INNOVATION PROCESSES IN SURFACE TRANSPORT

Contract No. TREN/FP7TR/234076INNOSUTRA

Deliverable: D8 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY OF WORK

Project Start Date:

January 1st 2010

Co-ordinator:

UA

End Date:

December 31st 2011

WP Leader:

UAegean

Deliverable No
WP No

WP 5

Due date:

31.12.2011

Submission date:

23.12.2011

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 1/26

Document summary information

Authors and contributors
Initials
Author
AR
Athena Roumboutsos
SK
Seraphim Kapros
AP
Amalia Polydoropoulou
MLA
Maria Lambrou
ML
Michael Lloyd
KF
Koos Frouws
CF
Claudio Ferrari
GA
Giulia Arduino
LG
Laurent Guihery
FL
Florent Laroche
YC
Yves Crozet
TV
Thierry Vanelslander
RA
Raimonds Aronietis
Revision history
Rev. Who Date
1
ML
19.12.2011
2
RA
30.01.2012
2
RA
27.02.2012
3
RA
28.03.2012
4

Organisation
UAegean
UAegean
UAegean
UAegean
LCA Europe
TUDelft
UGenova
UGenova
CNRS
CNRS
CNRS
UA
UA

Comment
Final draft
Included comments of the rieviewers
Updated with comments from the Commission
Updated with comments from the Commission

Quality Control
Name

Date

Checked by internal reviewer

Checked 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 necessarily
represent 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 other
participant 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 be
responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omission
herein.
Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither the INNOSUTRA Consortium nor any of its
members, their officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or consequential loss
or damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or omission herein.

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 2/26

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

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 3/26

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 where
the 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 location in terms of the transport mode/sector where it
is 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 incremental innovations.
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, the
innovation process is actually a continuous process which may be split into a
further number of phases, particularly at the beginning of the innovation process.
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 4/26

(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 these
phases 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 stage
use 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 the
process 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 overall
analysis 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).
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 5/26

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 the
combined 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 of
innovations 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 a
number 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
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 6/26

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 Innovations

1.1 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
set of 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 in
relation 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
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 7/26

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 innovations
modal 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 economic
demand is a key pre-requisite for commercial innovation 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 into
play. 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 Container innovation 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, the specific 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
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 8/26

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 in
influencing 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 the
typology 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 of public 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 socioeconomic 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 role
and capabilities of national governments and institutions are relevant factors (an
example here is the Internalisation of External Costs which 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 InnoSuTra
innovation 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
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 9/26

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 Conditions

1.1 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 Yshaped Hull innovation and its inadequate presence 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 action was 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 action was 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 action
was demonstrated in the Indented Berth innovation in the maritime sector).
(S-EF1)
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 10/26

6.

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)

Recommended Structure of Actions/Interventions

(Typology of Actions/Interventions versus Typology of Innovations)

General
1.1 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 to
potential 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 an evolutionary one. (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 whether
or 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 the
necessary infrastructure development, and ensuring the competences and
capabilities of the public institutions supporting the various transport sectors.
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 11/26

N.B. Private commercial interventions are of a different nature and have a

different motivation. They are driven by the desire of the commercial initiator or
promoter of the innovation to find support for the innovation in question. The
action/intervention, e.g. investment, is founded on the belief that the innovation
will 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 customers
and the end-customers of the innovation; seeking cost-sharing between
commercial beneficiaries where the investment cost is high, and also seeking
financial 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 public policy 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 policy
initiatives 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 be successful. 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 and
accelerating the spread of commercial innovations within the individual surface
transport sectors and, where relevant, across a number of the sectors, or, indeed,
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 12/26

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

initiatives/innovations. (Obviously, by definition, the interventions relating to the
policy innovations/initiatives are 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 accompanying
notes 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 and
indicated also in the tables and the accompanying notes in Annex 1, are summarised
below. 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 the
recommendations in the context of D4/5 and D6. The recommendations in this
deliverable, D8, have incorporated the insights and conclusions reported in the earlier
deliverables, D4/5 and D6. It should also be noted that, in all innovation cases, action
to utilise and strengthen actor networks is required, as is an indication of sufficient
economic demand, either present or in prospect. As the recommendations cover both
commercial innovations and public policy initiatives the two branches of the
innovation pathway are important to note. For this reason the innovation pathway
diagram from D6 is first repeated below.

