.

EMPOWERMENT

► Decentralize decision making.

► Make innovation part of performance reviews.

► Push employees to escape self-limitations, such as “we’ve always done it this way.”

► Give employees the tools they need to be successful.

► Give employees a safe environment to try … and fail.

► Give employees the freedom to pursue other interests.

PUBLICATION TYPES

24 Journals

18 Websites

7 Studies/Books/Reports

3 Newsletters/Blogs

6

4.0 – CASE STUDY SURVEY SUMMARY More than 300 respondents responded to the electronic survey from July 28 to August 26. The overwhelming majority of respondents (96%) who answered the demographic questions indicated that they are employed by transportation agencies. Respondents ranged in age from 28 to 62, were geographically diverse, and represented a variety of disciplines and levels of authority in their respective agencies

Thanks in large part to the efforts of the NCHRP 20-108 panel, this survey was distributed to more than 800 potential recipients, including DOT CEOs through the AASHTO. It was also sent to the following AASHTO Committees: SCOH, RAC, SCOA, SCOE, SCOFA, SCOP, SCOPM, SCOPT, SCORT, and SCOWT. Additionally, it was distributed to the TRB ABC30: Performance Management Committee, TRB ABC 20: Management and Productivity Committee, State Transportation Innovation Councils, the PNWER Innovation Working Group and the Transportation Lean Forum. In addition, survey recipients, NCHRP 20-108’s panel members and the research team were encouraged to forward the survey to anyone they felt might be interested, including individuals outside of the transportation industry, which is why approximately three percent of respondents came from different fields.

Below is a summary of key themes that emerged from the respondents’ answers and how these themes connect to the literature review and guidance modules that were initially proposed. Quotes from the surveys are also provided in blue to illustrate the relative strength of these themes. The full results of the survey are presented in Appendix B.

► Employees need more time to devote to innovative pursuits.

Not surprisingly, 48 percent of survey respondents indicated that being too busy managing day-to-day activities precluded them from being able to make significant innovative changes. Lack of funding to pursue the talent or equipment needed came in second at 18 percent.

LITERATURE REVIEW CONNECTION: Multiple articles allude to a lack of time, including the Lowe and Dominiquini reference in their 2006 article for the Strategy & Leadership Journal, in which they surveyed 550 companies. The authors addressed six major obstacles, including: short-term focus; lack of time, resources or staff; leadership expecting payoff sooner than is realistic; management incentives not structured to reward innovation; lack of a systematic innovation process; belief that innovation is inherently risky.

“A culture of innovation encourages new ideas, allows room and time to try new ways of doing things, does not punish failed attempts but looks at them as experiments and learning experiences, listens to multiple perspectives, and tests ideas to determine their merit, even if they challenge the conventional wisdom.”

“Promotion of innovation by upper management and freedom (and TIME) for employees to explore new methods, ideas, etc. This seems to be easier implemented in the private sector than it does in the public sector, as State government in particular seems to have much more restrictions, red tape, etc. Plus at [our agency], we are so busy with the whirlwind of day to day required procedures, job duties, etc. that it seems we have little time to devote to exploring new methods or innovative ideas.” of doing things, does not punish failed attempts but looks at them as experiments and learning experiences, listens to multiple perspectives, and tests ideas to determine their merit, even if they challenge the conventional wisdom.”

7

MODULE CONNECTION: EMPOWERMENT | Google 20%

► Employees need to feel that failure will be tolerated and that leadership will be supportive of them trying new approaches:

Many respondents expressed that not all innovative ideas and approaches will ultimately pan out. Employees need to feel they will be supported regardless of the outcome if employers want them to continue to suggest and pursue new approaches. In the case study survey, 226 responses were provided with thoughts on how to define a culture of innovation. Seventeen of those comments specifically mentioned the need for management to accept failure or provide support for employees who fear repercussions for failure. Similarly, thirteen comments referenced the importance of being able to take or manage reasonable risks.

LITERATURE REVIEW CONNECTION: Multiple articles discuss the importance of allowing organizations to fail. For example, Smart Growth America’s The Innovative DOT notes that innovative DOTs understand that risk and failure are necessary components of innovation. According to the report, this concept is illustrated by Minnesota DOT’s (MnDOT’s) value to “Be Bold,” which includes the statement: “I take risks and accept failure. I will use my failures to identify ways to get better.”

MODULE CONNECTION: LEADERSHIP | Managing Risk

► Organizations can influence innovation by rewarding employees and implementing an agency-wide initiative to highlight its importance.

In the survey, the two most highly rated activities for influencing the establishment of an innovative culture were creating an agency-wide initiative to educate people about why innovation is important (2.53 weighted average out of 4) and rewarding employees/departments that produce innovative results (2.49 weighted average out of 4). In response to the question about what activities would be most influential in helping organizations become more innovative, survey participants listed creating an agency-wide initiative that would educate employees on why innovation is important and generate buy-in among employees. Additionally, there were several survey comments which described in greater detail that being able to monetarily reward or even just recognize employees who made significant innovative contributions would be very beneficial for creating a positive change in their organizations.

“A culture of innovation is one where innovation is encouraged, recognized and rewarded while measured risk is tolerated and failure related to innovation is seen as a key to moving forward.”

“An organization that is focused on continuous improvement where everyone is open to new ideas, provides critical resources, and understands that failure is part of the process.”

“An environment where employees feel free to bring ideas to the table and not afraid to try them out. The organization realizes that employees may fail but encourages the efforts.”

“Creativity is valued and rewarded. People are satisfied with simply doing their jobs efficiently but strive to improve the manner in which work is done. Don’t take current objective and standard operational procedures as a given but rather challenge them.”

“A public sector organization whose leadership encourages and "rewards" ideas, suggestions and pilot projects that deliver public services in a more contemporary fashion, and whose leaders are not afraid to invest in new ideas that may not work.”

8

INNOVATION THE LAY OF THE DOT LANDSCAPE

► More than 60 percent of respondents indicated that they did not have any metrics in place to track innovation.

This trend is notable because agencies need metrics or performance measures if they are going to be able to reward employees. Additionally, it would be very difficult to implement an agency-wide initiative that did not feature some way to track how the agency is progressing in order to continue to cultivate employee buy-in. The research team will seek ideas and input from the case studies about how they or others track innovation.

► Highway construction, traffic operations, research and highway maintenance received the highest marks (2.30 or above weighted average out of 4) for being innovative among respondents.

It is worth noting that these areas have seen many advances in technology in recent years, which may have influenced responses. Additionally, this may be an area for the research team to investigate further as it seeks input through the Transportation Innovation Lab.

SURVEY RESPONDENTS VERY ENGAGED

There is strong interest in the topic of innovation, as noted by the more than 300 respondents to the survey and the fact that over 77 percent of respondents expressed an interest in being part of a pilot program for this project. Through the survey, the research team was able to gather the contact information for more than 180 transportation officials that have interest in this project, which will serve as the audience for seeking input on the guidance materials.

9

5.0 – FLORIDA DOT CASE STUDY The following case study was submitted through the Innovation Lab website: www.transportationlab.org in response to the research team’s requests for examples from other states. Note: The information is presented as it was submitted.

FDOT Moving Forward as One: A Case Study By Dr. Gregory Ferris, Ed D.

HOW IT STARTED

It didn’t take the Secretary long to realize his appointment as leader of the FDOT was going to be one of the bigger challenges he had faced in his professional career. State employees in Florida had not seen a pay raise in six years; the state legislature had decided to place a larger responsibility on employee contribution to their health care; the retirement system was being revamped and job reductions in the workforce were ongoing. These actions and others had reduced morale to an all-time low. In essence, the morale of state employees had bottomed out. The FDOT was also struggling in an attempt to gain increased funding for infrastructure construction. Realizing the critical circumstances and the negative impact of low morale, the Secretary reviewed the infrastructure of the agency, human resource policies and sought the input of others. The conclusion he reached was that inconsistencies permeated the agency and there was little effort to maximize input from human capital. FDOT needed to turn the corner with a significant change in the culture and consistency in policies. In short, Secretary moved forward with a plan for the agency to be a … bold, innovative roadmap for the future which will provide the most advanced and effective transportation in the country. In October 2011, the Secretary announced the plan for stepping up:

► The approach would be centralized control policy by the executive team with decentralized execution in the Districts,

► Consistent, predictable and repeatable (CPR) change and work actions would be used by the agency,

► Interactions within the agency should demonstrate consideration of others, professionalism and respectfulness with each other (CPR²). (CPR² was introduced during the second annual Step Up meeting)

► The workplace culture of Step Up with bold actions, innovative ideas and inspirational communication - would be embedded in the agency.

The communication was powerful if somewhat overwhelming. Responses ranged from full acceptance to the plan to resistance from scattered comments. However, the consensus of employees welcomed inclusion in the functions of the agency. What was found most interesting, FDOT inadvertently backed into a full-blown employee engagement practice. The following story will provide you with an overview of the three phases used, how Step Up is the realization and practice of employee engagement and the success stories that emerged.

10

PHASE I: COMMUNICATION FROM THE START — CREATING AWARENESS & UNDERSTANDING

In successful change initiatives communication is what brings the change to light. The Secretary initially moved forward with his plan using sense of urgency discussions with his immediate leadership team. Onboarding the team was critical to gain support and commitment to Step Up and the beginning of a communication plan. The Secretary then called a Step Up Workshop meeting with his top one hundred seventy executives and cost-center managers. The one-day meeting was entitled Step Up I - Raising FDOT’s Batting Average. Throughout the workshop, the Secretary repeatedly articulated the change focus and actions necessary to move forward as one FDOT. His communication of thinking boldly with innovative ideas and inspirational communication was the plan of action. Secondly, actions should be CPR, followed by behavioral expectations. Interestingly enough, during the meeting the Secretary asked all employees to submit innovative ideas to him. His challenge was met with over 1200 ideas! A statewide “Innovators! Team” was then created to review the ideas, select the doable ideas and then push the ideation forward for approval. The Innovators! Team later organized a process for submission of ideas, follow through and feedback.

Capturing the enthusiasm from the workshop meeting, the Secretary traveled to each of the eight Districts, as well as central office, delivering sense of urgency communication in Town Hall meetings. Each meeting always concluded with Question & Answer. The Secretary also utilized webinars as a change of pace and a means to further disseminate Step Up information and practices. Transparency was delivered as well as impactful listening skills applied.

The first year of Step Up moved slowly as the new language and practice of Step Up began to penetrate the upper level of the agency. It was important that FDOT leadership understand the focus and direction of the agency. Getting buy-in, identifying influencers and potential champions of Step Up dominated the communication. Even though the overwhelmed remained vocal in the workplace, quietly resisting the culture shift of Step Up, the Secretary persisted in challenging the as is with a to be persuasion.

Twelve months later, the Secretary scheduled another one-day workshop meeting, with the same participants, entitled, Step Up II – Every Step Begins with Me! The intent of this meeting was to further drill down to the individual level. The Secretary indicated that progress was being made after one year, but there was still a long way to go. Getting the message out consistently, helping others understand the message and getting everyone to do something with ideas remained the issue. He continued to emphasize that every level of leadership communicating Step Up should be the same everywhere within the agency; Step Up is not a choice but the way we do business and the message should be delivered with conviction and enthusiasm. The challenge in the workshop meeting was placed in a question format: How have you made Step Up a reality in your area? What are the benefits of Step Up? How are you being accountable to Step Up? A real plus to the meeting was the introduction of the Step Up Resource Bank. During the second meeting, a presentation was made on the resources created and available in the Step Up Resource Bank. Although limited in volume, the resources represented a start for leaders to use for team meeting starters and short presentations with larger groups of managers and supervisors.

11

PHASE II: GAINING TRACTION

Two years of Step Up at FDOT passed quickly. Ongoing Step Up dialogues and practices continued to grow with sustainable workplace actions. Step Up Town Hall meetings flourished in the Districts and Central Office. Daily communications included Step Up results and forward-thinking actions. The Innovators! Team tackled some big ticketed innovation ideas and turned them into workplace applications.

