d8_v6-f

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

1/26

INNOSUTRA D8 Page1/26

INNOVATION PROCESSES IN SURFACE TRANSPORT

Contract No. TREN/FP7TR/234076INNOSUTRA

Deliverable: D8 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY OF WORK

Project Start Date: January 1st 2010 End Date: December 31st 2011

Co-ordinator: UA

Deliverable No

WP No WP 5 WP Leader: UAegean

Due date: 31.12.2011

Submission date: 23.12.2011

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

2/26


Document summary information

Authors and contributors

Initials Author Organisation

AR Athena Roumboutsos UAegeanSK Seraphim Kapros UAegeanAP Amalia Polydoropoulou UAegeanMLA Maria Lambrou UAegeanML Michael Lloyd LCA EuropeKF Koos Frouws TUDelftCF Claudio Ferrari UGenovaGA Giulia Arduino UGenovaLG Laurent Guihery CNRSFL Florent Laroche CNRSYC Yves Crozet CNRS

TV Thierry Vanelslander UARA Raimonds Aronietis UA

Revision historyRev. Who Date Comment1 ML 19.12.2011 Final draft2 RA 30.01.2012 Included comments of the rieviewers2 RA 27.02.2012 Updated with comments from the Commission3 RA 28.03.2012 Updated with comments from the Commission

4

Quality ControlName Date

Checked by internal reviewerChecked by Task Leader

Checked by WP Leader

Disclaimer

The content of the publication herein is the sole responsibility of the publishers and it does not necessarilyrepresent the views expressed by the European Commission or its services.

While the information contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the authors(s) or any otherparticipant in the INNOSUTRA consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this material

including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Neither the INNOSUTRA Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall beresponsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omissionherein.

Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither the INNOSUTRA Consortium nor any of itsmembers, their officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or consequential lossor damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or omission herein.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

3/26


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Approach of the Work: Methodologies Used .....................................................................4

2. Applying the Methodologies.................................................................................................6

3. Typology of Innovations .......................................................................................................7

4. Typology of Actions...............................................................................................................8

5. Specific Success Conditions................................................................................................10

6. Recommended Structure of Actions/Interventions..........................................................11

Recommendations .......................................................................................................................13

Codified Recommendations........................................................................................................15

Decision Tree Fragments............................................................................................................17

Annex 1: Structure of Recommended Actions .........................................................................19

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

4/26


1. Approach of the Work: Methodologies Used

1.1 This section indicates the overall approach taken by the project to both the

methodologies employed and the selection of innovation cases to be analysed,

based on the input from the experts consulted. In essence it summarises the

outcomes of the successive stages of the project in terms of the evolution of the

methodological development, culminating in the production of a set of policy

recommendations.

1.2 From the outset two broad categorisations of innovations were observed. First,

private commercial innovations, the motivations for which are either revenue

generation or cost-reduction and, second, public innovations/policy initiatives wherethe motivation is related to achieving an increase in socio-economic welfare.

Moreover, the public policy initiatives are generally targeted on complete sectoral

and trans-sectoral transport markets.

1.3 The InnoSuTra approach to the innovation process has been multi-layered. The

first layer, expressed in the Inception Report (D1) and the Preliminary Innovation

Report (D2.1), involves a number of steps. At the initial stage it was decided to

identify the innovation by its predominant component/aspect, i.e. technology,

organisational, etc.; though without ignoring other subsidiary aspects of the

innovation (see D6), and its locationin terms of the transport mode/sector where itis initiated; though without ignoring the impacts on other modes and sectors (in

some cases this will be recognised overtly by designating the innovation as

intermodal). Most innovations are incremental and not radical and for the purposes

of InnoSuTra the analysis concerned incrementalinnovations.

1.4 The second layer involves identifying the barriers placed in the path of the

innovation and the support processes used to overcome these barriers. The

barriers (see D2.1 and D4/5) may be of various types and heights and may occur at

different stages of the innovation process. The early analysis of the barriers

suggested that in the case of successful innovations the barriers were able to be

overcome, whereas in the case of failures or not yet successful innovations similar

barriers appeared to prevent the innovations from moving forward. It appeared that

once sufficient momentum had been achieved then barriers could be overcome

(see D2.1). The task was to determine in each case, or classes of cases, which

factors enabled the desired progress to the be made.

1.5 In the third layer, the three stages/phases of the innovation process to be used

were, based on those previously identified in the scientific literature; initiation,

development, and implementation (see D4/5). In reality, as stressed in D6, theinnovation process is actually a continuous process which may be split into a

further number of phases, particularly at the beginning of the innovation process.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

5/26


(At this later stage, in D6, it was useful to employ a more differentiated

categorisation to enable more accurate comparisons to be made between the

innovations analysed in the project). However, the broader differentiation into the

three main phases is used for the earlier InnoSuTra analyses (D2.1 and D4/5) and

is also used for the development of policy action (D7/D8). The existence of thesephases of the process implies also that it is often difficult to suggest that an

innovation has failed and, for most of the cases studied, the designation not yet a

success is preferable. This implies that the appropriate positive intervention may

yet be able to move forward the innovation process, particularly in terms of

development or implementation.

