CHAPTER 5

Findings by Evaluation Question

This section presents findings by each of the evaluation questions:

• How is the EDC Program designed, structured, and operated to support state-led deployment of underused innovative technologies and project delivery approaches?
• What are potential and realized outcomes of EDC-funded, state-led deployment projects, and how did EDC Program activities contribute to those outcomes?
• Have the EDC Program’s outcomes contributed to achieving programmatic and FHWA strategic objectives, including catalyzing efficiencies that support deployment of innovations in the highway ecosystem?
• What factors influenced the effectiveness and outcomes of the EDC Program and what might be done differently in the future to improve program results?

5.1 EDC Program Design, Structure, and Operations

EQ #1: How is the EDC Program designed, structured, and operated to support state-led deployment of underused innovative technologies and project delivery approaches?

The hallmark of the EDC Program is that it leaves the decision to deploy an Innovation in the hands of the state DOT. The EDC Program Office offers resources, technical assistance, and training to support states in implementing selected Innovations. Program support includes selection of relevant Innovations and providing guidance on decision-making from relevant stakeholders at the state level, as well as support for implementation by providing training to program staff, identifying experts, and sharing best practices and tools to facilitate adoption and deployment of Innovations. As one stakeholder noted, “The longevity of [the EDC Program] is a testament to how effective it has been.”

The EDC Program itself appears very efficient, operating with a very small program staff. This is possible because the EDC Program uses relationships across the FHWA and across the entire surface transportation community. EDC state coordinators are staff members based out of state-specific FHWA Division offices. IDTs are usually led by FHWA staff, but the team members may be drawn from state DOTs, associations, consulting organizations, private firms, and universities. The IDT leaders have funding available to support promotional and educational activities, so their time on an EDC Innovation is covered by the program. This vast network of contacts is manageable in part because the CAI Director and the long-serving Program Coordinator are well-known across the FHWA and highly respected. The EDC Program would be challenged to find effective replacements if these individuals retired or moved to new positions. Many stakeholders emphasized that the EDC Program staff were very supportive, helpful, and responsive to requests and to suggestions.

Collaboration is a key aspect of the EDC Program. FHWA collaborates with the transportation community to select proven yet underutilized innovations. These selections are based on internal screening criteria and external feedback. Openness to community input is also a key feature of the program. In the past, the EDC Program solicited proposed innovations via public Requests for Information, but in recent Rounds, it appears that the call for candidate Innovations relies on direct communication with specific stakeholder groups. While the Innovations are solicited through an open process, the broader surface transportation community does not have a clear understanding of the final selection of EDC Innovations.

The EDC Program has created key templates for helpful documents supporting implementation, such as implementation plans, case studies, Initiative fact sheets, and guidance documents. In addition, the program disseminates information through regular newsletters and other periodicals and contributes to FHWA’s Public Roads magazine. This communication is crucial to raising awareness about the program and its innovations across the surface transportation community.

To support cross-jurisdiction collaboration and adaption of existing EDC Innovations, FHWA organizes a national summit to showcase the Innovations to the wider transportation community. This summit serves as a platform for discussions regarding the benefits and implementation strategies of each innovation. Additionally, after the summit, state DOTs convene with relevant stakeholders from their STICs to assess adoption levels and determine which Innovations to implement during the EDC Round. States receive funding to support projects authorized by their STICs, emphasizing the Program’s commitment to state-led deployment decisions. Throughout the process, systematic reporting and follow-up mechanisms track progress, document benefits, and assess the diffusion of EDC-supported Innovations across states, ensuring accountability and continuous improvement in the Program’s effectiveness.

One important finding concerns the metrics that could be used to assess the performance of the EDC Program. Respondents noted that it is unrealistic to assume that the EDC Program would be able to convince all states to adopt every EDC Innovation. Some EDC Innovations are not viewed as relevant or appropriate for certain states. For example, a highly urbanized state would not put a priority on an innovation focused on rural roads. Another factor is that some states have already implemented certain EDC Innovations before they were promoted by the program. Thus, those states may appear to make “no progress” toward implementation because they have largely reached that goal. This means that the EDC Program should not be expected to achieve implementation of its Innovations across all states.

Tracking implementation among the states that opt into EDC Innovations provides a more reasonable baseline. If a significant share of those states make progress according to the

implementation stages in progress reports, the program appears successful. However, the progress reporting format introduces some challenges. For example, in large states, surface transportation operations are so vast and decentralized that the state DOT itself cannot assess how widely an EDC Innovation has been adopted. Although maps and other measures in the EDC Program’s progress and final reports are useful indicators, they do not define what constitutes “success” for the EDC Program.