In the beginning of Phase II, Step Up drill down meetings was conducted in each District and Headquarters. The intent of the interactive meetings was to further communicate Step Up and recognize the efforts of those employees who had stepped up. The communication of Step Up was broader in reach and comprehensive in content. Along with managers in the earlier FDOT meeting, additional managers and supervisors were also in attendance. The impact of Step Up growth and commitment was clearly communicated in the meetings.

Clearly, the original intent of Step Up was to encourage all FDOT employees to be bold in thinking, generate innovative ideas and share inspirational communication. Entering into the third year FDOT leadership team realized that Step Up was an approach to engage employees. FDOT had produced an employee engagement practice that was using innovation as the key driver. A positive turbulence surfaced that was beginning to impact the agency. The language of Step Up had broadened to include the need to refine the culture and clearly explain how Step Up is the vehicle for employee engagement and innovation.

PHASE III: TAKING OWNERSHIP OF YOUR WORK

FDOT was quickly learning that giving employees ownership of their work accelerated communication and the practice of engaging employees. Prior to the third annual Step Up meeting, the Secretary released information that the agency had reached a milestone in goals achievement and there was a 10% upswing in the recent employee satisfaction survey. Recognition was delivered throughout FDOT with a cross-section of communication tools. Each message consistently acknowledged employees for their commitment and performance in the agency.

The annual Step Up meeting, attended by the same participants, provided the opportunity to summarize the Step Up progress and recognize engaging actions by employees. The meeting was entitled, Step Up III - Making a Difference & Owning Your Work. The meeting began when the Secretary gave his State of the Step Up Union address. He was enthusiastic in his remarks and gave extensive recognition to the achievements of the agency followed by a comment that struck a positive tone: It’s all about you! The Secretary’s sincerity brought smiles upon faces and a feeling of work satisfaction.

A pilot employee engagement survey was conducted prior to the meeting with the results reported to participants. Interestingly enough, participant feedback was mixed to the data reported. The data identified served two purposes: the realization that there is a difference between employee satisfaction and employee engagement, and secondly, the need to gather feedback to generate an eventual FDOT employee engagement survey. At the same time Step Up resource development was in full production. One of the resources presented, Mapping a Course to Success, was introduced. The resource takes participants through an employee engagement gap and disconnection gap. It explains how to engage employees, essential leadership behavior and then crossing the performance bridge to success.

Continued Step Up communication followed the annual meeting along with identifying specific resources to support Step Up meetings. The resources were categorized under the following areas:

► Readings: Books and Articles

► Stepping Up Ideas and Tools

12

► Power Sessions (See Fig. 1 for list of the 12 Power Session topics)

► Videos

► Step Up Posters, Pictures and Meeting Starters

► Materials from the Annual Statewide Step Up Meetings

The next step in Phase III was to generate communication to fully align all FDOT employees to the Step Up principles of being bold, generating innovative ideas and inspirational communication. Up to this point, the three statewide meetings were dedicated to the management level to create the awareness and understanding that would lead to engaging employees in Step Up practices. The fourth Step Up meeting represented the culmination of the Step Up learning curve. The intent of the meeting was to formally take Step Up to the front line. It would be the opportunity to engage the head, heart and hands of all employees and embed employee engagement as the work culture practice.

The planning for the fourth annual Step Up meeting required an intensive effort to develop twelve Power Sessions, (see Fig 1) each having one hour duration, for team and department meetings and the selection of five employee engagement drivers that would be used in the development of the employee engagement survey questions. The survey would be sent to all employees prior to the meeting; and equally important was the need to develop a presentation that would rejuvenate the Innovators! Team effort. Even before the scheduled meeting, meeting, content teasers were sent to the same participants. The purpose was to generate enthusiasm, build curiosity and assure participants that the Step Up meeting would be interactive. The title and focus of the meeting was Step Up IV – Putting Step Up into Power Drive.

The meeting started with a bang! The Secretary recognized a year of goal achievement and remarked on the total efforts of all employees. Participants were then engaged in two interactive Power Sessions. A guest speaker, from the private sector, spoke on getting employees on the same page. Then short videos clips on employee engagement were shown and a simulation was used closely related to the game show Jeopardy. Next, feedback from the engagement survey reported areas in need of strengthening. Finally, a presentation was given entitled, Innovating How FDOT Innovates. The presenter challenged participants to Free the Idea Monkeys

13

— identify employees who have bold and innovative ideas, implement idea campaigns, establish innovation incubators in each District and central office; and finally, redefine the statewide Innovators! Team by broadening their role and responsibility. The presentation had a tremendous impact on the participants. The room was full of excitement and laughter with participants ready to increasingly Step Up to the challenge of engaging the front line.

Currently FDOT, continues to find ways to manage the energy of engaging employees who are bold, offer innovative ideas and inspirational communication. The innovation incubators are being developed and implemented. The incubators present the opportunity maintain the innovation focus and the greater possibility that FDOT will eventually become an innovation community. A new social media feature is in the offing that would invite leaders to share ideas and successes in engaging employees.

YOU CAN HOLD ON OR LET GO AND MOVE ON

Organizations that have successfully made innovation part of their strategy did so by capturing the creative energies and the powerful insights of their employees. The Secretary’s intent to replace low morale with engaging action(s) was the springboard for engaging employees in innovative thinking. The Step Up culture re-channeled the energy of employees into a work culture that helped them be part of something big, the chance to make a difference, do meaningful work and belong to an engaging workplace. The Secretary’s challenge to fulfill the capacity of the agency remains ongoing- an idea only gets you to a better idea. To be sure, the leadership provided by the Secretary is…more than just task accomplishment, it’s about helping employees realize their potential.

14

6.0 – INNOVATION LAB LESSONS LEARNED In January 2017, the research team launched the Innovation Lab website, www.transportationlab.org, and mobile application to allow transportation officials to contribute to the research as it unfolded. Through the survey effort, more than 100 transportation officials registered receive email updates on the research progress. This group formed the project’s community of interest. The research team sent an email on January 17, 2017 encouraging the community members to view the website. In addition, a letter was sent to all CEOs of DOTs from Idaho Transportation Director Brian Ness on the research team’s behalf encouraging them to refer their staffs to the site. The research team continued to contact the group throughout the project to make them aware of new content added and to encourage them to submit their own examples of innovative efforts. A case study about Florida DOT experiences and example an innovation challenge from the Nebraska DOT were submitted through the website. Crowdsourcing research and allowing users to see the research as it is developed represented a new approach for an NCHRP-sponsored project. The following points summarize the lessons learned from using this new approach.

► Strong interest in website, though research team needed to be clearer about how users could contribute to it. With more than 3,700 hits, there was significant interest in the website. However, requests for comments on posts or submitting innovation examples may not have been clear enough as evidenced by the ongoing struggle to gather contributions to the site. Given that this is a new approach for TRB, there may be a bit of learning curve for the transportation community to become comfortable commenting on research publicly. In hindsight, the research team could have clearer in emails to the community of interest that submitting examples was encouraged and how to do so. The NCHRP 20-108 panel also noted that it is important not to “burn out” users by sending too many emails and suggested exploring other outreach tools to generate more contributions to the research.

► Need to appeal to younger audience to increase interest in apps. There were only 32 downloads of the Innovation Lab app. However, apps tend to appeal most to younger audiences. The research team did not target younger transportation officials. If apps are developed in the future, the research team may need to reach out to younger audiences to make the effort worthwhile.

The screenshot in Figure 2 shows how users could contribute to the research by making suggestions, posting comments or submitting their own examples on the Innovation Lab website: www.transportationlab.org

15

Figure 2: 20-108 Innovation Lab

16

7.0 – DEFINING A CULTURE OF INNOVATION One of the tasks of the NCHRP 20-108 project was to craft a succinct definition of “culture of innovation.” That task has proven to be very difficult. The research team received more than 225 responses to the question “What does a culture of innovation means within a transportation agency environment?” (see survey responses, Appendix B) and an internet search of “corporate culture” yields a “featured snippet” definition and links to some 25 million “hits.” The snippet provides a workable explanation that relies on readers’ intuitive understanding of other words (such as “beliefs,” “traits”) that share with “culture” a fuzziness and context-dependence that challenges explicit comprehensive description:

Corporate culture refers to the beliefs and behaviors that determine how a company's employees and management interact and handle outside business transactions. Often, corporate culture is implied, not expressly defined, and develops organically over time from the cumulative traits of the people the company hires. (www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporate-culture.asp)

Much like John Coleman below, the research team proposes emphasizing components or themes of an innovation culture based on research as well as the survey responses. Within the Guide, the team explains that a culture of innovation is found in organizations where employees at all levels in an organization work routinely and organically together to propose and implement new approaches for achieving desired organizational outcomes [regardless of magnitude]. Workplaces that foster a culture of innovation believe innovation is not only for top leadership, but can come from anyone in the organization. In the Harvard Business Review article by prolific business writer John Coleman, (“Six Components of a Great Corporate Culture,” https://hbr.org/2013/05/six-components-of-culture), identifies six components of “great” cultures and asserts isolating these elements can be a first step to building a “differentiated culture and lasting organization.” Those components include:

1. Vision: A great culture starts with a vision or mission statement to guide a company’s values and provide it with purpose. Compelling vision statements can help orient customers and other stakeholders understand the organization quickly and comprehensively. The Alzheimer’s Association, for example, is dedicated to “a world without Alzheimer’s.” A vision statement is a simple but foundational element of culture.

2. Values: A company’s values are the core of its culture. While a vision articulates a company’s purpose, values offer guidance on behaviors and mindsets needed to achieve that vision. For example, Google’s values might be best articulated by its famous phrase, “Don’t be evil.” Values are often best conveyed around a few simple topics (employees, clients, professionalism, etc.). The stated mission and values can only be fundamental parts of culture if they are authentically stated.

3. Practices: If vision and values speak to the “why” of an organization, practices speak to the “how.” For example, if an organization values “flat” hierarchy, it must encourage more junior staff to speak openly without fear or negative repercussions. And whatever an organization’s values, they must be reinforced in performance reviews and be included in daily operating principles.

4. People: Coherent cultures are built upon people who share its core values or possess the willingness and ability to embrace those values. Not only do people stick with cultures they like, bringing on the right “culture carriers” reinforces the culture an organization already has.

5. Narrative: Crafting the story of an organization is a key step in creating culture. The elements of the narrative can be formal — like Coca-Cola, which dedicates significant resources to celebrating its heritage and even has a World of Coke museum in Atlanta — or informal, like those stories about how Steve Jobs’

17

early fascination with calligraphy shaped the aesthetically oriented culture at Apple. Organization lore is more powerful when identified and retold as a part of a firm’s ongoing culture.

6. Place: From the office environment of Pixar with a huge open atrium where employees informally run into each other during the day to tech firms clustering in Silicon Valley and financial firms clustering in London and New York, it’s clear that place shapes culture. Open architecture supports collaboration. Certain cities and countries have local cultures that can support the culture a firm is trying to create. The values and behaviors of employees, and thus culture, is impacted by place — including geography, architecture, and aesthetic design.

18

8.0 – GUIDE VALIDATION PURPOSE & RESULTS This validation study presents feedback from employees at DOTs who reviewed a draft version of the Guide to Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation within Departments of Transportation, which was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-108. The guide is a resource to help DOTs evaluate where they may be on the path to an innovative culture, and provides a springboard of ideas to help them take their organizations to the next level, no matter where they are on the path. The purpose of the validation study is to ensure that information in the guide is as complete, accurate, and organized as possible to meet users’ needs.

The research team gathered feedback about the guide from DOTs via three focus group sessions and an online survey. Overall, comments indicate that people are using the guide in a very practical way – as a workbook of sorts – and they would like more usability features to support that concept. They would also like supporting job aids and training tools to help spur as well as anchor innovation culture changes. Participants especially valued the self-assessment and case studies in the guide, and would like to see where peer organizations are on the maturity scale of developing a culture of innovation. There is also an interest in understanding how others have navigated political factors in building a culture of innovation and how they are motivating front-line employees, empowering employees at all levels of the organization, cutting out the noise of daily operations, and maintaining the momentum of culture change. They would like more guidance and best practices on how to evaluate and prioritize pilot projects and determine what is a good idea and what is not.

Overall, there is agreement that this guide outlines important steps that will help lead to and sustain a culture of innovation.