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 13/26

R.1 Technology Innovations. In relation to those innovations which may be

classified as principally technology-based innovations in whatever phase of the
innovation process is involved Table 1 summarises in codified form the essential
sets of actions required. Table 2a in Annex 1 indicates, with references also to the
cases analysed by InnoSuTra, the main types of action/intervention, linked to the
three broad temporal phases of the innovation process.
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 the development phase of the innovation
process will require 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, and it will be important to ensure that all actors
have the requisite technological (and organisational) capabilities.
R.2 Organisation/Management Innovation. In relation to those innovations which
may be classified as principally organisation/management innovations in whatever
phase of the innovation process is involved Table 1 summarises in codified form the
essential 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 the
three broad temporal phases of the innovation process.
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 14/26

This type of innovation may be supported positively by actions/interventions which

ensure that all the relevant network actors (including weak actors) are involved in all
of the phases of the innovation process, and that the business and/or socio-economic
benefits are clearly attributable to each of the actors. In some cases this may mean
over-ruling some conservative, change-resisting views and avoiding such strong
networks from capturing the innovation. The adequacy of infrastructure may be a
constraining factor to be overcome in some instances and the need for standards
may be crucial to the success of an innovation. Finally, it will be necessary for the
initiator/promoter to market the innovation during the implementation phase.
R.3 Cultural/Marketing Innovation. In relation to those innovations which may
principally be classified as cultural or marketing innovations in whatever phase of
the innovation process is involved Table 1 summarises in codified form the
essential sets of actions required. Table 2c in Annex 1 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 innovation there are essentially three main areas of potential policy
intervention by either the commercial actors or by public policy-makers, principally in
the development and implementation phases of the innovation process. These are:
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,
and, finally, to ensure that the innovation is marketed strongly by the
initiator/promoter.
R.4 Public Policy Initiatives/Innovations. In relation to those innovations which
may be classified as innovations which have been public policy initiatives in
whatever 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 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. Hence, the emphasis following a careful socioeconomic cost benefit analysis to determine that there is a potential net socioeconomic benefit for the policy initiative is on persuading all the various actors
involved, including national governments, that, overall, total benefits will exceed the
total costs, even if some actors may be losers. Compensating the losers may be a
condition for acceptance. This is not easy as industrial lobbying groups and on
occasions 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 implement
the 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 will
always be idiosyncratic characteristics in some innovations which may require individual
attention. In all case it will be necessary, ex ante, to identify the pre-dominant innovation
component (e.g. organisational and the temporal phase in which the innovation is
currently sitting. However, Table 1 below linked to the tables in Annex 1 and the data
from D4/5 and D6 conclusions may provide a useful guide to the areas of actions and
intervention to which attention should be paid in order to accelerate the spread/adoption
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 15/26

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

Table 1: Summary of Codified Suggested Actions

All Innovations

Actors

Initiation

All Relevant Actors

Development

All Relevant Actors

Implementation

All Relevant Actors

Technology
Innovations
Initiation Phase

Initiator and Manufacturer

Knowledge Institutes

Development Phase

Pilot Customer

Implementation Phase

Sector Customers

Organisational
Innovations
Initiation Phase

Initiator/promoter to ensure that

all network actors to be involved
Knowledge Institutes

Development Phase

Involve weak actors, e.g. SMEs

Implementation Phase

All actors

INNOSUTRA D8

Institutional
Environment (SI)
Soft Rules (Economic
Demand)
Soft Rules (Economic
Demand)
Soft Rules (Economic
Demand)

Soft Rules (Internal

Investment; Joint Industry
Funding; Bank Funding)
Soft Rules (Public
Innovation Funding,
Grants and Loans)
Hard Rules (Regulations:
Stimulus)
Hard Rules (Standards)
Public or Private Funding
Hard Rules (Standards)
Infrastructure Investment
Capabilities (ensure all
actors can implement the
innovation)
Soft Rules (Marketing by
initiator/promoter)

Strong Networks Avoid

capture by strong
networks
Infrastructure provision
Weak Networks
Strengthen complete
network involving all
actors
Soft Rules (Public or
Private Funding required)
Soft Rules (net benefits
for transport
chains/networks
Infrastructure provision
Soft Rules (Marketing by
Page 16/26

initiator/promoter)
Cultural/Marketing
Innovations
Initiation Phase
Development Phase

Implementation Phase

All key actors, including lobbying Infrastructure provision

groups
Soft Rules (Economic
demand)
Soft Rules (Marketing by
initiator/promoter)
All key actors, including lobbying Infrastructure provision
groups
Soft Rules (Economic
demand)
Soft Rules (Marketing by
initiator/promoter)

Public Policy
Initiatives/Innovations
Initiation Phase
All key actors, including
lobbying groups and national
(and regional/local)
governments
Knowledge Institutes
Development Phase
All key actors, including
lobbying groups and national
(and regional/local)
governments, to remain
supportive
Implementation Phase All key actors, including
lobbying groups and national
(and regional/local)
governments, to remain
supportive

Soft Rules (sufficient net

socio-economic benefit)

Capabilities (ensure that

all key actors have the
necessary capabilities)

Capabilities (ensure that

all key actors have the
necessary capabilities)
Hard Rules including, as
appropriate, taxes,
subsidies, and regulations
Infrastructure provision

Decision Tree Fragments

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

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 17/26

Decision Tree: Commercial: Technology innovation

Decision Tree: Public: Organisational Innovation

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 18/26

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 the
Modalhor 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 uniquely public actions/interventions, IF1,
in red, and the commercial actions/interventions in 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
majority of actions, to move forward the commercial innovation process, 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 public
innovations 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
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 19/26

correctly to 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 the
innovation types indicated.

