See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328980345

Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas: Using Entrepreneurial Processes to

Turn Research into Practice

Conference Paper · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 556

4 authors, including:

Shayan Abdul Karim Khan Joseph Y. J. Chow

Polytechnic Institute of New York University New York University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    136 PUBLICATIONS   1,945 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sequential Network Design and Timing under Uncertainty View project

Data-driven Transit Operations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph Y. J. Chow on 16 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas: Using Entrepreneurial
Processes to Turn Research into Practice

Shayan Abdul Karim Khan

Research Assistant, C2SMART University Transportation Center
New York University
Email: shayan.khan@nyu.edu
ORCiD: 0000-0002-4995-6260

William Bierds
Research Assistant, C2SMART University Transportation Center
New York University
Email: wbierds@nyu.edu
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1491-7672

Jack Bringardner
Associate Director of Education Initiatives, C2SMART University Transportation Center
Industry Assistant Professor, Dept of Civil & Urban Engineering
New York University
Email: jack.bringardner@nyu.edu
ORCiD: 0000-0002-5980-384X

Joseph Y. J. Chow
Deputy Director, C2SMART University Transportation Center
Assistant Professor, Dept of Civil & Urban Engineering
New York University
Email: joseph.chow@nyu.edu
ORCiD: 0000-0002-6471-3419

Word count: 6691

Number of tables: 3 x 250
Total word count: 7412

Revision submitted inclusion in Proceedings of the 98th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 2

ABSTRACT

Technology transfer is critical for implementing practice ready transportation research.

Technology transfer can be conducted in different ways, but research can have a greater impact by
prioritizing the stakeholders’ needs similar to how entrepreneurial ventures do. This study
examines the role of entrepreneurial processes and canvases in the development of business models
for transportation ventures and practice ready research. It uses the findings to produce the
Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas (T3C) to assist commercializing transportation
research. Market research and surveys were used for qualitative and quantitative analysis. There
were two surveys returned which were used as data points. The result is a canvas that encourages
an entrepreneurial mindset helping develop technology transfer plans within research and
development, highlighted in the paper, encouraging the adoption of entrepreneurship and
innovation in transportation research. An example case of a transportation venture was created to
demonstrate the use of T3C and compare it to other models. While the USDOT technology transfer
primer and affiliated guides address aspects of entrepreneurship, these topics are not explicitly
included. Canvases are a tool for engineers to focus on human-centered design, market value, and
the iterative design thinking process and an important tool for companies to ideate and characterize
entrepreneurial aspects of their venture. Recently, the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Process and
the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC) have adapted business model canvases to
encourage sustainability. This study demonstrates how the TLBMC may be adapted to assist
transportation technology transfer by developing a Transportation Entrepreneurship Process (TEP)
and T3C.
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 3

1. INTRODUCTION

Innovations in engineering start with research and development (R&D) and allow for the
creation of new products and services. However, Moore states that the barrier between
infrastructure and business development is the biggest obstacle in the conversion of discoveries
into commercialized products (1). This disconnect between the research and the deployment of
solutions lies at the heart of the reasons behind this study. In this study, a methodology and process
guide structured as a “technology transfer canvas”, is created to support transportation-focused
entrepreneurial ventures.
To overcome this disconnect, institutions have disseminated literature on the innovation
development process to ensure human-centered design and market-viable products. In generalized
terminology, incorporating a process of efficient and viable adoption methods within the
innovation development phase is called Technology Transfer (T2). The U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) provides a comprehensive guide of activities used to accelerate the
deployment of technological discoveries (2). However, despite providing a comprehensive guide
for R&D, research program directors and agencies continue to create products that may not be
publicly adoptable at the onset. Some innovations require more steps to commercialize or
operationalize, but in the transportation discipline, these steps are hard to standardize because of
the fragmented nature of the user market (e.g. each city is a different market segment). What
appears lacking in these documents is a set of additional guidelines to encourage startup ventures.
The entrepreneurial methodologies of multiple sources can serve as a guide for university
transportation centers to use entrepreneurship as a means of technology transfer.
The Business Model Canvas (BMC) is a well-known iterative tool that helps startup
companies track current and future strategies over time (3). The BMC focuses on entrepreneurial
ventures by documenting their target market, business strategies, and marketing plans. However,
these canvases lack focus on transportation ventures allowing for many common issues known to
transportation practitioners to be overlooked. For example, mobility services typically operate in
a setting where alternatives exist as public services for users in a subsidized environment, where
travelers’ choices can negatively impact each other (congestion), and where incidents propagate
in unpredictable ways within traffic networks. Standard notions of successful marketing or pricing
strategies may not be adequate in a transportation setting. A startup mobility company needs to
consider the topology of a specific user market, the regulatory structure for serving mobility needs,
the existence of public transit services as collective user investments, and availability of related
infrastructure and resources (e.g. charging stations for an electric vehicle fleet operator). While
there are examples of incorporating transportation elements in entrepreneurship practice (e.g.
Binsbergen et al., 2014, for freight transportation), there is no formal framework that fuses
transportation technology transfer with entrepreneurship tools (4).
The Intelligent Transportation Society’s (ITS) Architecture for cooperative and Intelligent
Transportation talks about the four important layers that transportation ventures should address.
These layers focus on the needs of the stakeholders, the necessary structure to fulfill these needs,
the physical infrastructure, and the digital infrastructure needed for the technology. The
architecture provides a good structure for defining, planning, and developing intelligent
transportation systems. The study focuses on developing a similar framework to assist in the
deployment of relevant architectures through effective business models.
The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas is used as a benchmark and extended in this study
for the transportation industry through surveys and discussions with two transportation technology
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 4