Key Findings The validation study findings are based on 20 survey responses and three focus group sessions with staff at Caltrans, Massachusetts DOT, and Nebraska DOT. Key findings include:

► The Innovation Guide provides useful information for agencies seeking to sustain innovation efforts and take their efforts “to the next level.”

► The Self-Assessment and Case Study sections in the guide generally meet reviewers’ expectations.

► Reviewers want information distilled via layout techniques such as color-coded sections that match the self-assessment, call-out boxes, charts, and bulleted lists.

► Appendices should be a separate document so the guide is a more approachable length, and the Literature Review should go in an appendix.

► Examples are helpful and should not be buried in the appendix. In particular, respondents would like to see more examples from state DOTs.

19

Focus Group Findings The research team conducted a series of hour-long focus groups to review and discuss the guide content and usability with a diverse set of DOTs, including Massachusetts DOT (MassDOT), Nebraska DOT (NDOT), and California DOT (Caltrans). They were selected to represent a diversity of geographic regions, organizational scales, and levels of maturity in developing an innovation culture. Each focus group was comprised of five to seven representatives from a single DOT, with representatives from each of the following three employee categories:

1. DOT executives and leadership - People who are responsible for setting goals and strategy for the organization.

2. Innovation team leaders - People who are tasked with leading change efforts related to building an innovative culture.

3. Influential team members - People who are not directly responsible for leading the change efforts, but have influence within the organization.

These categories were identified as the target audiences for the guide. Information collected in the sessions was qualitative in nature, focusing on reactions to the content in the guide.

WHAT THEY LIKED MOST

Focus group question: What did you like most about the guide? How would you rate the guide on a scale of 1 to 10? (10 being the best).

Most of the participants indicated that they liked the straightforward nature of the guide. The layout was “easy to follow,” they “got a lot out of it,” and it “laid out a clear path on how to move forward.” One user noted that “the guide makes it sound like putting a culture of innovation in place is easy.”

Table 1 shows the average rating in each of the focus groups.

Caltrans MassDOT NDOT

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, how would you rate the guide?

6.5* 7.3 8

Table 1: Average Focus Group Rating.

*Only two of the Caltrans participants opted to give the guide a rating. The others had not read the entire guide and were uncomfortable rating it at that point.

Specific Responses for Most-Liked Sections

► “The guide is intuitive and the sections were directly accessible. Information is easy to follow and the content is interrelated. The organization is good.”

► “Perfect level of depth, yet succinct with good steps forward.”

► “Helpful culture change ideas and useful stories about successes in other states.”

20

WHAT WAS MOST/LEAST HELPFUL

Focus group question: What section(s) stood out to you as being helpful, and which one(s) did you find less useful or relevant to your organization? The areas rated most helpful were the Self-Assessment and Getting Started. These sections helped respondents understand how they may be progressing in the development of an innovative culture and focus on areas of the guide that would be most helpful to them.

The areas rated least helpful were the case studies and some of the examples. One respondent noted that while organizations like Google are widely viewed as pillars of innovation, they wanted to hear specific case studies from DOTs. As one person noted, “the most helpful areas were the examples from the other agencies, because DOTs can better relate to each other.”

Specific Responses for Most Helpful and Less Helpful Sections

► “Liked the How to Get Started section, agency examples, and quantity of easy-to-apply ideas.”

► “More information needed on risk management and addressing how DOTs are risk averse.”

► “Measuring success of programs is good and you can communicate that.”

► “Liked the lessons learned, timeline to get traction, good public/private contrast and story.”

► “Liked comparing experiences between states.”

► “Using it as a training tool would be good. The total document is overwhelming in size.”

► “Measurement is work, how much is ROI is not as valuable to innovators because it could become an impediment to culture change.”

► “DOT salary levels are a barrier to attraction of innovators.”

► “Survey in the back didn’t hit home.”

► “We want to accept failure as part of the process but it has to be acceptable down the ranks. That’s currently a barrier.”

► “Have a governance structure where leaders can evaluate and propose ideas.”

► “Good communication (is needed) so each person knows why their innovation ideas are adopted or denied.”

► “Discuss continuum of innovation idea generation

− Create space for rapid incremental changes

− Crowdsourcing ideas doesn’t work. Enable small groups to undertake 6–12 month efforts to recoup so that ideas are sustainable

− Create a value index tool with factors like time, cost savings”

21

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

Focus group question: If you could make one improvement to the guide, what would you suggest? Many respondents commented on the length and format of the report. They said that while they felt the information was useful, the 120-page document was intimidating. Several participants recommended that the appendix be a separate volume. They particularly wanted to learn more about what others are doing.

They also asked to see more page layout features that would make it easy to read and highlight key information, such as call-out boxes, charts, and bulleted lists to distill the information further. Many respondents commented that they would like to take notes in the guide and would prefer more white space or wider margins for that purpose. Another suggestion was to add discussion materials into the guide that managers at different levels could use to facilitate conversations with employees about innovation and potential process improvements.

Specific Responses for Suggested Improvements

► “What are other states doing for their employees?”

► “More clarity about private and public sector.”

INFORMATION ON BARRIERS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Survey respondents recommended adding more information about the barriers to innovation and more about some of the lessons learned from innovators. How would this information help you in applying the guide? A constant theme throughout the focus groups was that people want to hear more about what is being achieved at other state DOTs. This type of information would help mitigate the risk of trying innovations and allow employees to see potential return on investment while empowering them to act.

Specific Responses for Barriers and Lessons Learned

► “Discuss political barriers such as how you overcome some of the external barriers.”

► “DOTs have huge legacy commitments that are a drag on innovation.”

► “Look at organizations that have made more aggressive, larger scope innovations such as Affordable Care Act Implementation, 18F, US Digital Service.”

OVERALL EVALUATION

Many participants had no specific comment about the work, but commented on the usefulness of the guide and how they wanted to use the information at their own organization or spend more time reading the research and source materials in the reference section.

Addressing Risk After the initial focus group discussion, the research team added the following questions for subsequent focus groups:

Being more innovative involves taking risks, which can be challenging in the public sector. Do you think the guidance adequately addresses the need for and challenges associated with risk taking? How could it be expanded?

22

Deciding when and where to take risks is an integral part of the innovation process. While the guide addresses this subject, a few participants felt there could be more information on this topic and that it could be presented in a slightly different way. One respondent noted:

“Risk taking should be presented in the context of what aspect of the business it may impact. For instance, an internal innovation that requires a financial investment is managed differently than an innovation that affects public transportation. Having led a team involved in the Fast 14 project (replacing 14 bridges in 12 weekends on a road that carries 250,000 cars a day) requires buy-in from a much larger group of people, from the agency head, to the public, the legislature, and even the Governor. Risk management strategies need to be tailored to the context.”

Survey Results To gather additional input that would help validate the guide’s usefulness, the research team developed a survey that covered the entire guide, as well as a survey that allowed respondents to provide input on specific sections. This approach was used to capture more feedback in case individuals were unable to review the entire guide. The research team sent an email with a link to the survey to approximately 300 transportation officials in the project’s community of interest, which was comprised of individuals who had responded to the first online survey. The survey was available from June 8 to August 3, 2017.

DOT Roles of Respondents The research team recognized that staff with various roles would find different elements of the guide useful, so they asked participants to respond only to survey sections that were relevant to their roles in their DOTs. For this reason, not every respondent completed every section of the survey.

Survey respondents were asked to categorize themselves in one of three possible roles, which were presented as the target audience in the guide. Those roles and the number of respondents are provided in Table 2.

DOT Role # of Respondents

DOT Executives and Leadership People responsible for setting goals and strategy of organization.

5

Innovation Team Leaders People tasked with leading change efforts in terms of innovative culture.

4

Influential Team Members People not directly responsible for leading change efforts, but who have influence in the organization.

2

Table 2: DOT Role of Focus Group Participants.

23

Survey Design The five modules in the draft guide (Leadership, Communication, Empowerment, Recognition, Measurement) were each assessed with questions designed to measure the following concerns:

1. Value of content.

a. Content presented new information?

b. Suggestions were helpful?

2. Relevance of content to size/type of respondent’s organization.

a. Information would be helpful in sustaining an innovative culture at my site?

3. Ease of use.

a. Information was easy to read?

b. Information was presented in a logical way?

4. Potential impact of suggestions.

a. Suggestions would have positive impact at my site if they were put into action?

b. My site is already putting a number of these suggestions into action?

Overall Survey Findings DOT staff feedback on the guide was positive. The following tables show the percentage of survey respondents who agreed or slightly agreed with the statement about that section of the guide.

The team received 3 responses to the Introduction/Self-Assessment sectional survey, 4 responses to the Innovation 101 sectional survey, and 13 responses to the survey that covered the entire guide. The results displayed in Table 3 combine the responses of all three surveys.

Introduction Self-Assessment Innovation 101

The information was easy to read. 100% 100% 100%

The information was presented in a logical way. 94% 100% 100%

The description of the purpose of this section makes sense.

94% 100% N/A

The introduction tells me how to use the guide. 81% N/A N/A

The description of how to use self-assessment results makes sense.

N/A 100% N/A

The self-assessment results accurately reflect my organization.

N/A 100% N/A

The content provided me with new information N/A N/A 82%

Table 3: Survey Results by Guide Section

24

9.0 – IMPLEMENTING THE RESEARCH The research team recommends the following actions to maximize the value of the guide.

RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP INNOVATION LAB BRANDING

Most transportation practitioners are not aware of NCHRP’s research and guidance on creating and sustaining a culture of innovation. A basic branding effort would help connect the Guide and any subsequent products on a wide scale with practitioners.

An innovation brand would include a name, a creative logo, a distinctive typeface, a uniform color palette and a compelling tag line. These elements would come together to create a brand image for everyone who interacts with this product from NCHRP. Each one of those facets individually is part of the innovation brand—and together they solidify the brand. Every user who sees and interacts with these brand pieces will begin to connect those pieces with the Guide and NCHRP as a key innovation culture resource. These principles have been put into practice on other transportation-themed projects, including NCHRP’s Foresight series and the FHWA/SHRP2 PlanWorks series. Awareness building with an initial specific look and feel has already been launched via the Transportation Lab website (www.transportationlab.org).

RECOMMENDATION: MAXIMIZE VALUE OF NCHRP’S INNOVATION LAB WEBSITE

One of the research project’s deliverables is a static website that highlights key research findings, but the website also provides opportunities for future enhancement and integration with other communication channels to help spread word about the Guide.

In the future, the research team suggests the website become a dedicated home for NCHRP’s broader innovation efforts, where it is interwoven with other communication channels. It would become a place on the Web where audiences can follow up on snippets of information they receive via other communication mechanisms, like email blasts, conference presentations, webinars, or web videos. The website’s design would reinforce the branding identity of the research as a general resource for information about innovation among state DOTs. As a rule of thumb, content on the site would be designed to stay fresh and be simple to maintain.

Figure 3: Examples of transportation-related branding efforts

25

RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP STATE DOT INNOVATION LAB TRAINING/WORKSHOPS

Some focus group participants indicated that while the Guide provided them with a lot of helpful information, they struggled with how to get started. Translating the Guide’s content into customizable training materials and/or a workshop format could be an effective way to put its content into action. These materials and/or workshops would be highly practical and encourage participants to work on the challenges they currently face. They would be set up as day-long events at DOTs and would rely on a highly interactive and engaging approach that stimulates agency personnel – from leadership to frontline employees – to think about how to apply the principles of innovation in the context of their own organization. The workshops could use elements of the Guide, like the self-assessment tool, as well as other elements referenced in this section, such as the explainer video, to engage audiences in different ways. Participants would be given the opportunity to develop an action plan for their organizations to help them launch or sustain innovative efforts.

RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP WEB EXPLAINER VIDEO FOR INNOVATION GUIDE

DOT practitioners are typically pressed for time, so they do not often have time to read a lengthy report or attend specialized meetings on topics they may have an interest in, like innovation.

Standalone web videos are highly appealing to audiences seeking a short-cut overview before investing in deeper-cut material. They are also easy to share and view, which makes them a great delivery mechanism for promoting resources to a wider audience. Web video is a desirable complement to basic email blasts and conference presentations and can be a conversation starter.