1.6 The fourth layer involves a detailed analysis of the various factors which may, and

do, affect the progress of an innovation and may either enable it to move forward

rapidly in terms of take-up within the sector(s) or may cause the process to slow

down, or even halt, the spread of the innovation within the sector(s). In this stageuse was made of the MIRP analysis of innovation and a detailed analysis of both

the barriers involved in the innovation cases analysed and the support processes

used to overcome these. Factors were identified in a variety of areas, including

financial/investment constraints; technical constraints including a lack of standards,

and human resource availability. This enabled a deeper insight to be gained on

these factors and suggested also the idea of a risk analysis to be carried out where

public money was involved in promoting or supporting innovation. D4/5 indicates

the results of these detailed analyses and the conclusions derived from them.

1.7 The fifth layer involves the use of the Systems Innovation (SI) analytical framework

(see D6 and in summary form in Annex 1). This framework provides a means to

identify a set of external factors (the so-called institutional environment and rules)

and the sets of actors involved in the innovation being analysed. This layer also

identified for each innovation a range of influences. This suggests for any

innovation there are likely to be influences or impacts which extend the nature or

scope of the innovation, e.g. involving organisational or cultural components to an

innovation which has been defined, primarily, as a technological innovation. The

importance of defining all of the components of the innovation is important as the

focus of attention and intervention may alter as the innovation moves through theprocess from initiation to implementation. In other cases it may be relevant to

determine whether the initial impact of the innovation was the specific business unit

involved or whether a wider market focus was involved. Other influences or impacts

will extend the innovation beyond the transport mode which has immediately been

involved, e.g. extending from rail to road for a modification of a rail wagon to travel

by road. (To some extent this might be avoided by classifying the innovation as

intermodal, but in that case a large number of innovations might have to be so

classified, with a potential loss of focus on the initiator or main beneficiary). Finally,

the role and importance of the initiator of the innovation is explored. This overallanalysis of policy interventions to achieve successful adoptions of innovations is

summarised in D6 and an innovation adoption path is derived (see Fig. 5 in D6).

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

6/26


1.8 In D8 the aim is to combine the various above layers of methodological analysis to

derive a set of prescriptive recommendations, linking the types of intervention to the

appropriate typology designation of the innovation in question, taking account of the

potentially shifting focus of intervention, related to the key component/aspect of the

innovation and the range of modal and other influences. In this manner thecombined analysis of, inter alia, the barriers, support processes, incidental impacts,

etc., and finally the application of the SI framework approach, enables a clear

perspective to be formed as to the relevant success conditions to be achieved,

including particularly via the employment of appropriate public policy interventions

(see D8).

2. Applying the Methodologies

1.1 From the early stages of the project it has been clear that there was an obvious

divide between the commercial innovations analysed and the policy

innovations/initiatives analysed. However, within both of these two categories, and

particularly within the commercial group of innovations, the idiosyncratic nature of

specific innovations was going to make the drawing of general conclusions difficult.

However, if the project was to be pragmatic then it was necessary to derive overall

recommendations to improve the initiation, development, and, particularly, the

implementation of innovations. This point has been borne in mind throughout the

various stages of the methodologies deployed and analyses applied.

1.2 The ultimate objective has been to derive recommendations which could enable

actions and interventions to be taken which would accelerate the take up ofinnovations within the markets they were addressing. These recommendations

should then be of value to both private commercial actors wishing to sponsor or to

adopt innovations within the surface transport sector or individual sub-sectors, and

to policy-makers wishing to intervene appropriately and successfully in the

innovation process at transport sector or sub-sector level.

1.3 Two other key features of innovations were noted from the outset. First, that the

majority of innovations were incremental in nature and not radical. Second, that to

classify some innovations as failures was neither completely valid (though some

might be capable in time to be so designated) nor helpful in analytical terms as anumber of the innovations analysed could be considered to be work in progress

(see 1.5 above). At each of these three temporal stages (see 1.5 above) any

missing success conditions, or barrier-clearing actions, may be introduced to try to

ensure that the innovation process is able to gain the necessary momentum to

move forward.

1.4 As indicated in Section 1, a number of complementary approaches and

methodologies were explored and used during the various stages of the project.

These methodologies were incorporated in the detailed analyses of the selected

innovation cases produced during the project and also received inputs from the

experts consulted at the two expert consultation meetings in April 2010 (D2) and

October 2011 (D3). The first of these expert consultation meetings resulted in the

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

7/26


selection of the innovation cases considered for detailed analysis in the project and

the advisory board was also consulted at various stages during the project.

1.5 The methodological approaches dealing with the barriers and support processes

are described in D2, D4/D5. In D6, the SI (Systems Analysis) methodological

approach is used. In D6 this framework is used in the clustering exercise applied to

the individual innovation cases. This work provided a broad innovation path

analysis which has enabled the derivation of an InnoSuTra innovation approach to

be applied to future innovation cases, as illustrated in D7. The approach combines

the methodological insights gained from all of the work done in the project.

1.6 Hence, in order to demonstrate how the InnoSuTra innovation approach may be

applied to future innovation cases affecting surface transport, two broad innovation

case areas were selected. These two innovation cases, covering green transport

and e-freight, are reported on in D7.

1.7 The D7 innovation case analyses suggested that it was possible, and valuable, to

develop the InnoSuTra innovation approach, to provide a structured framework for

a set of policy recommendations to be made. This involves developing a set of

relationships between, on the one hand, the designated type of innovation (e.g.

organisational, being the predominant aspect) and the various SI determined areas

of influence on which to focus to achieve the success conditions for the innovation.

This approach is set out in the following paragraphs.

