Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Public Works ...

0 Infrastructure innovation will support growth in U. S. industry's productivity and thereby enhance
competitiveness in international markets.
While no comprehensive evaluation or recommendations have yet been made, the BRB's studies of
innovation suggest several promising components that might be incorporated in the federal role: (1) federal
agencies encouraging applications of new infrastructure technology for their own projects, (2) support for worldwide
infrastructure technology intelligence-gathering to increase domestic awareness of international technological
progress, (3) development of standard testing procedures and evaluation criteria that would enhance the
acceptance and effective transfer of new technology to U. S. local communities and the private sector, and (4)
increased support for targeted research efforts to develop new technologies in specific areas, perhaps through
existing and new university- and industry-based "centers of excellence."
A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL
No specific form for the federal role has yet been considered in the BRB work. These four components
might be distributed among agencies or concentrated in one existing or new institutional location. However, the
author's own analyses suggest strongly that the search for new infrastructure technology (and policy) should be
pursued initially with strongly unified and focused effort. The reasons are several:
(1) In any society, there is an inevitable limit on the resources available to deal with any particular issue,
problem, or goal. When these limited resources are spread too thinly, little is likely to be accomplished, and that
has been a problem with infrastructure.
(2) The institutional framework is complex, and with the notable exception of transportation---and
highways especially---there is no historical focal point for infrastructure issues in the United States, although
professional organizations and trade groups (e.g., the American Public Works Association, the American Water
Works Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and others) do provide some focus. What is needed
is some institutional and intellectual coordination of effort to address the common, crosscutting opportunities
and problems of infrastructure.
(3) Stronger linkages between the national level and state and local bodies active in development and
application of infrastructure technology are needed. The existing modal and disciplinary professional
organizations are vital channels for forging these linkages, but additional efforts are needed to mobilize and guide
the university-based research and education programs that will be expected to yield new technology and the
personnel trained to apply this new technology to practical problems.
The new focus would provide leadership in the national discussion of infrastructure policy, a point of
contact for international exchange on issues related to global infrastructure and impacts, an effective
clearinghouse for research and development information exchange, and perhaps limited funding for policy-related
research. The Council on Environmental Quality, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, or the Office
of Science and Technology Policy might be domestic models for a new agency. The International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, in Austria, and the International Rice Research Institute, based in the Philippines but
with projects in other countries, are possibly applicable international examples.
An effective focus might be established within an existing institution. The role of the Surgeon General
of the United States and the 19th-century office of the "Supervising Architect" responsible for federal building
design are models of what might be done within existing agencies. The current joint work of the Army Corps
of Engineers and the Department of Transportation on possible federal support of high-speed magnetic levitation
(maglev) transportation suggests that other forms may also work. However, there is no clearly defined
19