The research team recommends using simple video production techniques to introduce the guide and its most compelling advice. The video’s tone could be similar to a TED Talk: simple, straightforward and thought-provoking. The web video could be prominently featured on the NCHRP Innovation Lab website, shared via email news blasts, and incorporated as part of the agenda at various transportation conferences. For example, the Foresight introductory video helped set the stage for Keynote in a Box and Workshop in a Box education materials (Video is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkOnlXICDQk&feature=youtu.be)

RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP AN INNOVATION LAB WEBINAR

Webinars are low-cost communication tools compared to conferences, since they eliminate travel costs for participants and presenters. They also have a larger potential audience because they are easy to record, share and view via the Web. The research team suggests creating a webinar based around a set of PowerPoint slides that introduce the guide and explore highlighted content from the document. After the webinar has debuted, it could be accessed via the NCHRP Innovation Lab website.

RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP AN INNOVATION LAB CONFERENCE PRESENTATION-IN-A-BOX

The research team recommends working with regional or national conference organizers to incorporate an innovation-themed presentation that can be delivered by senior executives – supported with talking points and slides similar to those used for the webinar described above. A high-level introduction could create awareness, but would rely on influencers directing practitioners to the website, video or guide for more information.

26

10.0 – FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES There is substantial interest in innovation culture across the transportation community as evidenced by the more than 300 professionals who responded to the survey. The research team recommends the following topics for additional research based on feedback from the survey and the guide validation study.

► How DOTs manage risk when pursuing innovation. Both the survey respondents and focus group participants indicated that the challenges associated with risk in the public sector differ greatly from the private sector. They asked for more research on how public agencies can manage risk as they seek to become more innovative.

► Additional case study interviews to gather more examples of lessons learned from DOTS and other government agencies. In the focus groups and through survey responses, participants consistently expressed a high level of interest in receiving more examples of innovation strategies from the public sector. This includes examples of how DOTs put into practice the five building blocks of innovation culture (leadership, empowerment, communication, recognition and measurement), as well as the challenges and failures they overcame to do so.

► Funding opportunities for innovative efforts. Focus group participants indicated a strong interest in learning about what grants or funding opportunities are available for DOTs to help them implement innovative activities beyond the AASHTO and FHWA programs specifically designed to support innovation efforts. Participants indicated they would also be interested in learning more about how states or organizations could establish a fund for innovative efforts. While similar funds are available at the city level, focus group participants were interested in a statewide fund that would be accessible to DOTs.

► A before-and-after case study of a DOT that has established an innovation culture. Focus group participants indicated that it would be very beneficial to study a DOT as it begins to implement the strategies laid out in the Guide and track its progress. This would be a great opportunity to get an insider’s view of the challenges that DOTs must overcome to establish or sustain innovation culture. It would also be helpful to establish a timeline of how long it takes for efforts to take root and for the agency to begin experiencing innovation successes.

27

REFERENCES www.transportationlab.org (As of February 1, 2018)

www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporate-culture.asp (As of February 1, 2018)

https://hbr.org/2013/05/six-components-of-culture (As of February 1, 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkOnlXICDQk&feature=youtu.be (As of February 1, 2018)

A-1

APPENDIX A – LITERATURE REVIEW REFERENCES The following includes the sources that make up the literature review and how they relate to each of the modules. Please note that modules eventually evolved into the building blocks: leadership, empowerment, communication, recognition and measurement that are found in the Guide.

Literature Summaries by Module

LEADERSHIP | Mission, Vision and Strategy ► Jaakkola, E., & Renko, M. (2007). Critical innovation characteristics influencing the acceptability of a newpharmaceutical product format. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(3-4), 327-346.

The authors argue that organizational adoption of an innovation involves distinct processes. Leaders or key decision-makers determine the need to adopt an innovation and communicate that decision to the organization. However, for an innovation to be adopted across the entire organization, the employees have to buy-in as well. Instead of simply informing employees that an innovation is going to be adopted, it may be quicker and wiser for leaders to promote an innovation across the organization, excite employees about the prospect, and then render the decision to implement the innovation.

► Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations a state-of-the- science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

After conducting a thorough review of the literature on innovation and creativity, the authors present several relevant conclusions. There are four specific approaches to levels-of-analysis that researchers tend to use in studying creativity and innovation: (1) the individual, (2) the work team, (3) the organization, and (4) multi-level (encompassing one or more of the previous levels). At present, our primary focus is on the organization level, but how organizational-level creativity relates or is affected by individual and team levels is also an important consideration. The authors see leaders as individuals with the potential to affect other individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole. Unfortunately, they concluded that neither the research on how transformational leadership affects creativity nor the research on how supervisory behaviors (e.g., supervisory support, supervisory expectations of feedback, supervisory developmental feedback and non-close monitoring, supervisory benevolence, abusive supervision) affect creativity is conclusive. Although leadership does affect creativity and innovation, empirical investigations have produced mixed or contradictory results when attempting to uncover the dynamics of how leadership can best enhance creativity and innovation.

► Kim, S., & Yoon, G. (2015). An innovation-driven culture in local government: Do senior managers’transformational leadership and the climate for creativity matter? Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 147–168.

This study indicates that senior managers actively influence employee perceptions of a culture of innovation. Specifically, when senior managers promote a workplace that recognizes employee creativity and provides the flexibility to change and the resources to realize innovations, employees are more likely to perceive their organization as having a culture of innovation. While promising, it should be noted that the sample data were collected from a local government workforce in Korea. There is no way to know if or how national culture may interact with organizational cultural to affect employee perceptions.

► Frederick, T., Lam, T., & Martin, V. Jaakkola, E., & Renko, M. (2014). A Lean Innovation Model to HelpOrganizations Leverage Innovation for Economic Value: A Proposal. International Journal of Management &information Systems, 18(2), 99-108.

A-2

The elements that make up a truly innovative company include: 1) a focused innovation strategy, 2) a winning overall business strategy, 3) deep customer insight, 4) great talent, and 5) the right set of capabilities to achieve successful execution. The model proposed in this paper addresses this premise whereby an organization can quickly and cost-effectively assess and address its innovation culture and innovation system gaps. Without an innovative culture, it may be difficult to maximize economic benefit from innovation regardless of the level of maturity of innovation, supporting processes, or infrastructure. There should be an environment of trust and safety throughout the organization from the perspective of leaders, managers, and individual contributors. There should be credible and consistent support from executive leaders in their commitment to innovation. This paper places a significant focus on the impact of social networks in innovation.

► Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M., Boyer, K., (2007). Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizationalvalues on process innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 871-884.

Innovation is vital, but paradoxical, requiring flexibility and empowerment, as well as control and efficiency. Increasingly, studies stress organizational culture as a key to managing innovation. Yet innovation-supportive culture remains an intricate and amorphous phenomenon. This paper explores how organizational values ‒ a foundational building block of culture ‒ impact a particular process innovation, the implementation of advanced manufacturing technology. To unpack this scarcely studied construct, the paper examines three-dimensions of organizational values: value profiles, value congruence and value practice interactions. This paper attempts to quantify scientifically what is typically seen as qualitative measures. It also explores the conflict of flexibility with control. The report addresses the fact that flexibility is seen as a higher value in innovation, but that control may have a more subtle but substantial impact on an innovation-supportive culture. The report acknowledges a key reality: A major challenge of culture research is the potentially confounding effects of numerous, interwoven factors, requiring thoughtful inclusion of control variables.

► Lawrence H. Orcutt, Mohamed Y. AlKadri, Overcoming Roadblocks to Innovation: Three Case Studies atthe California Department of Transportation, Transportation Research Record No. 2109, 2009: 65-73.

Orcutt and AlKadri provide this simple definition of innovation for public sector transportation agencies in their Transportation Research Record paper on overcoming roadblocks to innovation: “The creation AND successful implementation of a new useful product that becomes widely used by the transportation industry.” Orcutt and AlKadri also observe “innovation should, and can lead to improving the performance, efficiency, and quality of transportation systems. Innovation is much needed to manage the enormity and complexity of a transportation system.”

► MnDOT; Developing a Culture of Innovation; Transportation Research Synthesis; (2010).

MnDOT surveyed states in 2010 on the topic of “developing a culture of innovation.” This and other research directed at state DOTs frequently talks about the importance of establishing and sustaining an innovation culture.

► Siekmeier, J; How Organizations Encourage Innovation: Lessons Learned. Presentations from the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2014).

Siekmeier describes MnDOT as a large organization with many moving parts where innovative ideas and activities are often underway, but not well-distributed across the organization. He notes that it is vital for MnDOT to celebrate innovation by creating an innovation “brand” to message and promote innovation excellence by individuals, teams, offices, and districts that showcases innovation so it is visible everywhere and available for everyone to see.

A-3

► Center for Accelerating Innovation. In FHWA.dot.gov. Retrieved August 2016 from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation.

In April 2012, the FHWA established the Center for Accelerating Innovation (CAI) to serve as the focal point for coordination of internal and external efforts to identify and prioritize innovations by developing, launching, and administering strategic innovation deployment programs such as Every Day Counts (EDC). In the administration of these cross-cutting programs, the CAI is responsible for developing a national network for innovation deployment and for stakeholder collaboration within the highway transportation community, most notably through the State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) network. The CAI works with FHWA Division Office EDC coordinators and innovation deployment teams to compile information on the state-of-the-practice, as well as the innovation implementation goals, of states and other partners. The CAI website provides access to a variety of resources including information on innovations, technical assistance, and funding opportunities.

► Christensen, Clayton M., Roth, Erik, & Anthony, Scott. Seeing What's Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change. Harvard Business Review Press. 2004. Print.

The authors point to two factors that set the stage for innovation: ability and motivation. The basic concept is that when an organization’s ability and motivation for change are not present, innovation stalls. However, there are obvious differences between the ability and motivation for change in the public sector compared to the private sector. For example, innovation offers companies a competitive advantage and increased profit. There is no profit reward or threat of new start-ups motivating public sector organizations to innovate.

► The Stanford Social Innovation Review

Stanford determines the public sector’s ability to innovate is derived from:

1. Ability to experiment

2. Ability to sunset outdated infrastructure

3. Public-sector motivation is assisted by the existence of:

4. Feedback loops

5. Incentives for product or service improvement

6. Budget constraints for end users all can motivate government innovators in the right direction.

These five items, grouped as ability and motivation, were separated into three case studies across the country.

LEADERSHIP | Process Definition ► Crossan, M., Apaydin, M., (2010). A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.

This paper consolidates the state of academic research on innovation. Based on a systematic review of literature published over the past 27 years, the researchers synthesize various research perspectives into a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation, linking leadership, innovation as a process, and innovation as an outcome. The authors suggest measures of determinants of organizational innovation and present implications for both research and managerial practice.

► Pohlmann, M., Gebhardt, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2005). The development of innovation systems and the art of innovation management — strategy, control and the culture of innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(1), 1-7.

A-4

This paper identifies two primary obstacles to organizational innovativeness: 1) An insufficient number of individuals trained in innovation management, and 2) a lack of mechanisms to turn a local innovation into an organization-wide innovation. These obstacles highlight the fact that leaders need to partake in innovation management and create policies or procedures that facilitate efficient intra-organizational communication and collaboration.

► Meissner, D., Kotsemir, M., (2016). Conceptualizing the innovation process towards the “active- innovation paradigm”- trends and outlook. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(14), 862-873.

This paper introduces the evolving understanding and conceptualization of innovation process models. It categorizes the different approaches to understand and model innovation processes into two types. First, the so-called innovation management approach focuses on the evolution of corporate innovation management strategies in different social and economic environments. The second type is the conceptual approach, which analyses the evolution of innovation models themselves as well as the models’ theoretical backgrounds and requirements. The second approach focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of different innovation models.

► Visscher, K., Rip, A., (2003). Coping with chaos in change processes. Creativity and Innovation Management. 12(2), 121-128.

This journal article focuses on the impact of introducing organizational change. More specifically, it studies the phenomenon of chaos from employees during the change process. The authors are particularly interested in the impact of change consultants in managing employee discomfort with new innovative processes. The paper groups consultants into two types: 1) those who seek to reduce the chaos and discomfort while reinforcing the client’s positive self-image, or 2) those who embrace and use the chaos and discomfort to facilitate difficult discussions and move forward.

