Chapter 6: Conclusion

As a result of the scan, the team made numerous observations on the evaluation and adoption of superior materials. The team observed process differences between European and American practice, along with a number of unique technologies that may be worth considering in the United States. This section summarizes conclusions the team drew from the various observations it made.

DRIVERS FOR INNOVATION

Overall, the team found numerous instances of the use of superior materials throughout the countries it visited. While the drivers behind their use varied, governmental policy was a major factor in most cases. Issues such as noise, safety, and sustainability (environmental stewardship) were identified at the highest levels of government as policy requirements. These policy mandates resulted in functional requirements for highway construction, which ultimately drove the selection of specific materials. Superior materials were identified as a way to meet the newer challenges countries faced.

The types of standards employed on a given job were also found to be a key driver behind innovation. In general, the less prescriptive and more functional the specifications are, the more likely it is that the contractor will consider the use of superior materials. The use of functional requirements for materials was commonly observed. In these cases, a set of requirements is established for a material that either directly or indirectly ties to the functional desires for that material (e.g., noise, friction, or smoothness limits). Finally, since quality was commonly included as a bid-selection criterion, contractors that opted to use more innovative materials to improve quality (lower life-cycle costs) had an advantage over those that did not.

WARRANTIES AND INNOVATION

While shorter-term (materials and workmanship) warranties did not typically result in an increased use of innovative materials, they were reported to result in a higher quality of construction. On warranties in general, it was found that most parties are willing to warrant products with a sufficient track record.

In general, first cost was not found to be a significant driver behind the use of superior materials. Contracts that employ long-term warranty periods (DBFO contracts) are an exception. On these projects, life-cycle cost considerations become almost mandatory. As a result, more innovative materials are sought that are more likely to meet rigorous durability requirements in addition to a reasonable initial cost.

PUBLIC-VERSUS-PRIVATE ROLES IN INNOVATION

The source of funding for identifying or developing superior materials is commonly a function of the length of return on the investment. Long-term innovations—more durable structural members, for example—typically require government support because it takes a long time to determine the outcome with certainty. Innovations whose benefits can be realized in a shorter time—new construction techniques, for example—often are financed and developed by the private sector.

The nature of highway specification also has an impact on investment decisions for new technologies and superior materials. With a transition from prescriptive to functional requirements, vendors are offering the private sector additional solutions. This includes new opportunities to demonstrate products that may not have met traditional specifications, but are known to provide superior performance. Some public agency representatives believe that before functional requirements were in place, little incentive existed to approve the use of innovative materials. They mentioned that since additional risk was taken if a failure occurred and little incentive was offered if the product performed well, innovative materials normally were not approved.

The team also noted the adoption of performance-based maintenance contracting in the European countries. Privatization of maintenance is not new to the United States, but while most U.S. maintenance contracts prescribe the activities that must be conducted, functional requirements are increasingly sought in some of the countries visited.

Finally, the Roads to the Future concept is an example of how the public and private sectors can successfully partner to develop solutions to issues that will continue to be more relevant in the years to come, namely expedited construction, and improvements in smoothness, noise, and safety. In this project, the two parties split costs evenly. The private sector retained confidentiality on the details of processes for a specified time period.

NATIONAL LABORATORIES

Most of the professionals the team members met with during the study were representatives of national highway laboratories. From these visits, the team concluded that national highway agencies have more centralized control in the material evaluation and approval process than U.S. agencies have.

Also worth noting is the fact that many of the national lab functions are in various stages of privatization. Some organizations, such as TRL and BRE in the United Kingdom, have been privatized. As a result, and for reasons mentioned in the last section, long-range research may suffer in the future.

While the team observed a number of benefits from the materials approval systems of the countries visited, it concluded that these systems are rather involved. Simply adopting parts of a materials evaluation and approval process may lead to unpredictable results.

In observing the national highway laboratories in Europe, the team reflected on the various roles of the national labs in the United States, including the FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, U.S. Corps of Engineers facilities, and U.S. Department of Energy labs. The team concluded from this comparison that the U.S. labs should continue to focus on long-range research and take an active role in encouraging private-sector innovation, especially technologies that address short-term issues. A good example is the Roads to the Future concept. National leadership would be required to coordinate and fund a similar initiative in the United States.

OTHER CONCLUSIONS

The team drew a number of additional conclusions from its observations. For example, a technique was demonstrated in which the manufacturer (vendor) for a given product certified the contractor (installer). This may prove beneficial in the

U.S. market for those products whose quality is particularly sensitive to theinstallation process.

The team also noted that the majority of the innovations presented appeared to be incremental improvements to existing materials and processes. With minimal but targeted research and development, superior materials may be more quickly realized by building on the products and systems already in place.

Finally, while the team observed a number of interesting evaluation techniques and innovative materials, few were completely new to the team. With globalization of the construction market and a significant increase in technical communication over the past 10 to 20 years, innovation has migrated quickly from Europe to the United States and vice versa.