innovation presentation - manufactuers - march 25, 2014
TRANSCRIPT
Voice of Manufacturers and DOTs: Innovation Challenges and
Opportunities for Bridge Preservation
Dave Juntunen, MI DOT
Lorella Angelini, Angelini Consulting Services
FOCUS ON MANUFACTURERS
Team:Ed Welch, TSP2Lorella Angelini, Angelini Consulting ServicesAnwar Ahmad, FHWADennis Tang, TSP2Maureen Hammer, VDOTMichael Brown, VDOT
01/21/14 3
• Main Objective:– To understand challenges faced by product Manufacturers in
developing and launching new, innovative products for bridge preservation
• Secondary Objectives:– To get quantitative and qualitative information about new products
that were released to the market in the last 5 years– To understand what assisted product Manufacturers in developing and
launching innovative products– To know about path chosen by product Manufacturers in order to
release products to the market– To evaluate knowledge of available innovation resources
01/21/14 Angelini Consulting Services & TSP2 3
Survey Objectives
ParticipantsBASF Construction Systems
CentriPipe - AP/MCeraTech
ChemMastersCortec Corporation
CTS Cement ManufacturingD.S. Brown Company
E-Bond EpoxiesEvonik
Fyfe CompanyKaufman Products
Kwik Bond PolymersLiquid Concrete
Phoscrete CorporationRJ Watson
RPM - Alteco PolymersSika
Simpson Strong-tieTermarust Technologies
Transpo IndustriesUnitex - Dayton Superior
Vector Corrosion TechnologiesWasser Corporation
Watson Bowman AcmeWillamette Valley Company
Participant Information
60%20%
20%
Marketing & Sales ManagerCEO & President & VPTechnical Specialist & Manager
Identify your position withinthe company
Concrete re
pair
Deck overla
y
Crack se
aling
Expansio
n joints
Strengthening
Corrosio
n mitigation
Shotcreting
Concrete admixt
ures0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0% 33%
19%17%
13%
7% 7%
2% 2%
Identify your company specialization
Most technologies entail bridge deck protection (70%). These are concrete repair (21% estimate for deck overlay), deck overlay (19%), crack sealing (17%), and expansion joints (13%)
01/21/14 6
96%
4%
In the last 5 years, have you launched a new product for
bridge preservation?
New Product: YesNew Product: No
22%
74%
4%
If you launched new products in the last 5 years, can you quantify
the number of products?
Just 1 New Product
From 2 to 5 New Products
More than 5 New Products
01/21/14 Angelini Consulting Services & TSP2 6
More than two products were launched by 78% (74 + 4) of Manufacturers in the last 5 years
Number of New Products
01/21/14 7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.015
10
7
5
32 2
7
57
89
7
4
Number of NewProducts
Average Level ofSatisfaction (1 to10)
01/21/14 Angelini Consulting Services & TSP2 7
Deck overlay shows the highest number of new products (15)Concrete repair has one of the lowest levels of satisfaction (5). This is a mature technology
Coatings and joints have the highest levels of satisfaction (9, 8) but also a limited number of new products
If you launched one new, innovative products in the past 5 years, provide a qualitative evaluation of the company’s level of satisfaction with the product launch
Level of Satisfaction
Challenges: Development Process
No consis
tency
betwee
n State
s
Limite
d field te
st opportu
nities
Time f
rom re
searc
h to la
unch
Funds t
o rese
arch
Time t
o rese
arch
DOTs not o
pen to
innova
tion
Lack
of pro
per sp
ecifica
tions0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%
29%23% 21%
11%9%
4% 4%
What challenges did you face in the product development process?
Fragmentation of the market due to inconsistency of specifications between the States (blue bars, 33%) is the major challenge encountered by Manufacturers in new product development
New Product Release
12%
68%
16%4%
From 1 to 5 StatesFrom 6 to 15 StatesFrom 15 to 30 StatesFrom 30 to 40 StatesMore than 40 States: 0
States that were targeted during first 5 years of product introductionOn the market
52%
28%
12%8%
2 years1 year6 monthsOther: Unable to quantify
Time elapsed between R&D development and product deploymentto customers
01/21/14 1001/21/14 Angelini Consulting Services & TSP2 10
Reason for Limited Release
No QPL cat-egory in
some States
Differences between
States
Agencies do not want to
try new technologies
Complexity of multiple ap-
proval process
High cost for different approval processes
Regional focus of the
company
Company focuses on
selected customers
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%22%
19% 18%
13%10% 9% 9%
If you targeted less than 15 States, what was the reason for re-leasing product(s) in a limited number of States?
Complexity of the approval process linked to QPL and inconsistency of requirements between Agencies (g.bars = 64%) are the major causes for product release in a limited number of States
Challenges: Product Relaese
DOTs do not t
ry new
products
Tech
nology not p
resen
t in Q
PL list
Non fitting Q
PL stan
dard
DOTs ca
nnot tak
e risk
s
Contracto
rs do not t
ry new
products
High co
st
Agency
uncerta
inty of v
alue
Not enough
competi
tors
for bid
Lack
of suita
ble pro
jects
0%5%
10%15%20%25%
23%
16% 14% 13%8% 8% 8% 7%
3%
What specific challenges did you face in the product release?
QPL complexity (red bars, 37%) as well as some caution taken by the Agencies (blue bars, 44%) are seen as major impediments for the release of new products into the market
01/21/14 12
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%30%
19%
13%11% 11%
8%4%
2% 2%0%
What did ease the path to deploying the new product on the market?
01/21/14 12Angelini Consulting Services & TSP2
Relationship with Agencies (30%) is a major factor in the product release process. The ability of getting easy access to testing also rates high (y. bars, 32%)
Easier Path to Market: Up to Now
01/21/14 13
0%
10%
20%
30% 24%
16%13% 13% 12%
10%7%
5%
What could have eased the path to deploying the new product on the market?
01/21/14 Angelini Consulting Services & TSP2 13
Manufacturers require to streamline the product approval process (b. bars, 37%) and to facilitate field and Lab tests (g. bars, 36%)
Easier Path to Market: Future
Considerations
Positive Points• Number of Products
– 2 to 5 products launched in the past 5 years by most Manufactures
• Established Relationships– On going dialogue between
Manufacturers and DOTs• TSP2
– Key role as a facilitator of industry relationships
• Level of Satisfaction – High for new technologies, lower for
lengthy presence in the industry
Issues• Complexity
– Each DOT has its own procedure for product approval
• Limited Expectations– Most Manufacturers target one-
third or less of US States• Limited Investments
– More than 40% of products put on the market in very short time
• Knowledge of Available Resources– Limited: NTPEP and TSP2 only
Recommendations• Raise Expectations
– Raise expectations of Manufacturers that develop and launch new, innovative products for bridge preservation
• Take Action– Streamline process
• Geographical areas for common/similar specifications• Simplify new product process approval between States• Standardize testing procedures
– Foster Communication between industry and DOTs:Build on TSP2 success in networking and communicationEstablish list of key contacts within AgenciesEstablish industry relationship office within each DOTMake Manufacturers aware of resources available for the industry