► Gardner, John W. Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. 1995. Print.

Gardner explores why societies, organizations and individuals decay and how they can “renew” themselves to ensure that they are continuing to innovate and remain vital. He writes, “When organizations and societies are young, they are flexible, fluid, not yet paralyzed by rigid specialization and willing to try anything once. As the organization or society ages, vitality diminishes, flexibility gives way to rigidity, creativity fades and there is a loss of capacity to meet challenges from unexpected directions.

Call to mind the adaptability of youth, and the way in which that adaptability diminishes with the years. Call to mind the vigor and recklessness of some new organizations and societies — our own frontier settlements, for example — and reflect on how frequently these qualities are buried under the weight of tradition and history.” Gardner argues that to be continually innovative, organizations must recognize the need for renewal. Innovative organizations decentralize decision making to allow for diverse views rather than one “official” doctrine. “If all innovations must pass before one central decision point, they just have one chance to survive and a slim one at that.” Additional qualities of innovative organizations: they protect dissenters, they maintain organizational flexibility no matter how large they are, they make employees feel that they have a role in shaping the future and that the work they do is meaningful.

► Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein's model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609-1621.

This article provides a model useful for conceptualizing multiple “layers” of organizational culture that can foster innovation. Although this model portrays organizational values (which can be instantiated by organizational

A-5

leaders) as the foundation underlying cultural emergence and change, it also presents opportunities to individually assess and manage specific cultural layers to enhance innovation.

► Siekmeier, J; How Organizations Encourage Innovation: Lessons Learned. Presentations from the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2014).

In a 2014 TRB Annual Meeting presentation, MnDOT’s John Siekmeier described the seven major steps in MnDOT’s innovation process, which are key to its innovation culture:

1. Problem identification is an important step because it requires recognition of a need andacknowledgement that failure to act is not acceptable for good stewards of public assets.

2. Research means a systematic controlled inquiry involving analytical and experimental activities,designed to increase understanding of underlying phenomena. Research types include:

• Desktop research involves collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing existing information. It can bethe basis of further research or can lead directly to implementation.

• Basic research means the study of phenomena whose specific application has not been identified.The primary purpose of this kind of research is to increase knowledge.

• Applied research is the study of a specific need in connection with the functional characteristics ofa system. The primary purpose is to answer a question or solve a problem.

3. Implementation is the process of putting the results of research into practical use in order to realize ameasurable return on investment.

4. Technology transfer is the conveyance of research results to entities capable of using the results toproduce operational products and also providing ongoing support during deployment.

5. Product development means the translation of research results into prototype materials, devices,techniques, enabling technologies, and procedures for the practical solution of a problem.

6. Product evaluation is the testing of a new product or procedure to determine its ability to perform inan operational environment.

7. Outreach and communication are processes for sharing information about a new product orprocedure with specific audiences using targeted messages.

► AZDOT EDC website: https://www.azdot.gov/business/programs-and-partnerships/every-day-counts- initiative/overview (undated).

Similar to MnDOT, Arizona DOT’s Arizona Council on Transportation Innovation website describes its culture of innovation as being built around 1) identifying innovative strategies, 2) developing the applications, 3) deploying the technology and testing by using pilot projects, and 4) integrating ideas into routine practices.

► CalTrans, Fostering Innovation within State Departments of Transportation (July 2015).

In its 2015 report on Fostering Innovation within State Departments of Transportation, Caltrans found that most DOTs view support by agency leaders as very important for successful innovation. The report emphasizes that a key success factor for innovation efforts in transportation agencies is “a state-based approach to innovation deployment. This approach recognizes that the diverse characteristics that make each state unique ‒ people, geography, climate, economy, urban and rural areas, laws and regulations ‒ also make their transportation requirements different.”

A-6

► https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/about-edc.cfm

The STIC concept emerged from the first round of Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) EDC initiative, which was started in 2009 “to speed up the delivery of highway projects and to address the challenges presented by limited budgets.” According to FHWA, each state operates its STIC based on its unique business needs and approaches to meeting those needs. The CalTrans Fostering Innovation within State Departments of Transportation, report describes how STICs “bring together transportation stakeholders from all levels of the transportation community to evaluate which innovations are most appropriate for their states. “According to the report, members come from public agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, transportation associations, environmental and historical preservation groups, industry, and academia. Each state council meets regularly to consider all types of innovation, including those fostered by EDC, SHRP2, and other sources. The councils decide which innovations to adopt, develop implementation plans and performance goals, and set the pace for implementation. As the report explains, “the councils put their respective states’ transportation stakeholders in the driver’s seat to select the innovations that best consider a variety of perspectives, from government to industry, and that fit each state’s particular business needs and challenges.”

► Wisconsin Department of Transportation. In Wisconsindot.gov. Retrieved August 2016 from http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/who-we-are/dtsd/default.aspx

The Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) program is housed in the Division of Transportation System Development and is coordinated with Wisconsin’s STIC. WisDOT’s Innovation Initiative program focuses on strengthening the agency’s ability to identify, evaluate, and adopt promising materials, technologies, policies and procedures. In particular, the program promotes:

• Rapid innovation - Focus on quickly identifying and implementing innovative practices or tools to enhance the delivery of transportation systems.

• Aggressive information technology advances - Wisconsin’s program has a special emphasis on leveraging IT systems, tools, and devices to change the way we collaborate and share data, along with streamlining data entry, data compiling, and data use.

• Creating a culture of innovation - Changing the way WisDOT views innovation and creating a broader acceptance to change through an environment that believes in innovation.

► https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/stic/deployment.cfm

In 2010, the FHWA introduced the concept of STICs to state transportation departments and industry partners as a way to foster ownership and pride in establishing a process where ideas, innovative techniques and processes can be evaluated and implemented quickly and proficiently. According to FHWA’s STIC deployment website, all 52 states and territories have now formed a STIC.

► www.penndot.gov/about-us/StateTransportationInnovationCouncil/ Pages/default.aspx#.Vz99V-cgsmI

Pennsylvania's STIC evaluates well-researched and proven technologies that are ready to be implemented in the field. Technologies, tactics, and techniques that are selected are employed and promoted to become standard practice within the transportation community at the local, regional, or statewide level. The STIC is a cross-section of various stakeholders, state and federal agencies, local governments, research organizations and industry partners that work together to forge an environment of innovation, imagination and ingenuity to pursue specific initiatives and their rapid implementation to deliver a modern and high-quality transportation system to the citizens of the commonwealth. To assist the STIC in selecting initiatives that should be promoted and implemented, Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) have been created to review, evaluate, and provide

A-7

suggestions on potential benefits and uses of initiatives or techniques. The TAGs are responsible for ensuring that chosen initiatives succeed in improving the transportation system and are required to develop deployment plans and track the initiatives progress. The TAGs created thus far are focused in the following areas: project delivery, construction, maintenance, design; environmental, safety; technology, intelligent transportation systems, materials, and public outreach.

► http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/2/06/chief-innovation- officers-do-they-deliver

A 2015 article published by Pew Charitable Trusts Stateline e-newsletter/blog offers some words of caution about the new chief innovation officer (CIO) trend: “It’s a title that is very vague … and without a chief executive who understands it and looks at it as somebody we need to have, there’s a risk of it not being a very valuable position.” “A lot of what people are talking about in innovation is not that innovative.” Sometimes, cities or states develop a mobile application for a government service and call it “innovation,” when they really haven’t revolutionized how government operates or devised better, thriftier and longer-term solutions for citizens and taxpayers. What innovation officers really need, is the imprimatur of the governor or mayor to challenge the status quo up and down the bureaucratic ranks–even if it means stepping on some toes. You need someone in the executive office – the governor or the mayor – to take on entrenched interests: the bureaucracy, the vendors, or labor, and chart a path to a better solution.” “Tapping someone from outside government often works best. Some states and cities have created “entrepreneurs in residence.”

► Caltrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information. In DOT.CA.Gov. Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/drisi/

Caltrans Division of Research, Innovation and System Information (DRISI) manages a comprehensive program to research, develop, test, and evaluate transportation innovations sought by its customers. These innovations in methods, materials, and technologies enable Caltrans to promote safety, enhance mobility and sustainability, improve the management of public facilities and services, and protect public investment in transportation infrastructure. The DRISI:

• Sets its research agenda based on the involvement and participation of its internal and external customers

• Performs applied research

• Performs research for all modes of transportation

• Provides technical assistance to its customers for deployment of research products

• Engages in both short-term and long-term research

► Illinois Department of Transportation. In IDOT.Illinois.Gov. Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.idot.illinois.gov/home/innovation

Illinois DOT Office of Innovative Project Delivery - IDOT created the Office of Innovative Project Delivery in 2013 to help deliver transportation projects that meet the many needs of the state through innovative methods of delivery including partnering with the private sector on both technical and financial aspects.

► Texas Department of Transportation. In TxDOT.GOV. Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/administration/strategy-innovation.html

Texas DOT (TxDOT) Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer Darran Anderson serves as chief strategy and innovation officer. Anderson's duties include leadership and strategic direction for the innovation and

A-8

continuous improvement of people, processes and technology of the agency. He is a Project Management Professional (PMP), a former consultant for a large business, and a program manager for a small business, as well as a retired U.S. Army officer.

LEADERSHIP | Managing Risk ► Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, androutine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730.

There are different types of creativity. Radical creativity is paradigm-shifting ‒ something completely different than the status quo. Incremental creativity involves minor adaptations to existing frameworks or processes. Different contextual factors are related to different types of creativity. The researchers found that radical creativity was related to resources for creativity, willingness to take risks, and career commitment. The best predictors of incremental creativity were organizational identification and the presence of creative co-workers. The implication seems to be that an organization can take certain measures to make employees feel comfortable voicing ideas and taking risks, and thus make it more likely that individuals will produce radically creative ideas. Of course, not everyone will come up with radically creative ideas, but merely associating with co-workers who do have creative ideas is likely to promote incremental creativity on a cultural level.

► Siekmeier, J; How Organizations Encourage Innovation: Lessons Learned. Presentations from the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2014).

Siekmeier describes how as a government entity, MnDOT’s sincere efforts to enhance its culture of innovation can be easily sidetracked when a change of administration occurs. These changes are a distraction and provide a reason to not fully invest in and commit to innovation. Innovation should not be viewed as a cost, but rather as an investment that will enhance future prosperity and opportunity. Agencies must strive to create a culture of innovation that is resilient during political changes, particularly by demonstrating that innovation provides a competitive advantage for the state and a positive return on investment for the state.

► MnDOT; Developing a Culture of Innovation; Transportation Research Synthesis; (2010).

In its recent research synthesis on innovation culture, MnDOT (2010) concludes that successful innovation in DOTs requires “balance between a) conservative, evolutionary-minded planning that takes into consideration market demand and socioeconomic and political factors, and b) the political willingness to take calculated, reasonable risks when there is an opportunity.”

► Smart Growth America; The Innovative DOT; (2015) http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/the- innovative-dot

Smart Growth America’s The Innovative DOT notes that innovative DOTs understand that risk and failure are necessary components of innovation. According to the report, this concept is illustrated by Minnesota DOT’s value to “Be Bold,” which includes the statement: “I take risks and accept failure. I will use my failures to identify ways to get better.” The site also observes that managing risk is a necessary component of innovation.

► MnDOT; Developing a Culture of Innovation; Transportation Research Synthesis; (2010).

MnDOT’s 2010 Developing a Culture of Innovation study describes the importance of “managing the balance between risk and change, specifically between the more adventurous knowledge seekers willing to tolerate risk and those within an organization who are more conservative and incremental in their approach.”

► Lawrence H. Orcutt, Mohamed Y. AlKadri, Overcoming Roadblocks to Innovation: Three Case Studies atthe California Department of Transportation, Transportation Research Record No. 2109, 2009: 65-73.

A-9

Orcutt and AlKadri describe “risk aversive executives [who] hesitate to implement new innovations” as one of the principal road blocks to innovation in DOTs. Orcutt and AlKadri identify six barriers to innovation based on their research at Caltrans, including:

• System diversity and complexity – Fragmentation and disagreement among a diverse, decentralized, and multifaceted industry and competition among public works categories for scarce resources have combined to constrain innovation.