3. Typology of Innovations1.1 First, it is important to recognise that a number of typologies or classification

systems are possible to cover the selected InnoSuTra innovations. The varied and

eclectic nature of the innovations means that a number of descriptors may be used,

singly or in combination to classify innovations. For instance an innovation may be

regarded as a hybrid including technology and organisational change or

organisational and cultural change. Various combinations of factors/descriptors

were used in D6 and conclusions derived from the subsequent clustering exercise

as to a range of policy interventions which could be identified for the successful

adoption of the innovations. However, in this final deliverable we will focus on the

initial, narrower Innosutra typology/classification (based on the predominant

component of the innovation; though as indicated earlier the predominant

component may well vary dependent on the temporal phase reached in the

innovation process). This approach will lead directly to the provision of a structured

setof recommendations for both private and public actors, aimed at improving the

likelihood of successful innovation and the more rapid spread of innovations across

the surface transport individual sectors, and where relevant, across the surface

transport sector as a whole.

1.2 The objective is to provide an indication of the required actions to be taken inrelation to the type/nature of the innovation considered.For this purpose we will, as

indicated, revert to the typology of innovations used initially (see D2.1 and in the

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

8/26


Tables set out below). The four main types of innovation: (technology,

organisational/managerial, cultural, including marketing, and policy initiatives), take

account of the predominant component of the innovation. It is important also to note

that, though the innovations may be attributed to a particular transport mode, the

range of influences may implicate more than that mode. Where the innovationsmodal range is explicit then the innovations will be classified as intermodal. The aim

is then to investigate the principal actions/interventions which appear to generate a

successful innovation for the type of innovation involved. This is not to suggest that

such interventions, or attention to the particular action areas involved, will provide a

set of sufficient conditions for success. Rather the aim is to indicate the necessary

conditions which must be fulfilled if the type of innovation is, in time, to prove

successful in being widely adopted across the transport sector market immediately

involved or across a number of transport sector markets.

4. Typology of Actions

1.1 The typology of actions/interventions is based on the SI framework (see Section 5

below) and includes three broad groups of factors: key groups of actors, key

institutional factors, and key socio-economic environment factors. Obviously for any

innovation the weighting of the actions required for success will include a weighted

mixture of these three groups of factors. It is also the case, however, that there is

one factor which is common to all successful prosecution of innovations: having a

positive overall socio-economic environment. The existence of sufficient economicdemand is a key pre-requisite for commercialinnovation success.

1.2 Determining whether or not there exists a positive socio-economic environment,

and in particular whether sufficient economic demand is present, is an important

investigative element in the policy analysis of innovation and is also a pre-requisite

for successful innovation from the viewpoint of the initiator and developer of any

commercial innovation. (Notwithstanding this point there are examples where

inspirational entrepreneurship may be able to spot unrealised economic demand.

The Apple entrepreneur Steve Jobs appeared able, on occasions, to achieve this,

albeit rare, feat). Again the temporal aspect of the innovation process comes intoplay. Timing the introduction phase, or particularly the development phase, of an

innovation process affords a mechanism for achieving the presence of an optimum

or near-optimum socio-economic environment. (An example where this is evident is

the Reefer Containerinnovation which was stimulated by the global trade growth in

food products).

1.3 The above general, background condition, of sufficient economic demand, for

achieving a successful commercial innovation may be said to apply to all such

innovations. However, thespecific conditions which are considered to be valuable

in stimulating the adoption of particular types of innovations across surface

transport sectors, and which have been identified in the InnoSuTra analyses, can

now be identified and discussed. This discussion is set in the context of the SI

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

9/26


framework, as this evolutionary systems approach to analysing the innovation

process offers valuable insights for both private operators and public policy-makers.

The relation with the earlier work carried out in the project is clear. Initially in D2.1

and later, specifically in D4/5. The detailed analytical conclusions of D4/5

suggested a number of weighted factors which appear to be important ininfluencing the spread of innovations. These factors concerned the barriers

identified; the actors involved, and the support processes used to stimulate the

innovations.

1.4 It is worth analysing the D4/5 weighted factors in relation to the SI analytical

framework. The aim of both analytical frameworks is to identify the conditions which

are likely to lead to successful innovation activity. Once the essential categorisation

of the innovations has been made the designation of the appropriate interventions

may be determined. This will also enable a typology of potential

actions/interventions to be constructed (using the SI framework) and set against thetypology of innovations. It should be noted that the SI areas for action/intervention

are meant also to indicate the required actions for private commercial operators, as

well as for public policy-makers, when pursuing success in innovation activity.

1.5 Turning to the case ofpublic policy initiatives, the innovation/initiative is applied, at

the outset, to the whole of a sector or across all sectors and, indeed in a number of

cases across national boundaries. Despite the differences between the policy

initiatives and the commercial innovations the InnoSuTra analysis is similar in that

the same typology of innovations may be applied (though the policy initiatives will

rarely involve technology as the main driver) and the temporal process from

initiation to implementation will apply, as will the application of the range of

influences. Hence, though the motivation for the policy initiatives (net socio-

economic benefit) is different from the commercial imperatives driving commercial

innovations, a parallel analytical framework, including the SI framework may be

applied.

1.6 These public policy innovations/initiatives are likely to involve losers as well as

gainers in terms of socio-economic benefit within the sector or the trans-sectoral

area and sometimes between countries. In these innovations it is clear that the roleand capabilities of national governments and institutions are relevant factors (an

example here is the Internalisation of External Costswhich has, so far, failed, in its

attempted implementation, to achieve this condition for public policy success). This

includes capabilities like management, organization and behavioral issues, but this

would make the analysis overly complex. Also, within the scope of the project not

enough data could be collected to deal with each of these separately.