The position of the EDC Program, and the reorganization of its broader unit, causes some concern among stakeholders. One team leader in a FHWA state Division Office explained how a lack of organizational consistency has affected the perception of the Program’s status and capacity. This individual observed, “Federal Highway Administration’s top leadership for innovation has been really inconsistent in the last three years. Keeps moving around. I think it’s under the office of like CFO or something. Now, I’m not really sure, but I think that inconsistency doesn’t help a program we’re supposed to be touting across the country.”

5.2 Outcomes Supported by EDC Program Activities

EQ #2: What are potential and realized outcomes of EDC-funded, state-led deployment projects, and how did EDC Program activities contribute to those outcomes?

The potential outcomes of EDC-funded Innovations include reducing the time needed to complete surface transportation projects, lowering construction and life-cycle infrastructure costs, increasing transportation safety, and making surface transportation more adaptable, sustainable, equitable, and safer. Realized outcomes vary by specific EDC Innovation; in some instances, states achieved desired program outcomes such as cost savings, shorter construction times, or greater safety. High-friction surface treatments, promoted in Round 2, have reduced crashes in states such as Kentucky and Washington, directly improving road safety. Given the decentralized nature of adoption, state-specific factors that affect adoption, and lack of consistent measurement, it is challenging to systematically determine the extent to which outcomes have been realized. For example, participants involved in EDC Innovations in the Data Analytics case noted that those Innovations largely aimed at reducing road fatalities and other harm to motorists. Despite these efforts, fatalities per road mile have increased in most states, but the trend is driven by factors such as driver behavior. Evaluation Question 4 contains a section that presents some options to increase the rigor and consistency of program measurement.

Participants identified a range of different outcomes that they associated with program activities including increased awareness of new EDC Innovations, formation of state specifications to allow and support use of EDC Innovations, and use of the Innovations to achieve process

changes. In some instances, the state DOTs perceived the EDC Innovations as having successful outcomes despite not achieving widespread adoption. For example, one state believed they were successful because they had developed internal technical understanding, along with design guidance, standard details, and a special provision, to enable an alternative to the traditional construction method. However, few projects have used these alternative methods, and they were not found to be more cost effective than the prevailing construction method.

EDC Program activities contribute to outcomes, although to what extent may be unclear. During interviews with state DOT representatives, there was strong agreement that EDC’s value is rooted in quality information about new Innovations, the opportunity via demonstration projects to see how Innovations may be implemented, and peer-to-peer exchanges that facilitate practical understanding of where, how, and when to use new Innovations. The EDC Program provides extensive technical assistance to support state staff as they implement unfamiliar technologies (see box). Many of the individuals interviewed for this case study stressed how helpful and timely EDC’s technical assistance was as they tried to implement these Innovations.

The ultimate test of the EDC Program’s effect is whether Innovations would be deployed at the same rate as observed today if the EDC Program did not exist. There was broad consensus that while the EDC Programs effect on accelerating innovation was not consistent, important innovations would languish unnoticed and be underutilized but for the efforts of the EDC Program. State DOT personnel are, in general, under pressure to perform and spreading their attention across different priorities, so they have no capacity to spot useful innovations in the environment. Many external stakeholders confirmed that they would not know about key innovations, or the significance of those innovations, without the information and expertise provided by the EDC Program.

5.3 Contributions by EDC to FHWA Strategic Objectives

EQ #3: Have the EDC Program’s outcomes contributed to achieving programmatic and FHWA strategic objectives, including catalyzing efficiencies that support deployment of innovations in the highway ecosystem?

This evaluation provides evidence that EDC’s activities have contributed toward raising awareness of underutilized innovations for surface transportation projects, and that those innovations align with the mission of FHWA. The Innovations selected are generally recognized as useful for key goals, such as improving road safety and accelerating project delivery. It is much harder to determine whether a different set of Innovations would contribute more substantially to the FHWA mission.

Our expert interviews revealed some factors, such as technical complexity, lack of contractor support and engagement, and inconsistent benefits that have negatively affected the EDC Program’s ability to effectively deploy and organically spread innovations. The FHWA must balance the need to maintain Program efficiency with the desire to diffuse knowledge of innovations as widely as possible. Not every innovation will be uniformly applicable to each state, and despite EDC efforts, some states will not implement innovations.

EDC has successfully advanced FHWA strategic objectives such as state compliance with federal statutes on asset management (23 USC 119 2011) and on performance management (23 USC 150 2012). These laws require states to include consideration of EDC Innovations such as pavement preservation as part of their long-term business practices that support federal funding. Program outcomes such as improved highway safety, which was promoted in Innovations such as high-friction highway surfaces, smarter work zones, and weather-savvy roads, support federal road safety objectives. Still other EDC Innovations, notably advanced geotechnical methods in exploration, modernized business practices, prefabricated bridge elements and systems, and collaborative hydraulics, all reduce construction time and cost. This more efficient use of taxpayer dollars frees up federal and state funds for additional projects.