• Intellectual property and procurement restrictions – Public sector procurement activity is driven by a low-bid process based on specifications and procedures established to satisfy the need for open competition and accountability. Competitive bidding requirements represent a core problem because certain innovations are offered by a single company. Conflict between open public bidding processes and private intellectual property rights can hamper deployment of innovative products

• Risk aversion – Public sector decision-makers work in an environment that does not reward risk- taking. If public officials are unfamiliar with the potential of innovative technology or uncertain of its merits, they are reluctant to adopt it.

• Resistance or inability to change - When optimal resolution of a product or process performance problem demands a very different set of knowledge than a firm has accumulated, it may very well stumble.

• Lack of profit motives - Public-sector innovation is not subject to the profit motive that stimulates commercial innovation.

• Lack of product evaluation criteria - New product evaluation guidelines are slow to develop and are under-resourced. Requirements are unclear or not defined. At Caltrans, it is difficult to get business cases for information technology products approved through the extensive and cumbersome Feasibility Study Report process.

LEADERSHIP | Power of Government ► Behn, Bob. Public Management Report. August 2005. Iowa State Government application to Harvard Kennedy School: Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Innovations in American Government Award Winner (2005).

In 2003, the Iowa legislature authorized Governor Tom Vilsack to designate six state agencies as charter agencies. The governor asked for volunteers among the agency leaders, and six agencies agreed to become charters: the departments of Human Services, Revenue, Natural Resources and Corrections; Iowa Veterans Home; and Alcoholic Beverage Division. By becoming charter agencies, these agencies were allowed to waive any personnel rule (subject to Iowa’s collective bargaining agreement); hire staff at any pay grade without any employment cap or full-time employee limit; waive any administrative rule regarding procurement, fleet management, printing and copying, or maintenance of building and grounds, as well as information technology; carry over half of budgeted but unspent funds from one fiscal year into the next; keep the proceeds from the sale or lease of capital assets. In exchange for the freedom from these restrictions, these agencies were expected to generate at least $15 million total in savings. They generated $22 million the first year and $20 million the next. Their successes included: reduced child welfare stays in shelter care by 20 percent, or 10 days; increased children with health coverage by 12 percent in FY05 on top of substantial prior year gains; reduced turnaround time for wastewater construction permits from 28 to 4.5 months; and improved rate of individual income tax refunds issued within 45 days from 75 percent to 94 percent. There has been some criticism

A-10

regarding the need for these restrictions to be lifted in order to actually achieve these results. State Auditor David Vaudt was asked to identify what savings could be directly linked to the agency's enhanced flexibility. His own office acknowledges the challenge of this approach. "It is extremely difficult, if it not impossible, to tell how much it saved," Warren Jenkins, chief deputy auditor told the Des Moines Register. "There was no verification that what they reported resulted from the initiative or if it came from any other reason." Some executives have acknowledged that they could have achieved their positive results without becoming charter agencies. However, this process encouraged them to think differently and not feel restricted by bureaucratic restrictions, which generated more innovation and creative approaches. Thus, while the fiscal savings can be argued, the innovative success has endured.

► hntb.com/ThoughtLeadership/Insights/Unleash-innovation-within-your-DOT (undated).

As FHWA’s STIC deployment website explains, innovation is essential to overcoming the basic challenges facing America's highway system, which include “an aging infrastructure, growing traffic volumes and limited staffing and funding resources.”

► North Dakota Department of Transportation. In dot.nd.gov. Retrieved August 2016 from https://www.dot.nd.gov/business/innovate/Call%20for%20Innovation%20Ideas.pdf

In a call for transportation innovation ideas, North Dakota State University Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute (UGPTI) is charged with seeking ideas on behalf of North Dakota DOT (NDDOT) for innovative transportation projects, processes and products. All transportation-based contractors, consultants, suppliers, colleges and universities, associations, tribes, local jurisdictions and NDDOT staff are invited to submit ideas for consideration. UGPTI, on behalf of NDDOT, and in partnership with the NDDOT Transportation Innovation Program Team will make a minimum of four calls for ideas over the 2016 fiscal year (October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016), and will then review and recommend their preferred ideas to the NDDOT Executive Team.

COLLABORATION | Engagement ► Venkataramani, V., Richter, A. W., & Clarke, R. (2014). Creative benefits from well-connected leaders: Leader social network ties as facilitators of employee radical creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 966–975.

Findings suggest that the large social networks of managers and supervisors are associated with increased creativity of their direct subordinates. The rationale behind this relationship is that a well- connected leader is exposed to a greater variety of ideas being thought up across the organization, and is therefore better able to convey a variety of current and relevant ideas that the organization supports or is considering to subordinates. This in turn spurs the subordinates to generate radical new ideas of their own. In some ways, this is similar to the observation that many other researchers have made that employees need the opportunity or the time and space to be creative. Additionally, a well-connected leader is thought to be better able to know where and how to obtain the resources to implement creative ideas. The key takeaway is probably not that the organization should rush to promote their most socially adept employees to manager and supervisor positions, but rather that the organization can take measures to promote the cross-fertilization of ideas within the organization and recognize the powerful role managers can play as conduits for conveying and facilitating creative ideas. For example, it may be impractical to say that distinct work groups are suddenly going to interact more and therefore share ideas. It may, however, be quite easy to begin implementing organization-wide or division-wide meetings between managers once or twice a month. This simple step would allow managers to become more aware of ideas and events across the organization, and also allow them to develop a feel for who to contact to facilitate the implementation of creative ideas their subordinates produce.

A-11

► hntb.com/ThoughtLeadership/Insights/Unleash-innovation-within-your-DOT (undated)

This online Thought Leader blog entry on unleashing innovation observes that DOT leaders must constantly assess their core competencies. For example, the article highlights the relevancy of print maps when almost everyone uses GPS devices or smartphones apps and asks, “why spend money to print and distribute specification books when those documents could be posted as PDFs and printed by others at their expense?”

► Siekmeier, J; Enhancing the Culture of Innovation in a DOT; Transportation Research Record E-C199 (2015)

Organizational inertia, failure to recognize existing opportunities for innovation, impaired organizational structures, and a complacent organizational culture are all risks for an innovative DOT, according to Siekmeier. In particular, he notes “the organizational structure of many DOTs creates challenges for innovation deployment.” Siekmeier describes the need to strengthen horizontal linkages across silos, and lessen the negative effects of vertical hierarchy.

COLLABORATION | Ideation ► Reiter-Palmon, R., & Arreola, N. J. (2015). Does Generating Multiple Ideas Lead to Increased Creativity? AComparison of Generating One Idea vs. Many. Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 369-374.

How creativity is defined is important not only for how we conceptualize and recognize it in our own minds but also for how we interpret and apply the findings of researchers who have attempted to operationalize and measure creativity in different ways. Some of the primary ways of measuring creativity are originality (i.e., novelty or what is sometimes referred to as “divergent thinking”), idea production (the sheer quantity of ideas produced), and quality (i.e., how useful the idea is). Reiter- Palmon & Arreola (2015) attempted to bring some objectivity to this discussion by using a sample of undergraduate students to see how the number of ideas an individual generated were related to the quality of the ideas generated. Results suggest that generating multiple solutions leads to more novel ideas, but that the more ideas one generates, the less consideration one gives to each idea. The implication is that the idea-generation process should encourage divergent thinking, but someone with authority needs to impose some structure on the process by setting a time limit or settling on a solution so that individuals can switch mental gears from brainstorming to elaborating. In other words, knowing when to stop idea generation is as important as the idea generation process.

► Siekmeier, J; Enhancing the Culture of Innovation in a DOT; Transportation Research Record E-C199 (2015)

According to a 2015 MnDOT-authored Transportation Research Record article on enhancing innovation culture, the “worldview of an organization’s employees significantly influences innovation deployment.” The article goes on to describe how individual employees in an innovative DOT act as ‘explorers’ as they perform their job functions and notes that a “well-functioning organization, in ways similar to America’s tradition of success, encourages exploration as the organization embraces greater effectiveness and sustainable resource utilization.”

► Siekmeier, J; How Organizations Encourage Innovation: Lessons Learned. Presentations from the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2014).

Siekmeier describes how important the sharing of ideas is to innovation. He explains how MnDOT has a diverse workforce with multiple offices and unique operating structures, which creates many challenges for effective communication and sharing ideas. He describes opportunities that include:

• Leveraging social media opportunities (Facebook, Twitter, Wikis, YouTube, and more)

• Sharing best practices formally and informally

A-12

• Showcasing new ideas and technologies

• Online forums that encourage posting of innovative ideas

• Listening channels for connecting with constituents, customers, and suppliers

• Creating webinars to share ideas and innovations

► http://www.modot.org/road2tomorrow

The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission launched its Interstate 70-focused Road to Tomorrow innovation program in 2015 as a mechanism specifically designed to help create innovative ways to finance the restoration of I-70 and to deliver a 21st Century transportation system. The Road to Tomorrow website solicits ideas from outside Missouri DOT (MoDOT), but also describes a six-person multidisciplinary team within MoDOT that is dedicated to finding “ways to add value to [Missouri’s] transportation system, enhance funding streams, and prepare MoDOT to integrate 21st century technologies into [the state’s] transportation system and services.” MoDOT Director Patrick McKenna describes the Road to Tomorrow effort for I-70 from Kansas City to St. Louis as “a laboratory for innovation.” To date, the website lists smart highways, truck platooning, truck ferries, data communication, funding, alternate travel, energy, and advertising as issues it has investigated. MoDOT is in the process of establishing pilot projects as a result of its exploration of potential topics of interest.

► http://www.nsw.gov.au/innovate

In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, a government-wide program called the Innov@tion Initiative is described as “a significant opportunity for the NSW Government to engage with business, community and other non-government stakeholders to help us deliver services to the people of NSW. This exciting initiative is about opening up Government avenues to the public and combining our considerable know- how.” Focus areas for the NSW Innovation Initiative include congestion, open data, social housing, and open ideas. In the area of congestion, the aim of the Innovation Initiative is “to think more innovatively about how [NSW] existing metropolitan-wide infrastructure could work more efficiently. Private and community sectors can provide innovative solutions to reduce congestion in hot spots on Sydney roads.” Transport for NSW (the state’s DOT) aims to use innovations to “improve travel times on 100 major roads during peak travel periods and grow patronage on public transport.” As of August 2016, the Innovation Initiative’s website indicated it has received “almost 50 innovative submissions on ways to reduce congestion on our roads” An evaluation panel is examining ideas ranging from “advanced technologies and intelligent systems for traffic management to innovative uses of crowd sourced information to improve traffic enforcement on congested roads.” Applicants who best meet the criteria will be invited to provide more details about their proposals for further consideration.

► http://aii.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx#more-about

As described on its website, the AASHTO Innovation Initiative (formerly the AASHTO Technology Implementation Group) advances innovation from the grassroots up ‒ by agencies, for agencies, and peer-to-peer. The program actively seeks out proven advancements in transportation technology, investing time and money to accelerate their adoption by agencies nationwide. Each year, the program selects highly valuable technologies, processes, software, or other innovations that have been adopted by at least one agency, are proven in use, and will be of significant benefit to other agencies.

► https://www.transportation.gov/cio/ideahub

IdeaHub, which was started August 2010, allows USDOT employees to “rate, discuss and improve upon innovative ideas to help make the Department a top flight 21st-century agency that is … adaptable, creative and enterprising.” USDOT emphasizes that IdeaHub is not a suggestion box. It allows each of the DOT’s ten operating

A-13

administrations to pursue projects important to their respective employees while facilitating dialogue around ideas that impact the entire Department. On the site, managers and employees can proactively explore mission-driven initiatives to encourage:

• Budget savings and increased productivity

• Increased engagement and workplace satisfaction

• Greater agility and collaboration within the Department

• Unfiltered information from all fronts

According to USDOT’s website, IdeaHub engages 30 percent of employees and garnered more than 7,500 ideas, over 90,000 ratings, and nearly 25,000 comments. More than 100 employee-submitted ideas have already been adopted.