companies (5). The survey was sent out to 24 companies but only two responded. The newly
proposed canvas is illustrated using a case study. The study discusses the advantages and
disadvantages of using such a tool for startup companies in the context of transportation
technology transfer.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The institutions and authors of the studies below provide resources such as primers, business
model canvases, and process guides that provide a foundation for technology transfer. They have
not bridged the gap between transportation research and ventures.

2.1. Technology Transfer Primer

The USDOT (2016) outlines the need to incorporate a technology transfer plan within the
R&D phase to evaluate the market viability of the product (2). Moore (2018) presents an example
about nano-engineering which had no formal framework to incorporate entrepreneurship tools into
the R&D process which resulted in the development of technologies which were not adopted in
the industry (1). Moore provides a framework for technology transfer adoption by providing
general guidelines. He discusses understanding the needs of the market, recognizing stakeholders,
and securing the resources needed to produce the product. In this process, the technology adoption
is either commercial or non-commercial. R&D benefits from a cyclic process which works in
parallel with the T2 Guidelines (1). Neither the Primer nor Moore address the importance that
entrepreneurship plays in commercializing research discoveries. Also, neither provide a cohesive
plan for the development of a business model for the commercialization of research discoveries.

2.2 Business Model Canvas and the Entrepreneurial Mindset

Osterwalder and Pigneur’s (2010) original business model canvas introduces a generalized
canvas to assist entrepreneurs in the commercialization of their products and develop a business
strategy (3). Canvases are tables often printed as posters to facilitate brainstorming and iterative
documentation. Within these canvases, each box contains a major topic with associated questions.
Users can write answers relevant to their ideas, research, or startup venture in these boxes to
organize their plans.
Similarly, “Lean Startup” is a methodology which directs new startups on how to
economically grow through testing and iteration under the constraint of a limited budget.
Alongside the Lean Startup methodology, Doganova & Eyquem-Renault (2009) outline the
necessity of business models in the development of business strategies (6). They state that the three
building blocks of any business model are (1) value proposition, (2) the architecture of value, and
(3) the revenue model. These building blocks make up the necessary requirements of a canvas.
Desatnik et al. (2014) provide examples of how to assist in developing the entrepreneurial
mindset. They argue how corporations have been able to assist entrepreneurship in emerging
economies by developing and integrating market research results to help mobility entrepreneurs
recognize obstacles in their markets. The authors suggest that the issues and regulatory problems
that companies may run into can be addressed in advance with a business model canvas. These
resources and example canvases can help derive a transportation entrepreneurship process (7).

2.3 Sustainable Entrepreneurship Process (SEP)

Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 5

There has been a transition in focus from economic based business models to sustainable
models to reflect the benefit to the environment and society. There have been several studies to
evaluate this new process. Belz and Binder (2017) propose a sustainable entrepreneurship process
(SEP) by combining different process models (8). Fleisch et al. (2017) mention that a business
model is based on four main elements: (1) the customers, (2) what is being sold? (3) production,
and (4) revenue generation (8). SEP takes these four main elements into consideration alongside
the main components of social innovation.
Sustainable entrepreneurship, unlike other types of entrepreneurship, is based on a triple
bottom line approach. It focuses on the economic, social, and ecological aspects when creating a
solution. There are some conceptual differences between social entrepreneurship and sustainable
entrepreneurship regarding (1) the multiplicity of goals, (2) the notion of equity, and (3) the type
of organization analyzed. In addition to these major differences, the sustainable entrepreneurship
process (SEP) has six clearly defined segments: (1) recognizing a social or ecological problem; (2)
recognizing a social or ecological opportunity; (3) developing a double bottom line solution; (4)
developing a triple bottom line solution; (5) funding and forming a sustainable enterprise; and (6)
creating or entering a sustainable market (8).
Belz and Binder (2017) develop an emphasis on the triple bottom line (TBL) approach. TBL
is the fusion of economic, ecological, and social aspects into a business model to achieve
sustainability. Beyond focusing on developing the TBL solution, Belz and Binder also focus on a
generalized entrepreneurship process which requires individuals or companies to recognize the
problem and explore the best avenues through which they can develop a sustainable solution for
commercialization (8).
Entrepreneurship remains a vital component of technology transfer, but inherently each has
different requirements. Fleisch et al. (2017) state the need for specific canvases to develop
thorough and proper business models (9). Currently, there is a lack of business models focused on
transportation startups so it is important to recognize the features that these startups need to
address.