1.7 We can now turn to the identification of the generalised sets of relationships

between the innovation typologies and the sets of actors and factors/areas of

influence derived from the SI analytical framework, set within the overall InnoSuTrainnovation approach. This should enable a codified approach to be derived to the

sets of interventions required to enable successful adoption of the defined sets of

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

10/26


innovations. It is worth first proceeding to identify the specific success conditions

derived from the SI analytical framework, slightly modified to suit the InnoSuTra

innovation approach.

5. Specific Success Conditions1.1 The specific actions/interventions to support innovations to achieve success are as

follows (the references, NA1 etc., are used in the tables under Table 2 in Annex 1):

Key Networks of Actors (NA)

The involvement of knowledge institutes, as key actors, to assist with

developing the innovation and its ancillary aspects, e.g. standards (This

action was exemplified by its effective presence in relation to the Y-

shaped Hullinnovation and its inadequatepresence in relation to the EILU

policy innovation/initiative). (NA1)

Ensuring that key actors have the requisite capabilities to perform the

functions required of them (This action was exemplified by the ERTMS

policy innovation/initiative). (NA2)

Utilising strong networks, for instance across sectors and intermodally, to

enable innovations to develop effectively. This area of action is also

relevant in relation to lobbying groups (This action was exemplified by the

EMTS innovation) (NA3)

Avoiding an innovation being captured by strong networks and ensuring

that soft network links are established. Again this area of action is relevant

to the role and strengths of lobbying groups. (This actionwas illustrated in

the ITS policy innovation case). (NA4)

Key Institutional Factors (IF)

Ensuring that hard rules (laws, taxes, and regulations) are recognised in

terms of the impact they may have on the innovation (This action was

illustrated in the Port State Control initiative/innovation). (IF1)

Ensuring the adequacy of the infrastructure required to implement the

innovation (This actionwas exemplified in the Modalhor innovation by the

provision of the required rail infrastructure). (IF2)

Key Socio-Economic Factors (S-EF)

Paying sufficient attention to the soft rules that apply in the sectors or

countries involved in the implementation of the innovation, including, inter

alia, the presence or anticipation of sufficient socio-economic demand

(this is also a general condition) and the nature of potential competition

from other actors, other sectors, or other potential innovations (This actionwas demonstratedin theIndented Berthinnovation in the maritime sector).

(S-EF1)

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

11/26


Accessing available public funds (grants and loans) which can subsidise

innovation costs in the initiation and development stages of the innovation

process (This action was exemplified in the Y-Shaped Hull innovation).

(S-EF2)

6. Recommended Structure of Actions/Interventions

(Typology of Actions/Interventions versus Typology of Innovations)

General1.1 The tables T1, which lists the various analysed InnoSuTra innovations, and,

specifically T2, both set out in Annex 1, encapsulate the range of potential

actions/interventions set against the various categories of innovations

(referenced to the analysed InnoSuTra cases).

1.2 The tables indicate the main interventions/actions which may be made at the

three identified broad, temporal stages/phases of innovation from inception topotential exploitation across markets, in order to accelerate the adoption of the

four categories of innovations listed. Not all of the indicated specific interventions

may be necessary in all of the types of innovation or in all of the three broad

temporal phases, but all should be considered. It is also true that, in a number of

cases, private commercial actions may obviate the need for any public policy

intervention. For instance, sharing the costs of investment in innovation between

private commercial participants may be sufficient without the need for a

government grant or loan.

1.3 It is important to recognise that these public interventions will not guarantee the

successful implementation of the innovations across the markets involved, as

other innovations may subsequently, and in some cases concurrently, be

developed which may supersede the innovations which are the subject of the

interventions. This does not imply that the interventions were wrongly made, or

that they distorted the market. It is simply that, as recognised by the SI

approach, the innovation process is anevolutionaryone. (N.B. It should be noted

here that the SI approach, as indicated in its exposition in D6, moves away from

a neo-classical theoretical market approach. Hence public interventions, in a

mixed economy, are as valid as private commercial ones. The issue is whetheror not either type of action/intervention is the correct one or not for ensuring

successful innovations).

1.4 There are a number of other points to note. The types of public policy

intervention to support commercial innovations particularly those classified

as technology innovations are: support in terms of grants and loans during the

initiation phase of the innovation process and support for knowledge institutes to

enable them to provide key inputs to the initiation phase of the innovation

process. In other innovation types, interventions will include: setting the hard

rules governing the sector(s), in terms of law and regulation; providing thenecessary infrastructure development, and ensuring the competences and

capabilities of the public institutions supporting the various transport sectors.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

12/26


N.B. Private commercial interventions are of a different nature and have adifferent motivation. They are driven by the desire of the commercial initiator orpromoter of the innovation to find support for the innovation in question. Theaction/intervention, e.g. investment, is founded on the belief that the innovationwill increase sales revenue; reduce costs, increase market share, or some

combination of all three positive outcomes. Hence, these interventions include:marketing of the innovation and its net benefits to both the immediate customersand the end-customers of the innovation; seeking cost-sharing betweencommercial beneficiaries where the investment cost is high, and also seekingfinancial support from public bodies.