► https://www.idealink.pa.gov

IdeaLink is a password-protected site that solicits ideas from Pennsylvania DOT employees “that will help PennDOT (Pennsylvania DOT) save money, improve morale, create efficiency, make your workplace safer, improve customer service or generate revenue.”

► https://prezi.com/sd2rh5v5urkl/mndots-e-jam-and-sustainability-initiatives

MnDOT held an online idea jam, called an E-Magination JAM, or E-JAM, in September 2009. This jam was based in part on IBM’s Innovation JAM model (https://www.collaborationjam.com) which IBM has used as a collaboration tool to help generate innovative ideas and products. Five hundred thirty ideas were submitted over five days, and nearly 1,000 employees cast votes in support of one or more of the submitted ideas. The ideas were then categorized under one of seven themes: Workplace of Choice, Tech Connections, Sustainability, Operational Innovations, Scope Incentives, Public-Private Partnerships, or Targeted Transparency. Lessons learned include:

• Use the Internet to encourage collaboration and sharing

• Let people comment on each other’s ideas

• Allow voting to determine favorite ideas

• Let employees be anonymous

► https://www.codot.gov/business/process-improvement/colorado-state-transportation-innovation- council-stic

Part of the responsibility of the Colorado STIC is to administer the Colorado STIC Incentive Program. The program offers technical assistance and funds — up to a total of $100,000 per year for all projects — to support the costs of standardizing innovative practices within Colorado DOT (CDOT) and/or other public sector STIC stakeholders. Projects selected for the incentive program must meet these criteria:

• The project will have a statewide impact on making the innovation a standard practice.

• The activities for which incentives are requested should be included in the STIC's implementation plan and align with FHWA’s Technology and Innovation Deployment Program (TIDP) goals.

• The activities funded through the TIDP should be eligible for Federal-Aid assistance and adhere to CFR requirements.

A-14

• The activities in the proposal should be started as soon as practical after notification of selection (preferably within 6 months, but no later than 1 year), and TIDP work must be completed within 2 years.

► New South Wales. In nsw.gov.au. Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.nsw.gov.au/innovate/congestion

The NSW Reduced Congestion Innovations considered almost 50 innovative submissions on ways to reduce congestion on our roads. The evaluation panel was impressed by the diversity of ideas and the creativity shown by applicants. Ideas ranged from using advanced technologies and intelligent systems for traffic management to innovative uses of crowd sourced information to improved traffic enforcement on congested roads. Applicants who best meet the criteria will be invited to provide more detail about their proposals for further consideration. The winner is expected to be announced later this year.

► California Department of Transportation. In dot.ca.gov. Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/InnovAward/

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed its “Find a New Way” contest to offer an award of $25,000 to the Californian with the best unique idea about how to improve the state’s transportation system. Launched in 2015, its mission was to find “the concept that best addresses the contest criteria within Caltrans’ area of responsibility and has the highest likelihood of being successfully implemented.” More than 600 entries were received by the contest’s October 13, 2015 deadline.

COLLABORATION | Customer Focus ► MnDOT; Developing a Culture of Innovation; Transportation Research Synthesis; (2010).

MnDOT’s 2010 Transportation Research Synthesis titled Developing a Culture of Innovation observes that “the ability to innovate is critical to an organization’s performance, especially for DOTs confronted with managing a large and complex transportation system.”

► http://www.nsw.gov.au/innovate

In Australia, web materials promoting the NSW government-wide innovation program, which includes the state’s transportation agency, describe how innovative approaches and technologies are one way to generate “improvements in public services, with more choice, better quality and greater local influence in decision making [that ensure access in the] State to quality services and infrastructure, and a place people will choose to live, work and invest in.”

► Minnesota Department of Transportation. In dot.state.mn. Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research

MnDOT Research Services is tasked with ensuring that optimal use is made of Minnesota taxpayer dollars dedicated to transportation research. Its vision includes fostering a professional and productive environment that leads to innovative research through global and regional collaboration.

A-15

COLLABORATION | Power of Communication ► Patterson F., Kerrin, M., Gatto-Roissard, G., Coan, P., (2009). Everyday Innovation; How to Enhance Innovative Working in Employees and Organisations. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.

This UK government-funded study focuses on the critical role employee characteristics and behaviors play in innovative working and reveals the key organizational factors that enable or inhibit innovation. The report presents the practical implications regarding how to best facilitate innovative working and promote innovation in organizations. The evidence base for this research was drawn from a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, key stakeholder interviews, case studies and a UK-wide survey facilitated by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) based on 850 responses from CMI member organizations.

► Wallman, J. P. (2009). An examination of Peter Drucker’s work from an institutional perspective: How institutional innovation creates value leadership. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 61–72.

In broad terms, this article discusses the relationship between an organization and a marketplace and how the implements of an innovation can affect how an organization is valued by the market. The market’s perception of the organization’s value is similar to accrued credit that the organization can use as a stepping stone into the future. Eventually, the organization can “spend” this accrued credit (one might be attempted to say “credibility”) to improve the likelihood that the market will enthusiastically receive more radical innovations proposed by the organization in the future. If the market accepts radical innovations from the organization, then the organization is fundamentally shifting what the market values. The idea is that the organization does not simply provide a product or service that people value — it can actually shape what is valued. This has implications both within and outside the organization. Begin with baby steps. Small successes build confidence and willingness to engage in more sweeping changes. Grand innovations will not happen overnight, and even if a brilliant innovation is fully conceived in a night, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be well-received. This also serves to highlight the importance of communication: a brilliant idea poorly explained is not likely to be recognized for its true value. In one sense, the overarching idea may be well-summarized as “empowerment through collaboration”—when the value of creative ideas is recognized by peers, it changes how the peers think and value, but it also reinforces the creator to continue generating and proposing ideas in the future. In this fashion, each creative idea proposed and accepted begins to foster an environment more likely to produce and adopt creative ideas in the future. After all, without support, a creative idea is nothing more than an idea.

► UW-Milwaukee, Center for Urban Transportation Studies; Fundamentals of Innovation, Change and Technology Transfer (Date unknown) http://www4.uwm.edu/cuts/bench/tt.htm

According to a 1980s-era UW-Milwaukee, Center for Urban Transportation Studies report on the fundamentals of innovation, “adoption of innovations involves altering human behavior, and the acceptance of change.” In an innovation culture, the article explains, natural resistance to change is overcome by making the reasons for the change clear, communicating with employees about change, demonstrating the rewards for making the change, and introducing change gradually.

► Public Roads article On The Frontlines of Innovation (March/April 2015) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/15marapr/01.cfm

Smart Growth America’s The Innovative DOT observes that transportation affects many other areas, including housing choice, access to education, and commerce, and is ultimately a key determinant in the long-term strength of a region and its ability to attract and sustain growth. The authors encourage state DOTs “to work with other state agencies and outside bodies to extract the greatest possible benefit from their combined

A-16

efforts.” FHWA’s Public Roads magazine article on STICs highlights that DOTs often serve as innovation leaders for their states and, working with local, county, and industry stakeholders, play a pivotal role in innovation deployment.

► Innovator newsletter: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/HFL/innovator

Innovator, published by the FHWA CAI, advances implementation of innovative technologies and processes in the highway industry. Its audience is transportation professionals in highway agencies, trade and research groups, academia and the private sector, and the driving public. The Innovator is published six times a year.

► Accelerator newsletter: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/accelerator.html

MnDOT’s Research Services group is set up to help solve transportation problems by administering research projects for MnDOT and the Local Road Research Board. As a resource for MnDOT staff as well as city and county engineers in kick-starting research and shepherding projects to completion, the staff publishes its Accelerator newsletter about six times a year.

EMPOWERMENT | Asses and Adjust ► Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(8), 21-47.

This journal article expands the discussion on innovation management measurement. The paper finds that a large number of organizations tend to focus only on the measurement of innovation inputs and outputs, such as financial and human resources spend, speed to market, and number of new products. However, there is a general lack of consideration of innovation process. There is clearly a diverse range of approaches, prescriptions and practices that could be confusing and contradictory. The paper synthesizes a framework of the innovation management process focused on the following areas: inputs management, knowledge management, innovation strategy, organizational culture and structure, portfolio management, project management, and commercialization. Overall, the authors conclude that a single framework of measurement cannot be developed and, in general, managers are not capable of evaluating their own innovation activity.

► Alm, Carl J.J., Jönsson, E. (2014). Innovation Culture in Five Dimensions: Identifying Cultural Success Factors and Barriers for Innovation. Chalmers University of Technology, Master’s Thesis E 2014:062

This study contributes to the understanding of innovation culture by proposing a framework that explains the concept and identifies success factors and barriers that influence its development. The study examines several European examples of innovative cultures.

► Hülsheger, R. U., Anderson, N., & Salgado, F. J. (2000). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(9), 862-873.

Interventions that have the biggest impact on innovation focus on providing an organization with high norms for innovation and creating a climate that is open to change and error friendly. In practice, this can be difficult to achieve because of the balance needed between supporting each other in developing and implementing new ideas and monitoring and critically appraising them. By linking provision of feedback and personal incentives to the accomplishment of the group (rather than the individual), an organization can help establish a cooperative, collaborative environment that is open to innovation. Internal and external communication support innovation by making the exchange of opinions and support easier and clearer. Organizations should therefore strive to build networks within their team, with other teams, and even with other organizations.

A-17

► Siekmeier, J; How Organizations Encourage Innovation: Lessons Learned. Presentations from the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2014)

Siekmeier describes one of the greatest barriers to innovation at MnDOT as “Lock-ins,” which are behaviors, structural processes, and cost elements allowed to exist without clear benefit. Lock-ins inhibit innovation and are barriers to becoming a nimble organization. They include:

• Processes and procedures that once worked, but are now a deterrent

• Bureaucratic obstacles during funding of innovative activities

• Poor alignment of an employee’s strengths and their job duties

• Attitudes that inhibit innovation

• Consensus decision making that is inconsistent with engineering best practice

• Existing rules and institutional inertia, which perpetuate a “that’s how we do it here” attitude

• Project lock-in once a project is designed or defined in a request for proposal

• Project lock-in once a project is funded

EMPOWERMENT | Reward and Recognize ► Lowe, P., Dominiquini, J., (2006). Overcoming the Barriers to Effective Innovation. Strategy & Leadership,34(1), 24-31.

This journal article discusses a dysfunctional approach to innovation based on the findings of a survey of 550 large companies. The authors addressed six major obstacles they found, including short-term focus; lack of time, resources, or staff; leadership expectations of a payoff sooner than is realistic; management incentives that are not structured to reward innovation; lack of a systematic innovation process; and a belief that innovation is inherently risky. The study is focused on four areas to improve innovation effectiveness by referring to common obstacles among companies: leadership and organization; processes tools; culture and values; and people and skills. The article also conducted a case study on Whirlpool to address the company’s approach to innovation. It is believed that innovation diagnostic could be the starting point for companies to improve their innovation effectiveness.

► Kiumarsi, S., Isa, S. M., & Navi, R. R. (2015). The Influence of Organizational Culture on Creativity andInnovation: A Review. International journal of business and innovation, 2(2), 47-58.

Creativity is a process of idea development, whereas innovation is adopting and translating new ideas into products or services. For example, innovations may be implementing ideas to reduce costs, improve communications, implement new technologies, or implement a new organizational structure. Culture can directly enhance both the organization’s creativity and innovation, and by enhancing creativity, culture will also have a secondary indirect enhancing effect on innovation. A culture of innovation is both about enhancing creativity and empowering employees to select and turn creative ideas into tangible assets.

► Chen, G., Farh, J., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative systems: Multilevelmotivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018-1027.

Innovation goes beyond creativity by requiring championing and implementation of ideas or procedures. There is an interplay in both directions for individual and team-level innovative performance ‒ each affects the other. For example, proactive motivation states at the individual level will promote innovation at both the team and

A-18

individual level. Such states are characterized by an individual’s interest in and capacity to bring about change in their work environment. By empowering employees to realize proactive motivational states, organizations can create a climate that fosters innovation at the team and individual level. Similarly, at the team level, a collective perception that collaborative, innovation-related activities are expected, valued, and supported in the team will encourage innovation (characterized as support for innovation climate).