2.4 Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC)

Joyce and Paquin (2016) use the SEP to generate the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas
(TLBMC) (5). It expands on the popular business model canvas (3) by adding two more layers of
environmental and social factors that tackle issues concerning the SEP lifecycle process and the
stakeholder perspective. It provides a generalized canvas for individuals or companies seeking to
start sustainability-related ventures startups.
The environmental canvas is vertically cohesive with BMC—boxes in each layer of the
TLBMC correspond to the BMC—to ensure that the environmental consequences throughout the
product life cycle are taken into consideration when forming a business strategy. Similarly, the
social canvas is cohesive with the other two canvases and stitches together to address the societal
impacts of the business strategy and environmental effects. As such, it is a vertically and
horizontally cohesive model that aims to accelerate a sustainability-based business model.

2.5 Need for Entrepreneurial Processes and Canvases in Transportation Technology

Transfer Acceleration
The guidelines set forth by the USDOT (2016) state that alongside an efficient innovation
adoption process there is a need for financial stability (2), but this topic lacks coverage in detail
related to business model development. On the other hand, the sustainable entrepreneurship model
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 6

states the required steps for an entrepreneurial process to ensure sustainability but lacks insight
into the innovation adoption process.
The vertical and horizontal cohesiveness of the TLBMC states the important aspects that
should be recognized when developing a business model that exists outside of economic
considerations. The TLBMC, while excellent for most sustainable endeavors, has not been
designed for transportation startups nor are there canvases that focus on transportation
entrepreneurship specifically. Therefore, Fleisch et al.’s (2017) (9) recommendation for the
development of specific canvases for technical fields encourages the development of
entrepreneurial processes and canvases for transportation ventures. Figure 1 shows the evolution
from technology transfer to transportation canvas.

Guided Technology Transfer (2)

Business Model Canvas (3)

Sustainable Entrepreneurship Process (8)

Triple Layer Business Model (Sustainability) Canvas (5)

Transportation Technology Tranfser Canvas

FIGURE 1: Development of the Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas

3. METHODS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROCESS

(TEP)

For the purposes of this study, preliminary surveys on the entrepreneurial processes of
transportation startups were conducted. Several companies were contacted, but responses were
recorded from a rideshare company and an autonomous car company. The questions focused on
their journey from conception to commercialization and the problems they faced along the way.
The questions also focused on the issues during the adoption phase and the strategies employed to
solve them.
The companies were focused on creating solutions for different transportation problems, and
both were concentrated in urban areas. Representatives were prompted with topics of the
sustainable entrepreneurship process and asked to respond with how their startup dealt with these
issues. The primary issue that came up was the iterative product development lifecycle based on
the customer preferences analyzed through market research. Another theme that emerged was
diverse products across customer segments. Ventures had user-centric products for a consumer
business model alongside having licensing strategies for a different business model. Evaluating
the different products, the key stakeholders for transportation ventures were recognized as: the
transportation authority, government, the local population, public transport unions, and labor
unions. Also, ventures had different development strategies according to the digital and physical
infrastructure needed for their product.
The survey showed that transportation ventures can face difficulty with policy and regulations
but changing government attitudes could pave the way for future innovations and widespread
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 7

adoption. New transportation technologies often depend on the cloud servers and digital
infrastructure for their operation such as the communication view in the ITS architecture. Other
channels that were critical to transportation technology deployment are mobile app-based systems,
simulation-based research, or scaled prototyping. Alongside digital infrastructure, transportation
ventures focus on integrating sustainability and societal impacts in their product life cycle.
This study used these preliminary findings along with the Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Process (SEP) and the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC) to derive an
entrepreneurship process to help transportation ventures navigate developing research-based
technologies (5,8). The adaptation of the SEP, Transportation Entrepreneurial Process (TEP), is
discussed across the four stages in section 3.1-3.4 as a guide for a transportation-focused
entrepreneurship venture to develop an effective and sustainable business model. TEP supplements
the technology transfer primer to provide researchers with a tool to focus on users and market
viability.