1.5 It should be noted that our analyses have emphasised the importance of the

preparation of well-developed socio-economic, cost-benefit justifications for the

cases involving publicpolicy initiatives/innovations, and of the need to be

able to counter lobbying from individual groups who may not be able to

appreciate the overall net socio-economic benefit of the policy initiatives

proposed, and the potential compensation of losers by gainers within the policyinitiatives involved.

1.6 Though the InnoSuTra cases were not evenly distributed across the five types of

innovation (there were few cultural/marketing or logistical innovations) the

consortium does not believe that this invalidates the conclusion drawn or the

recommendations made. This confidence stems from the validity of the

InnoSuTra innovation approach; referenced also to previously tested analyses of

the innovation process in the relevant literature, and tested, theoretically, in the

Green Transport and E-Freight cases. The added value of InnoSuTra has been

to provide a codified set of recommended actions/interventions both for

commercial participants and for public policy-makers in the surface transport

sector(s).

1.7 The recommendations have been tested, in a preliminary fashion, and the

putative outcomes indicated, in the cases of E-Freight and Green Transport.

Obviously, we cannot claim that the interventions suggested, based on our

InnoSuTra innovation approach, will besuccessful. However, it can be seen that

the areas suggested for intervention are related, not to areas e.g. such as the

ICT systems or networks, which may be said to be the province of the private,commercial sectors (suppliers and customers) but to those areas where new or

modified rules may be introduced to facilitate or motivate the innovations. These

rules (hard rules mainly, in the SI terminology) may include laws, regulations

(including standards), taxes, grants, loans. Examples could be: simpler and less

paper-based customs procedures; subsidies to green transport initiatives

(including EIB loan finance); standard electronic interface protocols, etc.

1.8 The types of interventions, covering commercial and public policy interventions in

the innovation process. indicated in the recommendations set out below and

illustrated in the tables in Annex 1, should be of use in supporting andaccelerating the spread of commercial innovations within the individual surface

transport sectors and, where relevant, across a number of the sectors, or, indeed,

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

13/26


across all of them in relation to certain wide-ranging public policy

initiatives/innovations. (Obviously, by definition, the interventions relating to the

policy innovations/initiativesare themselves public actions).

1.9 This emphasis should not be interpreted as under-playing the importance of the

approaches suggested by the analysis in relation to the innovation strategies

adopted by commercial actors. It is clearly the case that the major impetus for

innovation is going to rest with the commercial sectors. There are lessons to be

learned by the commercial sector; the role of public policy interventions is to

provide support, where necessary, to ensure that the commercial strategies are

effective in delivering and spreading the innovation across the various transport

sectors.

1.10 One advantage of the codified approach to the policy intervention

recommendations indicated above, and set out in the tables and accompanyingnotes below, is that it could be developed into a decision-tree/algorithmic

approach to decisions on how best to support the innovation process in particular

circumstances (i.e. taking account also of the socio-economic environment, the

type of innovation, and the surface transport sector(s) involved).

Recommendations

The recommendations indicated in summary codified form in Table 1 below andindicated also in the tables and the accompanying notes in Annex 1, are summarisedbelow. Following Table 1 is a short section indicated the potential for the development,

subsequently, of a decision tree system. It is important also to place therecommendations in the context of D4/5 and D6. The recommendations in thisdeliverable, D8, have incorporated the insights and conclusions reported in the earlierdeliverables, D4/5 and D6.It should also be noted that, in all innovation cases, actionto utilise and strengthen actor networks is required, as is an indication of sufficienteconomic demand, either present or in prospect. As the recommendations cover bothcommercial innovations and public policy initiatives the two branches of theinnovation pathway are important to note. For this reason the innovation pathwaydiagram from D6 is first repeated below.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

14/26


R.1 Technology Innovations. In relation to those innovations which may beclassified as principally technology-based innovations in whatever phase of theinnovation process is involved Table 1 summarises in codified form the essentialsets of actions required. Table 2a in Annex 1 indicates, with references also to thecases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types of action/intervention, linked to thethree broad temporal phases of the innovation process.With this type of innovation it may be observed, in Table 2a, that the emphasis islikely to be on public policy actions/interventions being most effective in terms ofsupport for the initiatingof the innovations. This may often be in terms of the provisionof innovation grants or loans, but equally important in some cases is the involvementof knowledge institutes, including standards bodies (CEN). For the commercial sector

it is important that access to such sources of funds and of knowledge in the initiationphaseof innovations is sought, as a key element in moving forward from the originalconception. Subsequent action during the development phase of the innovationprocess will require the establishment of hard rules, e.g. standards, may also berequired. During the implementationphase, public investment in infrastructure and/orhard rules may again be required, and it will be important to ensure that all actorshave the requisite technological (and organisational) capabilities.R.2 Organisation/Management Innovation. In relation to those innovations whichmay be classified asprincipallyorganisation/management innovations in whateverphase of the innovation process is involved Table 1 summarises in codified form theessential sets of actions required. Table 2b in Annex 1 indicates, with references

also to the cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types of intervention linked to thethree broad temporal phases of the innovation process.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

