Innovation Presentation - Manufactuers - March 25, 2014

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