3.1 Recognition of the Problem

The first step is to recognize the problem that the transportation venture aims to solve. The
USDOT (2016) recommends defining the need for the research and understanding adopted needs
as the first step (2); TEP encourages the same but emphasizes surveying the intended users of the
product. The successful commercialization of a product is dependent on customer use. Desatnik et
al. (2014) provide an example of how customer preferences can be a major barrier to adoption.
TEP recommends research practitioners and entrepreneurs develop a research question
focusing on user needs for the intended technology. Moore (2018) recommends that there may be
several solutions to a problem, but researchers should focus on the one that is most useful for the
consumer (1). TEP also recognizes that Moore (2018) advises keeping users as the primary goals
of a venture.
Cohen and Kietzmann (2014) assert that different business models have different benefits (10).
For a transportation solution, demographics, population density, travel demand, and economic
status should all be parameters that are collected during the planning stage to assure that the
technology exists as a solution to a need. The successful commercialization of a research outcome
is dependent on the adopters and involving stakeholders early in the process is critical for
commercialization.

3.2 Understanding the Market and Recognizing Demand

In accordance with the SEP, the creation of a sustainable venture not only focuses on
environmental or social impacts but on the economics too. Failure to understand the initial demand
and how the demand could possibly grow will directly affect a venture's ability to generate
revenue. As discussed in Start Engineering, 2015) lack of market demand is the primary reason
for a startup to fail (11). For a transportation-focused startup, this translates to an understanding of
both the affected population and the physical and legal requirements.
In addition to understanding the market, it is important to predict the uncertainty of demand.
Demands vary across a 24-hour period as addressed in (Kornhauser, 2013) which mentions the
need for solutions dependent on the difference of trip demands between weekdays and weekends
(12). There can also be a change in demands across generations that can be simulated through data.
This data analysis process facilitated by simulations allow researchers and entrepreneurs to
understand demand. Through this process, researchers and entrepreneurs can adopt practice ready
technology from the research realm and modify it to make it user-centric.
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 8

3.3 Product Development

After the user preferences have been understood and a market analysis has been completed, a
conceptual solution can be proposed. This conceptual solution should be developed after a
thorough analysis of existing technology in the market and in research. The useful aspects of
existing technologies should be built upon to develop a conceptual solution which needs to be
rigorously tested and iterated using a Lean Design methodology. The conceptual solution should
be tested and iterated by failing fast, failing early, and failing cheaply. Through rigorous testing
and multiple failures, alternate strategies, or pivots, can be implemented. A popular strategy in the
transportation realm is the use of simulation to visualize results and extrapolate results using
trends. Kornhauser (2013) and Krueger et al. (2016) display the importance of simulations for
evaluating conceptual solutions and deriving alternatives based on simulated failures (12,13).
Similarly, the USDOT (2016) proposes the T2 R&D Activity model (2). The TEP extends the
model further into entrepreneurial practice. TEP proposes that the product development phase
should be in a cyclic fashion. It is common during the early stage of a product for differences in
understanding between portions of the team to allow the creation of a product that does not
specifically solve the problem initially stated. Another method of testing is mentioned by Szalay
et al. (2018) in the form of scaled-down prototyping (14). Physical solutions can be tested through
scaled-down versions of multiple prototypes, iterating throughout the process.

3.4 Entering the Market

After successfully creating the product, the most difficult step encountered is getting users to
adopt the product. Creation of effective infrastructure, both physical and digital, for the entirety of
the venture prior to full deployment allows for greater reliability and improved public image and
usage of the product. The research realm needs to focus on scalable infrastructure with the support
of government entities for favorable policy and regulations.

FIGURE 2: Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas (T3C) in the Technology

Transfer and Research & Development Process
In combination with the BMC and TLBMC, the TEP can be used to map out the most critical
elements of transferring new transportation research into practice (3,5). To assist researchers and
transportation innovators with understanding the problem, evaluating market demand, developing
the product, and deploying in the market, the Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas (T3C)
can be used. This will help researchers focus on human-centered design throughout the entire
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 9

project. By using the canvas during the development of the stakeholder plan and defining the need
as seen in Figure 2, researchers can document entrepreneurial considerations and a
commercialization, or user adoption, plan before they progress to R&D and securing resources.

4. DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CANVAS

While both the Triple Layer Business Model Canvas and the Technology Transfer Primer
provide important insights to a potential transportation startup, neither address the full scope of
solutions within transportation systems. The Triple Layer Business Model Canvas is a brilliant
tool to expand on the BMC in order to incorporate sustainability in a business model. T3C in Table
1 further on builds with a specific focus on the most important aspects of BMC and TLBMC with
the intention of creating one single unified methodology for transportation-focused ventures.