15/26


This type of innovation may be supported positively by actions/interventions whichensure that all the relevant network actors (including weak actors) are involved in allof the phases of the innovation process, and that the business and/or socio-economicbenefits are clearly attributable to each of the actors. In some cases this may meanover-ruling some conservative, change-resisting views and avoiding such strong

networks from capturing the innovation. The adequacy of infrastructure may be aconstraining factor to be overcome in some instances and the need for standardsmay be crucial to the success of an innovation. Finally, it will be necessary for theinitiator/promoter to market the innovation during the implementation phase.R.3 Cultural/Marketing Innovation. In relation to those innovations which mayprincipally be classified as cultural or marketing innovations in whatever phase ofthe innovation process is involved Table 1 summarises in codified form theessential sets of actions required. Table 2c in Annex 1 indicates, with references alsoto the cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types of intervention linked to the threebroad temporal phases of the innovation process.With this type of innovation there are essentially three main areas of potential policyintervention by either the commercial actors or by public policy-makers, principally inthe development and implementation phases of the innovation process. These are:first, to ensure that all the key actors (including lobbying groups) are involved at thedevelopment stage; second, at the same stage, to ensure the provision of adequateinfrastructure; third, to ensure the existence of sufficient potential economic demand,and, finally, to ensure that the innovation is marketed strongly by theinitiator/promoter.R.4 Public Policy Initiatives/Innovations. In relation to those innovations whichmay be classified as innovations which have been public policy initiatives inwhatever phase of the innovation process is involved Table 1 summarises in

codified form the essential sets of actions required. Table 2d in Annex 1 indicates,with references also to the cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types ofintervention linked to the three broadtemporal phases of the innovation process.With this type of policy innovation/initiative the approach is clearly distinguished fromthe commercial innovations. Hence, the emphasis following a careful socio-economic cost benefit analysis to determine that there is a potential net socio-economic benefit for the policy initiative is on persuading all the various actorsinvolved, including national governments, that, overall, total benefits will exceed thetotal costs, even if some actors may be losers. Compensating the losers may be acondition for acceptance. This is not easy as industrial lobbying groups and onoccasions also environmental groups form strong networks and can capture the

initiative/innovation. It will also be important to ensure that all the actors involved,again including national governments, have the necessary capabilities to implementthe policy initiative involved.

Codified Recommendations

Table 1 below indicates in simplified tabular form a codified set of recommendations.Clearly any such codified set of recommendations cannot be definitive. There willalways be idiosyncratic characteristics in some innovations which may require individualattention. In all case it will be necessary, ex ante, to identify the pre-dominant innovationcomponent (e.g. organisational and the temporal phase in which the innovation iscurrently sitting. However, Table 1 below linked to the tables in Annex 1 and the datafrom D4/5 and D6 conclusions may provide a useful guide to the areas of actions andinterventionto which attention should be paid in order to accelerate the spread/adoption

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

16/26


of innovations in surface transport, and perhaps more generally. There is also thepossibility, indicated briefly below, of being able, subsequently, to develop a decisiontree system approach to the guidance.

Table 1: Summary of Codified Suggested ActionsAll Innovations Actors Institutional

Environment (SI)

Initiation All Relevant Actors Soft Rules(EconomicDemand)

Development All Relevant Actors Soft Rules(EconomicDemand)

Implementation All Relevant Actors Soft Rules(EconomicDemand)

TechnologyInnovations

Initiation Phase Initiator and ManufacturerKnowledge Institutes

Soft Rules (InternalInvestment; Joint IndustryFunding; Bank Funding)Soft Rules (PublicInnovation Funding,Grants and Loans)Hard Rules(Regulations:Stimulus)

Development Phase Pilot Customer Hard Rules(Standards)Public or Private Funding

Implementation Phase Sector Customers Hard Rules(Standards)

Infrastructure InvestmentCapabilities (ensure allactors can implement theinnovation)Soft Rules(Marketing byinitiator/promoter)

OrganisationalInnovationsInitiation Phase Initiator/promoter to ensure that

all network actors to be involvedKnowledge Institutes

Strong NetworksAvoidcapture by strongnetworksInfrastructureprovision

Development Phase Involve weak actors, e.g. SMEs Weak NetworksStrengthen completenetwork involving allactorsSoft Rules (Public orPrivate Funding required)Soft Rules(net benefitsfor transportchains/networks

Implementation Phase All actors Infrastructure provisionSoft Rules (Marketing by

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

17/26


initiator/promoter)

Cultural/MarketingInnovationsInitiation Phase

Development Phase All key actors, including lobbyinggroups

Infrastructure provisionSoft Rules(Economicdemand)Soft Rules(Marketing byinitiator/promoter)

Implementation Phase All key actors, including lobbyinggroups

Infrastructure provisionSoft Rules (Economicdemand)Soft Rules (Marketing byinitiator/promoter)

Public Policy

Initiatives/InnovationsInitiation Phase All key actors, includinglobbying groups and national(and regional/local)governmentsKnowledge Institutes

Soft Rules (sufficient netsocio-economic benefit)

Development Phase All key actors, includinglobbying groups and national(and regional/local)governments, to remainsupportive

Capabilities (ensure thatall key actors have thenecessary capabilities)

Implementation Phase All key actors, includinglobbying groups and national(and regional/local)governments, to remainsupportive

Capabilities (ensure thatall key actors have thenecessary capabilities)Hard Rules including, asappropriate, taxes,subsidies, and regulationsInfrastructure provision