Perhaps the most important and lasting impact of the EDC Program is its ability to allow states to experiment with self-selected innovations, giving state DOTs the opportunity to learn about, discuss, and potentially implement innovations that can bring substantial benefits to the surface transportation community with less risk. Experiencing small wins through the EDC Program may make these organizations more open to deploying technologies and process changes in the future. This repeated pattern of success with EDC increases the state DOTs’ tolerance for change and helps them become more receptive to innovation over time.

All of this suggests that the EDC Program does play a role in promoting a culture of innovation in state DOTs. By mitigating risks, providing strategies to overcome challenges, and offering timely and informative resources, the EDC Program makes the implementation of its Innovations less daunting and therefore more realistic for risk-averse DOTs. There is no data set available, however, that can measure the marginal effect of the EDC Program on organizational cultures, or on the rate of EDC Innovation adoption. By its nature, the EDC Program lacks a counterfactual (a view of the world if the program had not existed). The evaluation’s qualitative methods provided some systematic evidence that state DOTs are becoming more adept at deploying the innovations of greatest interest to them, and the EDC Program supports this. EDC external stakeholders interviewed did detect that state DOTs displayed greater capacity to deploy innovations and were more open to innovations thanks to the program.

The evaluation team observed, however, that the EDC Program does not provide general guidance on the strategies to adopt when deploying innovations in state DOTs. Some form of meta-analysis across Innovations might better establish if there are “best practices” in implementing

EDC Innovations. The case studies in this report provide a potential approach to that analysis. While the EDC Program references known best practices in innovation (e.g., the role of champions), it does not seem to have a common framework that suggests consistent pathways to enduring success in the deployment of innovations. There is a substantial academic literature on best practices in innovation in organizations, like the studies by the OECD, so the EDC Program could see if the experience of state DOTs aligns with that body of research. (It should be noted, however, that most of this literature describes best practices for organizations that produce innovations adopted by others, and relatively less research is available on best practices for adoption of innovations.)

5.4 Success Factors and Future Options for Program Effectiveness

EQ #4: What factors influenced the effectiveness and outcomes of the EDC Program and what might be done differently in the future to improve program results?

The EDC Program has demonstrated several strengths in its implementation, contributing to its overall success. The EDC Program is widely regarded as a positive initiative within the transportation community. Its collaborative approach, strategic selection of innovations, emphasis on peer learning, and provision of technical support have contributed to its success in accelerating the deployment of underutilized technologies and project delivery approaches, ultimately improving the efficiency, safety, and sustainability of transportation systems nationwide.

One key success factor is the selection of innovations. Through collaborative efforts with the transportation community, the EDC Program identifies and promotes innovations that have the potential to address critical challenges and improve transportation systems. While the program solicits ideas and inputs widely, there is room to expand the diversity of the parties consulted to include more input from tribal governments and local governments. In the future, selection of Innovations may become more challenging, more complex, and process-oriented. This shift in the focus of Innovations may require the program to look closely at the amount of time needed for implementation and the amount of consultation that will be needed from diverse parties.

Interested parties largely approve of the selection of innovations so far and think that FHWA does a good job in identifying proven yet underutilized innovations with strong potential benefit. On a broader note, a few stakeholders wondered if the EDC Program had already identified all the most useful innovations (the “low-hanging fruit”), and that it may get increasingly difficult to identify worthwhile innovations in the future.

The EDC Program support plays a crucial role in EDC Innovation adoption. Clear and transparent communication channels ensure that stakeholders are informed about the latest innovations, implementation strategies, and available resources. By providing accessible and comprehensive materials, such as guidelines, case studies, and success stories, the program equips state DOTs and other stakeholders with the necessary information to make informed decisions and effectively implement EDC Innovations.

Based on ideas contributed by stakeholders during interviews, there are some options for future programs and operations that could be considered. These are discussed below.

Options for the Initiative Selection Process, and Transparency for Stakeholders

As noted in Chapter 4, some stakeholders felt that the EDC Program could be more transparent about how the final set of Innovations is decided. Some options here include publishing

lists of innovations proposed as candidates, or at least a list of “finalists” that can accompany the unveiling of the EDC Round’s Innovations. Another option is to release the final set of Innovations earlier than the national EDC Summit, so that state DOTs might “do their homework” and come to the summit with informed questions.

A few stakeholders expressed views that although the FHWA took input from the surface transportation community, its selection of Innovations showed a desire to “push” specific innovations developed at the FHWA. While these individuals had no strong evidence to support this perception, it is worth noting that some members of the community have that concern.