TABLE 1: The Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas (T3C)

Affected Population Policy and
• What are the Regulation
characteristics of the • What are the current
people impacted by policies related to
your technology your service or
○ Socioeconomic product?
demographics
○ Land use
○ Population density
○ Travel demand Physical
Infrastructure
• What built or
constructed systems
are required to support
your venture?
System Value Agencies/ Mobility/
• What are the current Stakeholders Accessibility
options in existing • What is your • What effect does
transportation relationship to your system have on
systems? transportation commuters and
• What value do you agencies (DOT, MPO, users?
add to the system? PA, City/State/Fed)? ○ Underserved
• How do you compare populations
to other competitors?
○ Disability access
Digital Infrastructure ○ Multimodal
• What connected operations
technologies are
required to support
your service?

User Costs User Benefits

• What are the negative impacts on user experience? • What are the positive impacts on user experience?
○ Travel time (wait time + commute time) ○ Safety
○ Monetary value ○ Level of service
○ User discomfort ○ Reliability
○ Resilience

4.1 Elements of the Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas (T3C)

The purpose of every canvas is to create a greater understanding of a potential research,
innovation, or business idea related to its market potential. The canvas presented in Table 1 is
related to the Triple Layer Business Model Canvas because it follows a similar pattern of
organization (5). However, in comparison, this canvas allows for transportation-focused ventures
to understand the status quo and develop a business model for successful commercialization of a
concept.

4.1.1 Affected Population

Using TEP, one of the first steps to developing a transportation solution is to recognize the
affected population as a part of recognizing the problem. Similar to how Desatnik et al. (2014)
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 10

recognizes customers and how Kozłowski (2017) uses location to identify the population it wants
to target (7,15). One must understand the markets that are to be affected and the demographics that
the product or service will be provided to. This section of the canvas is filled out when determining
the market. For this section, one should consider, population density, socioeconomic status, age,
travel demand, and land use. In the example based on shared autonomous vehicles as described by
Fagnant and Kockelman (2018), it can be extremely helpful to know all of the previously
mentioned factors to determine the fleet sizing and traffic impacts (16). This understanding of the
users is vital to the success of the solution. Constantly reviewing the product and the affected
population to recognize changes in demand allows for a company to thrive rather than simply
survive.

4.1.2 Policy and Regulation

TEP encourages ventures to survey the market where they plan to deploy their product. A
necessary part of the survey is to understand the regulation and policies in place. Without
recognition of the current policies and regulations for the market area, the solution created may
never be able to be deployed. The USDOT (2016) references the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and its efforts of funding research that meet their operational needs (2).
Some solutions might be encouraged by the government like the bike share model mentioned in
Cohen and Kietzmann (2014) (10). Using government support, deployment can be easier.
Government support does not only mean funding, but it also facilitates acquiring the digital and
physical infrastructure necessary for technology adoption. Recognizing both the transportation
administration departments and their respective policies with regards to transportation
entrepreneurial endeavors will prevent legal issues in the future in addition to allowing a favorable
amount of time to appeal current statutes if required. Levine, Inam and Torng (2000) provides an
example by identifying postwar American land use planning as a major hindrance for households
in choosing neighborhoods that best suit their land use and transportation needs (17).
These policies can play a pivotal role in the adoption and commercialization of a technology.
T3C suggests through its policy and regulation section that researchers and entrepreneurs should
be aware of such barriers and opportunities available. Being aware of the boundaries can focus on
the development of the product to guarantee ease of adoption.

4.1.3 System Value

In recognition of the first two building blocks of Doganova & Eyquem-Renault (2009)
concerning the value of the product, T3C devotes the central section of the canvas to the value of
the product (6). Bell et al. (2017) outline the challenges that smart cities of the future face with
regards to privately owned vehicles (18). Cohen and Kietzmann (2014) talk about organizations
which are trying to fight this challenge by creating value through rideshare and carshare programs
that make trips more efficient (10). Correlating the challenges that are highlighted through research
along with the product value can allow market adaptability to be smooth and successful. This
section is at the core of the canvas and the venture’s mission because it defines the value the being
provided in comparison to currently deployed solutions. This could be as simple as connecting
transit deserts to current transit systems or as complex as adding connectivity in a transportation
network in addition to decrease congestion for commuters.