Decision Tree Fragments

The decision tree fragments below are provided to give a simplified indication of how afull decision tree system might be developed. This could then be turned into analgorithm to enable a software model to be developed. It is important to recognise thatthis task will require considerable further work to ensure that all relevant options foraction are included and structured correctly. The first decision tree Decision Tree:Commercial: Technology innovation corresponds with recommendations for R.1Technology Innovations, and the second Decision Tree: Public: OrganisationalInnovation is valid for R.2 Organisation/Management Innovations, R.3Cultural/Marketing Innovations and R.4 Public Policy Initiatives/Innovations.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

18/26


Decision Tree: Commercial: Technology innovation

Decision Tree: Public: Organisational Innovation

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

19/26


Annex 1: Structure of Recommended Actions

1.11 Table 1 lists the various innovations which have been analysed in detail

during the second and subsequent phases of the project. They are classified by

transport mode and by broad innovation type. It is important to stress the need

for a correct identification of the type of innovation under consideration. Almost

all innovations, as indicated in D6, combine a number of aspects (e.g.

technological, cultural, organisational), but in terms of determining the

appropriate interventions the predominant component of the innovation needs to

be identified. For instance, as the e-freight case analysed in D7 shows, though

technology is clearly an aspect of the innovation, it is primarily an organisational

innovation. It is also the case that the range of influences of an innovation are

likely to go beyond the transport mode immediately involved. For instance theModalhor innovation, classified as a rail innovation might easily have been

classified as an intermodal innovation as its impact clearly involved road

transport.

1.12 The tables under the general heading, Table 2, indicate, against the main

types of innovations and the three innovation process phases, the types of

interventions which may be relevant. The intervention types are drawn from the

SI analytical framework and cover the uniquelypublicactions/interventions, IF1,

inred, and the commercial actions/interventionsin black. Apart from IF1, all the

actions are common to both public and commercial actors. The aim of the

actions/interventions is to secure the successful and rapid spread of the

innovations across the transport sector, or trans-sector, markets involved. The

majorityof actions, to move forward the commercial innovationprocess, will be

taken by the commercial organisations involved. The types of public interventions

to promote commercial innovations are more restricted than the commercial

interventions, but, as indicated above, there is an overlap between public and

commercial in terms of the actions that can be taken.

1.13 The actions to initiate, develop and implement the commercial and publicinnovations analysed, are covered in the SI analyses reported in D6, and as well

as in D4/D5. It should be noted, therefore, that these actions are derived from the

earlier analyses (indicating the detailed barriers and support processes involved)

conducted in InnoSuTra.

1.14 The coded references in Table 2 refer to the innovations analysed in

InnoSutra (by innovation type and by sector) against the associated appropriate

interventions which are also coded (see 5.1 above). These are the

actions/interventions identified in the InnoSuTra analyses as relevant to success.

The actions so referenced are those which were taken, or could have been taken,by either commercial and public actors to move forward the innovation process at

the various stages identified, i.e. either did lead, or would have led if applied

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

20/26


correctlyto a successful innovation process across a transport sector market or

trans-sector market. The detail on these cases is to be found in the various

appendices of D4/D5 and D6. In Table 2 there are some SI areas for

action/intervention against which there are no references to the InnoSuTra

innovation cases; though such actions could be usefully taken in relation to theinnovation types indicated.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

21/26


Table 1: InnoSuTra Innovation Cases Studied by Transport Mode/Sub-sector

Road Maritime Rail IWW Intermodal

EU -wideCabotage

Ro,C4

Reefercontainerizat

ion

M,C1

ERTMS

Ra,C3

InformationTechnology

in the inlandnavigationindustryIW,C3

Freight Villages

IM,C5

ITS:Variablespeedlimits inSwedenRo,C3

Port statecontrol

M,C5

Integrated PortCommunity System

IM,C2Success

Short Sea Shipping: TheSuperFast Ferry CaseIM,C1

EurovignetteDirectiveRo,C1

Green ports(focused oncold ironing)

M,C2

TheMODALOHR

Ra,C1

Air lubricationof ships ininlandnavigationIW,C2

Internalization ofexternal costs

IM,C3

Threeloaded

trips limitin ECMTRo,C2

Indentedberth

M,C3

Betuwe Line

Ra,C4

EILU - EuropeanIntermodal Loading Unit

IM,C4

Not-Yet-Succe

ssfulorFailure

Ca

ses

Motorways of the Sea:The case of EastMediterraneanIM,C2

Megacontainerships

M,C4

EurotunnelShuttle

Ra,C2

Y-shapedhull,Scheldehuid

IW,C1

Intermediate

Case

Utilization of theavailablecapacity onsmall inlandwaterways

IW,C4

Key: Red = Policy Initiative; Blue = Technology;Yellow= Organisational;Green= Cultural (incl. Marketing).

As indicated in then text the classifications are determined by the

predominant typology and immediately affected mode. The case identifiers areused in the Table 2 set of tables and are referenced, in the keys, to thosetables.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

22/26


1.15 Technology. In relation to those innovations which may be classified as

principallytechnology-based innovations, Table 2a below indicates, with references

also to the cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types of public

action/intervention, linked to the three broad temporal phases of the innovationprocess.

1.16 With this type of innovation it may be observed, in Table 2a, that the emphasis is

likely to be on public policy actions/interventions being most effective in terms of

support for the initiating of the innovations. This may often be in terms of the

provision of innovation grants or loans, but equally important in some cases is the

involvement of knowledge institutes, including standards bodies (CEN). For the

commercial sector it is important that access to such sources of funds and of

knowledge in the initiation phase of innovations is sought, as a key element in

moving forward from the original conception. Subsequent action during thedevelopment phase of the innovation process will require public investment in

infrastructure and the establishment of hard rules, e.g. standards, may also be

required. During the implementation phase, public investment in infrastructure

and/or hard rules may again be required. This is the case for the Modhalor

innovation (Ra,C1). (In all innovation cases private, commercial action to utilise and

strengthen networks is required).