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 20/26

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

Road
EU -wide
Cabotage

Maritime
Reefer
containerizat
ion

Rail
ERTMS

Ra,C3
Ro,C4
Success

M,C1
ITS:
Variable
speed
limits in
Sweden
Ro,C3

IWW
Information
Technology
in the inland
navigation
industry
IW,C3

Port state
control

Intermodal
Freight Villages

IM,C5

Integrated Port
Community System
IM,C2

M,C5

Not-Yet-Successful or Failure
Cases

Short Sea Shipping: The

SuperFast Ferry Case
IM,C1
Eurovigne
tte
Directive
Ro,C1
Three
loaded
trips limit
in ECMT
Ro,C2

Green ports
(focused on
cold ironing)

Ra,C1
M,C2
Indented
berth

Air lubrication
of ships in
inland
navigation
IW,C2

Betuwe Line

Internalization of
external costs
IM,C3
EILU - European
Intermodal Loading Unit

Ra,C4
IM,C4
M,C3
Motorways of the Sea:
The case of East
Mediterranean
IM,C2
Mega
containershi
ps

Intermediate Case

The
MODALOHR

Eurotunnel
Shuttle
Ra,C2

Y-shaped
hull,
Scheldehuid
IW,C1

M,C4
Utilization of the
available
capacity on
small inland
waterways

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 are
used in the Table 2 set of tables and are referenced, in the keys, to those
tables.
INNOSUTRA D8

Page 21/26

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

principally technology-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 innovation
process.
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 the
development 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).

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 22/26

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)
NA1
NA2
(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 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.
This type of innovation may be positively supported by interventions.

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 23/26

Table 2b
Category of Innovation
Organisational/Managerial
Innosutra Ref.(For more specific info. on cases, see D6)
(M.C4); (IW,C3)
(IW,C4)
(IW,C3)
(IM,C2) (IM,C1)

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

(IM,C2)
(IM,C2)

Type of Intervention
Phase 1(Initiation)
Public Action
NA1
NA2
NA3
NA4
S-EF1
Phase 2 (Development)
Public Action
IF1
IF2
Phase 3 (Implementation)
Public Action
NA3, NA4
IF2
SEF1

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

Key: Innosutra Cases Key: IW.C3=ICT; IW.C4=Available Capacity; M.C4=MegaContainer Ships; Ra.C2=Eurotunnel; IM,C1=Superfast Ferry (SSS);
IM,C2=Integrated Port Community System (PCS)
Key: Ro=Road, Ra=Rail, IW=Inland Navigation, M=Maritime, IM=Intermodal
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..

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 24/26

Table 2c
Category of Innovation
Type of Intervention
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: Intervention Types (see para 8.12): GA, IF, S-EF
Key: Innosutra Cases Key: IM,C5=Freight Villages; Ra.C4=Betuwe.
Key: Ro=Road, Ra=Rail, IW=Inland Navigation, M=Maritime, IM=Intermodal

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 to
determine 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.

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 25/26

Table 2d
Category of Innovation
Public Policy Initiative
Innosutra Ref. (For more specific info. on cases, see D6)
(IM,C3); (IM,C4)
(Ro,C4) (M,C5)
(Ro,C4) (Ro,C2)
(IM,C3); (Ra,C3); (IM,C4) (Ro,C3)
(Ro,C1); (Ro,C4) (Ro,C2) (IM,C2) (Ro,C3)

(Ro,C2) (M,C5)
(Ra,C3) (IM,C2)

Type of Intervention
Phase 1 (Initiation)
Public Action
NA1
IF1
NA3
NA4
S-EF1
Phase 2 (Development)
Public Action
NA2
S-EF2
Phase 3 (Implementation)
Public Action
NA4, IF1, SE-F1

(Ro,C1) (M,C5)
Key: Intervention Types (see para 8.12): GA, IF, S-EF
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
Key: Ro=Road, Ra=Rail, IW=Inland Navigation, M=Maritime, IM=Intermodal

INNOSUTRA D8

Page 26/26