4.1.4 Agencies/Stakeholders
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 11

TEP emphasizes identifying all the stakeholders and agencies related to a certain problem in
this T3C section. As van Binsbergen et al. (2014) mentions, a necessary component of
understanding a market is to identify the potential barriers and opportunities to the successful
implementation of innovations (4). Governments and transportation agencies define laws and
regulations that can play a major role in adoption. This part of T3C also serves as identifying
funding means by recognizing the major stakeholders. Schaltegger, Hansen, and Lüdeke-Freund
(2016) correctly identify that a business is carried by its stakeholders and it is something that
TLBMC also highlights (5,19). Fagnant and Kockelman (2015) use this advice to explore the
concerned groups to evaluate the best methods for the adoption of autonomous vehicles (AV) (20).
These research results can be utilized by AV companies to develop a business plan catered to the
needs of the stakeholders and approach interested groups for funding and assistance for physical
and digital infrastructure. Government agencies and commissions that would oversee ventures
throughout their lifetime should be stated. In addition, what portion of the deployment would most
closely be associated with these agencies should also be identified. For instance, income providers
such as stockholders, investors, and supporting companies should be included.
The sustainable model stated in Iverson (2015) outlines the importance of going beyond
developing a market-oriented business model and developing a model that caters to stakeholders,
employees, shareholders, community, customers, suppliers, governmental bodies, and interest
groups (5,11). This section of the canvas allows companies to recognize their stakeholders.
Recognition of stakeholders can allow companies to identify what kinds of relationships can be
developed for a successful business model.

4.1.5 Mobility/Accessibility
For a transportation venture, it is necessary to evaluate the effects the new system might have
on the social, ecological, and economic stakeholders. This section of T3C deals with recognizing
how the new venture tackles the issue of accessibility. Accessibility can take different forms and
shapes in different places. For instance, in a third world country e-transactions might not be
popular or reliable enough whereas, in a developed country like the United States, e-transactions
may be more appropriate. Therefore, a venture needs to consider such conditions and scenarios to
develop a viable business model.
Similarly, it is important for a new venture to realize that the product or service needs to
improve the overall ecosystem to have a lasting impact on the market. To achieve a lasting impact,
ventures need to address an important aspect of transportation known as mobility. Addressing
mobility means making a commute easier either through reducing wait time or monetary costs.
Therefore, this section forces entrepreneurs and innovators to think about how they are improving
the transportation ecosystem.

4.1.6 Physical Infrastructure

In this section of the canvas, a venture should assess the physical requirements, from
production to deployment. The purpose of this portion is to allow a startup to realize the
connections that should be made to allow for the seamless progression of the company over time.
Szalay et al. (2018) recognizes some of the infrastructure needs for testing and deploying AVs.
While Szalay et al. (2018) only deal with the test track requirements, there are several other
requirements for larger scale transportation ventures (21). Long-term issues should be addressed
by the following requirements outlined in research and securing resources through different means.
For example, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) efforts mentioned by USDOT
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 12

(2016) and other technology transfer initiatives by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT)
mentioned by Shaheen, Cohen, and Martin (2018) go beyond testing phases for applicability of
research findings (2,22). Developing solutions relevant to the infrastructure is invaluable for the
commercialization of products.

4.1.7 Digital Infrastructure

Most transportation-focused entrepreneurial endeavors require a vast digital infrastructure. In
this section of the canvas discussions as to the mobile applications required, servers for machine
learning, and required cybersecurity applications. Lee et al. (2016) talk about the vehicular cloud
infrastructure required by AVs to be successfully adopted and operated on a large scale (23). A
budding entrepreneur should leverage the digital infrastructure that researchers have outlined. This
part of the canvas encourages ventures to recognize the digital infrastructure needed to scale up
and commercialize the product using prior research conducted so that the venture enters the market
aware of the bounds and opportunities. In a transportation entrepreneurial venture, it can be easy
to oversee the digital requirements at the start, but by recognizing them at the start the venture can
be more prepared and have a faster deployment by catching issues earlier in the process.
With the creation of this infrastructure, the venture should be working to maintain the
reliability and support of the product throughout its use. This may be as simple as updating the
mobile application to prevent users from finding the application unresponsive or from displaying
the incorrect information. This could also mean cleaning shared autonomous vehicles to improve
the comfort felt by the users in the vehicles themselves. This support of the product allows the
public to improve their trust and image of the transportation startup.

4.1.8 User Costs

This section serves as the summary of the affected user’s costs for the venture. The purpose of
this section is to highlight the negatives that could inflict both users and the agencies and
stakeholders previously stated. The costs should cover topics such as discomforts, technical issues,
wait times for users, and monetary cost. A realistic analysis allows ventures to understand what
the solution is lacking and how it can be improved in the future. Identifying user costs allows
ventures to compare it with benefits to evaluate the market viability of the product based on user
experience. The venture should also evaluate the ecological and social costs that the user will
experience.

