Technology Assessment: Demand Response Technologies in the Pacific Northwest

Abstract

The goal of this research is to develop a decision model that can be used to identify the technology transfer potential of a research proposal. An organization can use the model to select the proposals whose research outcomes are more likely to move into application. The model begins to close the chasm between research and application – otherwise known as the “valley of death.” A hierarchical decision model, along with desirability curves, was used to understand the complexities of the researcher and recipient relationship, specific to technology transfer. In this research, the evaluation criteria of several research organizations were assessed to understand the extent to which the success attributes that were identified in literature were considered when reviewing research proposals. The quantified model was validated using a case study involving demand response (DR) technology proposals in the Pacific Northwest.

Appendix

Success attributes for case studies

Attributes of research proposals	Organizational	Success attributes	Units of measurement	Proposal 1	Proposal 2	Proposal 3	Proposal 4
		Budget cost-share	% cost share required to fund research	62%	50%	50%	50%
		Geographic proximity	Proximity between research and recipient	250–1500 mile separation	250–1500 mile separation	250–1500 mile separation	1500–3000 mile separation
		Average time to contract	Average time to execute a contract	4 months	1.5 months	1.5 months	4 months
		Technical and stakeholder complexity	# of technical characteristics identified in proposal and # of impacted stakeholders	2 technology characteristics and 3 stakeholders	1 technology characteristic and 3 stakeholders	2 technology characteristics and 7 stakeholders	5 technology characteristics and 2 stakeholder
	Social	Diversity events	# of diversity events to create cultural awareness	0	0	Recommended	0
		Personnel dedicated to support TT	# of people dedicated to support TT	0.5	0.5	0	1
		Project meetings	# of comms described in the comm project plan	Monthly meetings	Weekly and site visits	Weekly	Monthly meetings
		Personnel loaned to recipient	Time that researchers are loaned to help with TT	0	0	1 year	1 week
		Successful TT experiences	# of previous successful TT experiences	0	0	0	4
	Technology elements	Combined research experience	# years of combined research experience of principles	47 years	38 years	46 years	44 years
		Technology publications	# publications about technology	45 publications	23 publications	16 publications	16 publications
		Personnel assigned to TTO	# of personnel assigned to TTO	0	3	3	0
		Technology benefits	# technology benefits identified in the research proposal	10	7	4	7
		Budget allocated to TT	% R&D budget dedicated to TTO activities	0	5	0	0
	Market	Comprehensiveness of use case	How well is the use case defined	None	None	None	None
		Credibility of organizational champion	Credibility of the organizational champion	The champion has technical expertise and is recognized within the region as an expert	The champion has technical expertise and is recognized within the region as an expert	The champion has technical expertise and is recognized within the region as an expert	The champion has technical expertise and is recognized within the organization as an expert
		Level of top management interest	Level of organizational support for TT	There is some support by middle management but their engagement and support is not consistent	Executives are aware of the technology but their engagement is not consistent	Executives are aware of the technology but their engagement is not consistent	There is some support by middle management but their engagement and support is not consistent
		Government incentives	# and type of government incentives	No incentives for energy pods used at utility scale	No incentives exists to encourage technology transfer	No incentives exists to encourage technology transfer	Transient stability modeling important – 1 regulatory incentive
		Common technology standards	How are common standards supported	There are no common standards or codes for the technology	Communication standards (CEA 2045, WiFi, radio, etc.) – supported by a consortium	Communication standards (CEA 2045, WiFi, radio, etc.) – supported by a consortium	IEEE standards for PMU data used with modeling – supported by a consortium – more generalized support and awareness by a community but there is no formal requirement in place
		ROI	ROI	0	0	0	> 20% but less than 50% ROI

Corresponding desirability curve values

Corresponding desirability curve values	Organizational	Success attributes	Proposal 1	Proposal 2	Proposal 3	Proposal 4
		Budget cost share	40	60	60	60
		Geographic proximity	37	37	37	27
		Average time to contract	40	65	65	40
		Stakeholder complexity	53	53	3	87
		Technical complexity	83	100	83	17
	Social	Diversity events	0	0	22	0
		Personnel dedicated to support TT	5	5	0	13
		Project meetings	90	100	90	90
		Personnel loaned to recipient	0	0	77	10
		Successful TT experiences	0	0	0	60
	Technology elements	Combined research experience	85	81	85	82
		Technology publications	100	73	73	73
		Personnel assigned to TTO	0	100	100	0
		Technology benefits	100	100	87	100
		Budget allocated to TT	0	57	0	0
	Market	Comprehensiveness of the use case	0	0	0	0
		Credibility of organizational champion	88	88	88	63
		Level of top mgmt interest	32	43	43	32
		Government incentives	0	0	0	50
		Common technology standards	0	40	40	40
		ROI	0	0	0	48