► HNTB Thought Leader. http://www.hntb.com/ThoughtLeadership/Insights/Unleash-innovation-within- your-DOT

HNTB’s Thought Leader column on the topic of “unleashing innovation” at DOTs cites the importance of deploying someone who has “the organization’s respect, has worked there a number of years and consistently demonstrates willingness to think differently.” Such champions for change “interface directly with DOT leaders to replace any internal inertia and resistance with openness to and acceptance of change.” The column also observes that “innovative cultures take root faster when leaders recognize employees whose recommendations are adopted – even if those recommendations don’t produce needle-moving results.”

► Smart Growth America; The Innovative DOT; (2015) http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/the- innovative-dot

Smart Growth America’s The Innovative DOT handbook highlights that while “it might be tempting to launch several new initiatives at once. This is not advised. Rather, consult with both internal and external stakeholders to strategically choose the challenges/reforms to tackle and the solutions to pursue. Remain focused, and provide the support staff required to implement and deliver the desired results. Remain engaged, celebrate successes, and keep the momentum going—even when reforms must be abandoned and new attempts begun.” The report also describes how the best ideas often come from lower levels of an agency, which highlights the need to break down rigid hierarchies that typify many DOTs at state, county, and municipal levels. According to report, creating an innovation culture “can be as simple as inviting employees to converse with leadership, or recognizing good work among peers.”

EMPOWERMENT | Google 20% ► Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(9), 862-873.

This article explains that creative process engagement does not necessarily lead to higher job performance and can actually hamper innovation if employees are forced to spend more time than necessary engaged in creative processes. Though further research is needed, individuals who become so caught up in creative processes beyond what is minimally necessary may find themselves more engaged by the exciting and interesting activity processes and neglect critical aspects of their jobs. Organization leaders should therefore use participation in creative processes sparingly to avoid overextending employee resources.

► Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 60–67.

The author describes what he refers to as five discovery skills that highly innovative individuals possess: associating, questioning, observing, experimenting, and networking. An organization that wants to promote a culture of innovation needs to encourage questioning and experimentation and give employees the time to do these things. Also, associating, observing, and networking are all skills that require breadth of experience to be exercised to their full potential. The organization can implement policies that promote such diversities of experience and thereby promote a culture in which employees are more likely to innovate.

A-19

► Missouri Department of Transportation. In MDOT.org. Retrieved August 2016 fromhttp://www.modot.org/road2tomorrow

The website for MoDOT’s Road to Tomorrow program explains how six staff members at MoDOT are dedicated to administering the department’s innovation program. Initiatives the program’s staff is exploring include solar roadways, smart pavement, Internet of things applications, and truck platooning.

► Siekmeier, J; How Organizations Encourage Innovation: Lessons Learned. Presentations from the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2014)

The author explains that an emphasis on making innovation possible is key to MnDOT’s success. MnDOT tries to make innovation possible by leveraging time, dollars, and other resources. This includes creating white space for innovation by allowing time to work on new ideas; holding an innovation bazaar where employees have the opportunity to show fellow employees what innovations are underway; providing funding with minimal bureaucracy to work on innovative ideas; and allowing funding to be rolled over from one biennium to the next so that implementation of innovation concepts can continue.

► http://www.penndot.gov/about-us/PennDOT2020/Pages/default.aspx#.V0i4QucgsmI

PennDOT 20/20 is an agency-wide program designed to help PennDOT use innovation to solve current and future challenges. PennDOT 20/20 integrates input from employees and business partners to help ensure the organization is moving in the right direction. A core element of the 20/20 program is use of regular executive management strategic visioning sessions to identify ideas and challenges that are assigned to employee expert teams who develop solutions. Expert teams work in unison with executive management to implement those solutions.

► CalTrans, Fostering Innovation within State Departments of Transportation (July 2015)

The CalTrans Fostering Innovation report describes how in Louisiana, people who suggest innovations are expected to champion implementation of change. The report also provides this quote from MnDOT: “We don’t just want idea people; we want people who will be responsible for making ideas into reality.”

B-1

APPENDIX B – CASE STUDY SURVEY RESULTS More than 300 people responded to the electronic survey from July 28 to August 26, 2016. Approximately 96 percent of the respondents indicated they were employed by transportation agencies. The purpose of the survey was get input about the challenges DOTs face as they strive to be more innovative and to identify potential case study organizations. The following are the survey results.

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

B-13

B-14

B-15

B-16

B-17

B-18

B-19

B-20

B-21

B-22

B-23

B-24

B-25

B-26

B-27

B-28

B-29

B-30

B-31

B-32

B-33

B-34

B-35

C-1

APPENDIX C To gather more input on the draft guide, an online survey was distributed to 300 members of the project’s community of interest. The survey was available from June 8, 2017 to August 3, 2017. Recipients had the opportunity to respond to a survey about the entire guide or to offer feedback on certain sections of the guide. The research team received 20 responses to the surveys.

The research team did not receive any responses to the building block sectional surveys, so the responses below are all from the survey that covered the entire guide. Some respondents skipped questions, which explains the slight differences in the percentages. Again, the percentages represent respondents who agreed or slightly agreed with the statement about that section of the guide.

83%

83%

73%

91%

91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEADERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECOGNITION

MEASUREMENT

The content provided me with new information

C-2

92%

92%

82%

91%

91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEADERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECOGNITION

MEASUREMENT

The suggestions were generally helpful

92%

92%

82%

91%

91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEADERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECOGNITION

MEASUREMENT

The info would be helpful to the development of innovation culture in my org.

C-3

92%

92%

91%

91%

91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEADERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECOGNITION

MEASUREMENT

The info is easy to read

92%

92%

91%

91%

91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEADERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECOGNITION

MEASUREMENT

The info was presented in a logical way

C-4

Key Constructive Feedback for the Self-Assessment

► “The Innovation Level seems to be an average of the other four categories, but a comparison between the average score value of the four categories with the Innovation Level provides a good point of discussion.”

► “Provide an overall average score from my agency if there’s more than one person taking the assessment from our agency.”

► “Add a question to assess if there is an innovation gap in certain levels of the organization.”

► “Use a scale that is 5-point rather that 3-point for more fractional scoring.”

92%

92%

89%

90%

91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEADERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECOGNITION

MEASUREMENT

The suggestions would have a positive impact on my org.

83%

83%

82%

77%

64%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEADERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECOGNITION

MEASUREMENT

My org. is putting a number of these suggestions into place

C-5

Qualitative Responses to the Building Block Sections Out of 20 respondents, 13 provided qualitative feedback on separate sections of the guide. Respondents were given the opportunity to share examples of efforts they have underway that relate to the building blocks. The total number of respondents for each section varied, as indicated below:

Leadership (12 respondents)

► “Our research program is aligned with the agency's strategic goals. Innovation or research idea is from the grassroots level.”

► “We don't have a good example. We did have a "best practices program"; however, it was primarily geared to our maintenance staff on creating devices to make their job easier and was done as part of our quality program. The bad part is we never provided a mechanism to disseminate the good ideas so others could benefit.”

► “Innovation is our organization’s wildly important goal. All staff have a goal that helps them achieve the innovation goal.”

► “I'm a bit shocked the report did not mention MoDOT’s Innovations Challenge program. It's been spotlighted in Innovator magazine and benchmarked by numerous other DOTs.”

Empowerment (12 respondents)

► “We have annual recognition of the employees with innovation idea being implemented.”

► “MoDOT Innovation Challenge is an annual event which highlights innovations developed by employees throughout the organization.”

Communication (11 respondents)

► “We host annual research workshops to share new innovation and recently we highlighted many innovation achievements in our Department’s Newsletter.”

► “Videos are aired statewide at all facilities highlighting innovations presented at the innovation challenge.”

► “It would be helpful to see more specific recommendations on frequency of types of communications on innovation. e.g. weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annual emails to employees? What's considered too much, or too little? What's the behavioral science aspect, or underlying marketing science supporting various strategies?”

Recognition (11 respondents)

► “We have annual recognition of the employees with an innovation idea being implemented.”

► “Innovation challenge winners are awarded funds for their work units and cash incentives.”

C-6

Responses to Open-Ended Questions At the end of the survey, open-ended questions offered a chance for respondents to better explain any deficiencies in the draft guide. The responses to these open-ended questions are included below.

Are there any areas in the guide that you feel are under-emphasized or any information that should be added?

► “It [would] be nice to have suggestions for smaller DOTs. We are not a PennDOT or CalTrans. How can a smaller and overworked staff get something started? It's just another thing to add to folk's already busy schedule. Getting enthusiastic participation on the STIC is a challenge.”

► “A major barrier to innovation is the low bid process.”

► “Information for Caltrans is dated. We no longer use IdeaScale (we use Bright Idea instead). Also, there is no Innovation newsletter at this time. It lapsed after just one or two issues.”

Are there any areas in the guide that you feel are over-emphasized or should be removed?

► “About mid-way through I only scanned the examples of Google, ITD, and others. Not sure describing what they are doing is as important as listing them as ideas.”

► “No.”

What other comments or suggestions do you have with regard to the guide?

► “It's very wordy. Today's audience is about graphics and bullets. Perhaps this isn't the final graphic version but I would suggest putting it in a format more eye catching. See NCHRP Report 610 "Communicating the Value of Transportation Research." The Quick Tip boxes are clever ways to engage the reader. If there's one important message on the page, make sure that it brought to the reader’s attention.”

► “On page 29 the reference for The Caltrans Fostering Innovation is confusing because the synopsis talks about Louisiana and MnDOT and doesn't seem like it gives me information about what this Caltrans reference is. The link does go to a Caltrans document. It seems confusing to me.”

► “A summary of some sort- maybe even sort of a draft plan on how to get there given all these elements. I admit to only scanning the appendices but what I didn't see was any discussion of lessons learned/barriers. Having that awareness is helpful as one builds such a program.”

► “Overall, well done!"

C-7

Recommendations for Improvements Recommended changes to the guide

► “Easy to ready features and highlighted key information, such as call-outs boxes, charts, and bulleted lists to distill the information further.”

► “Margins and white spaces to take notes.”

► “Color-coded sections to match the self-assessment sections.”

► “More attractive layout to aid the reader.”

► “Appendices should be a separate document so the guidance is more approachable.”

► “Tools, checklists, charts are more valuable than body text.”

► “Move the lit review to the Appendix.”

► “Put examples up front, not in Appendix.”

► “More direction after scoring in self-assessment, what to do next.”

► “Make it clear how the content presented relates to executives, front-line and middle managers.”

► “Make sure that any content added truly adds value. Document needs to be concise and not add information just to add it.”

► “Include tips on how to host your focus group as part of the self-assessment. (Will be a side bar not a new section).”

► “Add discussion materials into the guide that managers at different levels can use to facilitate conversations with employees about innovation and potential process improvements.”

Changes considered but not recommended to incorporate in the guide

► “Discuss personal risks that if you just do your job you’re ok, but if you take a risk you may get in trouble (included below as part of more research on risk).”

► “Discuss what the behaviors are for top, middle, and front-line employees.”

Additional/Future Research

Finally, several questions were posed during the focus groups that could be appropriate for further research because the topics are beyond the scope of this project.

► “Develop training for this material and guides for front-line and middle managers to pair with it.”

► “More DOT examples of success.”

► “Additional case studies to identify the challenges and barriers that DOTs face when implementing innovating efforts.”

► “How to work with different types of employees to foster innovation in an organization based on their roles, personality types, levels of motivation, and what makes them feel validated and empowered.”

C-8

► “Look at organizations that have made more aggressive, larger scope innovations, such as the Affordable Care Act implementation, 18F, US Digital Service.”

► “More on how other states create innovation in the public sector when you don’t want to innovate yourself out of a job.”

► “Prepare a separate guide for levels of users; front line, supervisors, leaders – could go into more research needed.”

► “Is there a DOT that implemented a successful innovative campaign with before and after activities? If so, what did they achieve and what’s been result?”

► “Have any states or organizations put together an earmarked fund for innovation in the budget?”

► “Are there any private organizations who have implemented an innovation fund?”

► “Are there any grants available to implement a culture of innovation?”

► “How do you use the guide to train on building an innovation culture?”