4.1.9 User Benefits

On the other hand, this section should serve to state all the positives that will result from the
implementation of the system. From improving transit times to decreasing transit deserts within a
metropolitan area, these are problems that are solved by the proposed transportation technology.
The questions that Kornhauser (2013) poses are the kind of questions that should be generated
during product development (12). These questions are concerned with the product life cycle and
the long-term social impacts. The process of generating ecological and social questions allows
entrepreneurs to mold the product according to their consumer’s answers to these questions. It
encourages transportation researchers to think critically about the solution according to the market
response. By maintaining the documentation of each decision made throughout the design process,
one may be able to transfer what has been learned to the next generation of entrepreneurs as is
expected in Technology Transfer document.
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 13

4.2 Using the Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas

To properly understand the utility of the Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas a case
study for a shared autonomous vehicle company was conducted through publicly available
information. T3C serves to add a separate layer to the TLBMC as an extrapolation of its most
important aspects, therefore, it does not serve as an individual canvas but in support to TLBMC.
The T3C takes ventures into a detailed evaluation of transportation challenges. Like BMC, T3C
continues to emphasize on the recognition of agencies and stakeholders that play a major part in
the venture but encourages detailed deductions with regards to how policy and regulation can come
into play through the agencies and stakeholders.
Similarly, T3C lays special emphasis on understanding the affected population and developing
user empathy in the same way as TLBMC. Documenting their method in a canvas allows ventures
to determine their main services and the value that they generate. Moreover, it combines the key
resources and channels and explores the physical and digital infrastructure that is necessary for the
deployment of the venture for technology adoption. Recognizing the importance of establishing
customer relationships for a sustainable venture, T3C devotes a separate section to accessibility
and mobility to encourage ventures to investigate how to make their products and services
available to the greatest portion of the transportation system.

TABLE 2: The Transportation Technology Transfer Canvas (T3C) – Shared Autonomous

Vehicle Startup Case Study
Affected Population Policy and System Value Agencies/ Mobility/
• Urban and near to Regulation • Solves transportation Stakeholders Accessibility
urban centers • Safety drivers deserts issues by • City, state, and federal • Improved
• Commuters and single required as allowing riders to DOT accessibility for
use travelers autonomous vehicles choose both pickup • City, state, and federal disabled
• Elderly/inaccessible are not allowed on and drop-off location governments • Can be used in
(assisting those who public roads • Improves accessibility conjunction with
cannot drive of those who have alternative modes of
themselves) difficulty using public transportation for
Physical transport or unable to Digital Infrastructure first/last mile trips
Infrastructure drive themselves • Onboard computers
• Increases overall road and other components
• Construction of
autonomous vehicles safety in residential for vehicles
and sensors and urban areas • Database for the
storing and ridership
distribution

User Costs User Benefits

• Required to wait for shared vehicles • Reductions of accident frequency
• Subscription-based service for shared use • Ease of use
• Impacted by road traffic unlike rail transit • Higher level of service

Table 2 demonstrates how the transportation technology transfer canvas could be used by a
shared autonomous vehicle transportation company. They can document their solution to public
transportation issues by offering autonomous vehicle rides to users who may hail the service
using a mobile app. While this company may not be open to the public yet, it can still document
its impact on each of the T3C elements. By having the vehicle be shared and autonomous, there
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 14

is the potential for improved safety. In addition, those with mobility and accessibility issues such
as the elderly, no longer need to take a risk in driving themselves and can have an additional
transportation option.
Another outcome of the utilization of T3C is the recognition of potential regulations and
agencies that could affect the success of the venture overall. Due to policies and regulations,
safety drivers are required in the vehicles and they are only allowed to test their autonomous
vehicle in Phoenix, AZ preventing their ability to test the full functionality of the service.
However, without using the canvas the regulations and policies could have been overlooked
resulting in an even longer lead up time to test the vehicle on public roads.

TABLE 3: The Business Model Canvas (T3C) – Shared Autonomous Vehicle Startup Study
Key Partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Customer Segments
• City, state, and federal • Shared autonomous • Removes need for Relationships • Urban populations
DOT vehicle as a ownership of vehicles • Reliability • Commuters
• City, state, and federal replacement for public • Improves accessibility • Availability • People with
governments transportation of those who have disabilities
• Seed funding difficulty using public
investors transport or unable to
drive themselves
• Improved safety
Key Resources through the Channels
• Manufacturing of prevention of human • Mobile applications
autonomous vehicles caused vehicular • Web-based platforms
and sensors accidents
• Database management
for ridership data

Cost Structure Revenue Streams

• Vehicle upfront costs • Pay per ride
• Vehicles maintenance costs • Subscription services
• Electronic payments