Options for the Duration of EDC Rounds

Several parties expressed some dissatisfaction with keeping each Round at 2 years. These people noted that for many Innovations, 2 years is far too short to learn about it, plan for adoption, and achieve institutionalization. The EDC Program has addressed this issue in part by extending some Innovations into a second Round or building on an innovation with a related effort in subsequent Rounds.

The effectiveness of the program may be improved by extending the innovation deployment period from 2 to 3 years. EDC could use the first year to undertake preliminary actions to facilitate implementation. These activities could include

1. Contracting with technical experts who will provide innovation support;
2. Formal assessment of market readiness/market research about where Innovations are most wanted/useful;
3. Internal FHWA communication to ensure groups across the agency are informed about Innovations; and
4. Soft communications with trade groups/advocacy groups to gather support/identify possible risks and barriers.

Allocating more time at the start of the cycle for these activities early would allow deployment teams to have a full 2 years to provide technical assistance and support for innovation adoption to state and local transportation organizations.

At the same time, a few stakeholders noted that the 2-year duration is a fair compromise. Technologies move at different speeds, and 2 years is a short time for implementing new pavement technologies but a long time in the implementation of new information technologies. Two years offers the EDC Program the opportunity to spot and promote promising innovations that arise, without too much delay, while also affording time for implementation. Also, since the EDC

Program serves to introduce state DOTs to specific Innovations but does not direct deployment, the 2-year period may be sufficient to ensure that the program informs stakeholders about an innovation and provide the necessary educational resources. After that point, implementation of the innovation is the responsibility of the state DOTs and not the EDC Program.

Re-scaling Innovations

As noted in Chapter 1, the EDC Program tends to define innovations broadly, encompassing a range of technologies or practices. This may make innovations appear to involve much more substantial deployment than warranted. Although the EDC Program adopts expansive definitions for its innovations so that more states can find some element of interest, it also may seem that each requires investigating several technologies. Several stakeholders point out that one of the more successful EDC Innovations, SafetyEdge, was a relatively simple attachment to a paver to shape a roadway curb leading to less severe accidents. The EDC Program could offer a mix of Innovations that range from inexpensive, simple, and incremental to more sophisticated and substantial. Also, state DOTs may choose to deploy some components of an EDC Innovation and not others, which can complicate how implementation is reported.

Extending EDC Involvement in Innovations

A clear limitation of the EDC Program is that it influences adoption of its innovations for a defined set of 2-year Rounds, but then moves on to promote additional innovations. The evaluation project’s case study research showed that the EDC Program does link some related Innovations together, such as those related to digitization of construction processes or implementation of advanced data analytics. These cases reflected efforts to focus on key sets of innovations over a period of 6 to 10 years at least. The case studies show that EDC Innovations rarely repeat. Even in such cases, the involvement of the EDC Program in facilitating deployment of an innovation may still end well before state DOTs are able to achieve implementation.

The FHWA would need to track implementation of EDC Innovations beyond their EDC Rounds. The programs in the Resource Center and various FHWA Offices may fill this gap to some extent, but their efforts to track the progression of deployment across the state DOTs also have limits. Retrospective assessments of EDC Innovations conducted by the Volpe Center often include more systematic studies of their diffusion. Future evaluations of the EDC Program would be more informative if implementation of the Innovations in a particular Round could be tracked and recorded well beyond the 2-year timeframe. This would also help to determine whether the EDC Program is contributing to long-term change in surface transportation.

Redesigning the Progress Report

Robust reporting mechanisms track progress, document outcomes, and capture lessons learned, facilitating accountability and continuous improvement. This emphasis on dissemination support, communication, and reporting enhances transparency, fosters collaboration, and strengthens the overall effectiveness of the EDC Program in advancing transportation innovation and improving infrastructure nationwide. However, the current format and structure of progress reports seem unsatisfactory to many stakeholders. The current “implementation status” measures are so broad that they are not particularly informative and cannot provide details that make their metrics actionable.

To better capture program outcomes and outputs, the EDC Program could move from a single implementation metric and instead develop a catalog of potential measures from which each state can select the most relevant measures for its selected Innovations and projects. While stakeholders agree that the goal of the innovation is something that can be called “institutionalization,” what types of events signify institutionalization is less clear. Some other indicators suggested by stakeholders include

• Adoption of an EDC Innovation in a national standard,
• Listing an EDC Innovation as an accepted practice in surface transportation, and
• Publicity given to an EDC Innovation as an example of best practice.

Even these measures may have limitations. One stakeholder noted that certain EDC Innovations are implementations of proprietary, patented technologies, and in the past, the FHWA has discouraged the use of proprietary technology in standards.

With any new reporting system, the EDC Program will need to train participants on the new system and its accompanying standards and metrics. Any change in reporting is likely to entail careful consideration of trade-offs, and the burden on the state DOTs must be a variable in that consideration.