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

23/26


Table 2a

Category of Innovation Type of Intervention

Technology Phase 1 (Initiation)

InnoSuTra Refs. (For more specific Info. on cases, see D6) Public Action

(IW,C1); ( IW,C2) NA1NA2

(Ra,C1); (M,C1) S-EF1

(IW,C1) S-EF2

(IW,C1); (Ra,C1) (M.C3) NA3

(M.C3-TN) NA4

Phase 2(Development)

Public Action

(M,C2) (M,C1) IF1

(M,C2) (M,C1) IF2

NA2

(M,C3) (M,C2-TN) (IW,C2-TU) NA3

(M,C3) NA4

(M,C3); (M,C2) S-EF1

Phase 3(Implementation)

Public Action

(Ra,C1) IF1

(Ra,C1) IF2

SEF1

Key: Intervention Types (see para 8.12): GA, IF, S-EF

Key: Innosutra Cases Key: IW.C1=Y-shaped Hull; IW.C2=Air Lubrication of Ships;M.C1=Reefer Containerisation; M.C2=Cold Ironing; M.C3=Indented BertN;Ra.C1=Modalohr

Key: Ro=Road, Ra=Rail, IW=Inland Navigation, M=Maritime, IM=Intermodal

1.17 Organisation/Management. In relation to those innovations which may be

classified as principally organisation/management innovations, Table 2b belowindicates, with references also to the cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types

of intervention linked to the three broad temporal phases of the innovation process.

This type of innovation may be positively supported by interventions.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

24/26


Table 2b


Organisational/Managerial Phase 1(Initiation)

Innosutra Ref.(For more specific info. on cases, see D6) Public Action

(M.C4); (IW,C3) NA1(IW,C4) NA2

(IW,C3) NA3

NA4

(IM,C2) (IM,C1) S-EF1

Phase 2 (Development)

Public Action

(M,C4); (Ra,C2) IF1

(M,C4); (Ra,C2) IF2

Phase 3 (Implementation)Public Action

(IM,C2) NA3, NA4

(IM,C2) IF2

SEF1


Key: Innosutra Cases Key: IW.C3=ICT; IW.C4=Available Capacity; M.C4=Mega-Container Ships; Ra.C2=Eurotunnel; IM,C1=Superfast Ferry (SSS);IM,C2=Integrated Port Community System (PCS)


1.18 Cultural/Marketing. In relation to those innovations which may principally be

classified as cultural or marketing innovations. Table 2c below indicates, with

references also to the cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types of intervention

linked to the three broad temporal phases of the innovation process.

1.19 With this type of innovation there are essentially three main areas of potential

public policy intervention. First to ensure that all the key actors (including lobbying

groups) are involved at the development stage. Second, at the same stage, to

ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure, Third, to ensure the existence of

sufficient potential economic demand..

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

25/26


Table 2c


Cultural(incl. Marketing) Phase 1 (Initiation)

Innosutra Ref. For more specific info. on cases, see D6) Public

Phase 2 (Development)Public

(Ra,C4); (IM,C5) NA2

(IM,C5) S-EF1

(Ra,C4) IF2

Phase3 (Implementation)

Public


Key: Innosutra Cases Key: IM,C5=Freight Villages; Ra.C4=Betuwe.


1.20 Policy Initiatives. In relation to those innovations which may be classified as

innovations which have been public policy initiatives, Table 2d below indicates, with

references also to the cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types of intervention

linked to the three broad temporal phases of the innovation process. With this type

of policy innovation/initiative the approach is clearly distinguished from the

commercial innovations.

1.21 Here the emphasis following a careful socio-economic cost benefit analysis todetermine that there is a potential net socio-economic benefit for the policy initiative

is on persuading all the various actors involved, including national governments,

that in total benefits will exceed the total costs, even if some actors may be losers.

Compensating the losers may be a condition for acceptance. It will also be

important to ensure that all the actors involved, again including national

governments, have the necessary capabilities to implement the policy initiative.

8/10/2019 D8_v6-f

26/26

Table 2d


Public Policy Initiative Phase 1 (Initiation)

Innosutra Ref. (For more specific info. on cases, see D6) Public Action

(IM,C3); (IM,C4) NA1(Ro,C4) (M,C5) IF1

(Ro,C4) (Ro,C2) NA3

(IM,C3); (Ra,C3); (IM,C4) (Ro,C3) NA4

(Ro,C1); (Ro,C4)(Ro,C2) (IM,C2) (Ro,C3) S-EF1

Phase 2 (Development)

Public Action

(Ro,C2) (M,C5) NA2

(Ra,C3) (IM,C2) S-EF2

Phase 3 (Implementation)Public Action

(Ro,C1) (M,C5) NA4, IF1, SE-F1


Key: Innosutra Cases Key: IM,C2=M0S,East Med.; IM,C3=Int.Ext.Costs;IM,C4=EILU; M,C5=Port State Control; Ro,C1=Eurovignette Dir.; Ro,C2=ECMT;Ra,C3=ERTMS; Ro,C4=Cabotage; Ro,C3=ITS


d8_v6-f

Documents