Table 3 completes a BMC with the same shared autonomous vehicle venture. It is generated
using the Kozłowski, W. (2017) (15) and Szalay, Z. et al. (2018) (15,21). The key partners
necessary for an AV venture to succeed are the local DOT, state government, and independent
investors since there are a lot of policy and regulation loopholes that AV companies must jump
through. Also, independent investors play a huge role in funding initial scaled-down prototyping
through test tracks and market outreach. AVs need to recognize their customer segments early in
the process and derive solutions accordingly. As stated before, there will be different solutions to
different customer segments. Transit deserts would require a different system of a shared
autonomous vehicle system as compared to disaster relief or single-use customers. After the
recognition of the problem and customer segment, a solution within the realm of public
transportation can be generated with different kinds of value depending on the problem being
solved to develop customer relationships. The venture will be marketed through mainly digital
based applications to achieve different benefits and costs.
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 15

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

While there may be different methods of adopting innovations and inventions, it is important
to note that entrepreneurship is a useful method of commercializing them. This study has focused
on evaluating the current technology transfer guidelines available in the transportation industry
and relating it too the needs of entrepreneurs. This study encourages the adoption of technology
through entrepreneurship by recognizing Qian's (2016) conclusion about the high correlation
between knowledge bases, Regional Entrepreneurship Systems (RES) and the diffusion of
innovations (24). The focus of this study, alongside efficient commercialization, was to create a
more holistic generation of startups by encouraging them to understand more than just the
economics behind an entrepreneurial venture through transportation-related entrepreneurship. It
fuses the TLBMC to propose TEP as a means of ensuring that research centers and institutes
consider startup opportunities as a means of deploying practice ready research outcomes. TEP is
encouraged to be fused with T3C to develop a viable business model. Nonetheless, TEP and T3C
should be constantly adapted in accordance with what is learned by others to allow transportation-
focused venture to pave way for an effective technology adoption system.
The T3C canvas can be used alongside TEP by transportation researchers and potential
ventures to evaluate market viability. Researchers and entrepreneurs can evaluate whether the
solution being created can be commercialized by recognizing the stakeholders and their needs.
T3C advocates for the use of present researches in the process of recognizing demand and
developing user empathy. T3C is developed specifically with transportation issues in mind.
Therefore, it can be readily used to commercialize practice ready research by evaluating the
solution through the TEP and T3C. Future research should focus on surveying university
transportation centers and transportation technology ventures for refinement and feedback on TEP
and T3C recommendations. Future research should also look into how to adopt entrepreneurial
processes into research.

Author Contribution Statement:

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: S.Khan,
W.Bierds, J.Bringardner, J.Chow; data collection: S.Khan, W.Bierds, J.Bringardner, J.Chow;
analysis and interpretation of results: S.Khan, W.Bierds, J.Bringardner; draft manuscript
preparation: S.Khan, W.Bierds, J.Bringardner, J.Chow. All authors reviewed the results and
approved the final version of the manuscript.
Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 16

References

1. Moore, V. (2018). Nano Entrepreneurship. Mechanical Engineering Magazine 131(04),

27-29.
2. USDOT (2016). “Building a Foundation for Effective Technology Transfer through
Integration with the Research Process.” DOT-VNTSC-OSTR-16-02.
3. Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010). Business Model Generation: a Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons (2010)
4. van Binsbergen, A., Konings, R., Tavasszy, L., and van Duin, R. (2014). Innovations in
Intermodal Freight Transport: Lessons from Europe. Proc. 93rd TRB Annual Meeting 743:
1–30.
5. Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple-layered business model canvas: A tool to
design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474-
1486.
6. Doganova, L., and Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What Do Business Models Do?.
Innovation Devices in Technology Entrepreneurship. Research Policy 38(10), 1559–
1570.
7. Desatnik, A., Miranda-Blackney, T., Reisman, E., Sekhon, J., & Shingledecker, S.
(2014). Accelerating New Mobility Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. Technical
report, University of Michigan.
8. Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process
model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 1-17.
9. Fleisch, Elgar, Markus Weinberger, and Felix Wortmann. 2017. “Interoperability and
Open-Source Solutions for the Internet of Things.” 10218(2014): 6–10.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-56877-5.
10. Cohen, B., and Kietzmann, J. (2014) ‘Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing
Economy’, Organization and Environment, 27(3), pp. 279–296. doi:
10.1177/1086026614546199.
11. Start Engineering. (2015) Can Entrepreneurship Save Engineering Education. Retrieved
November 11, 2018 http://start-engineering.com/start-engineering-now/2015/3/23/can-
entrepreneurship-save-engineering-education.
12. Kornhauser, A. L. (2013) ‘Uncongested Mobility for All’.
13. Krueger, R., Rashidi, T. H. and Rose, J. M. (2016) ‘Preferences for shared autonomous
vehicles’, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. Elsevier Ltd, 69, pp.
343–355. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2016.06.015.
14. Szalay, Z. et al. (2018) ‘Development of a test track for driverless cars: Vehicle design,
track configuration, and liability considerations’, Periodica Polytechnica Transportation
Engineering, 46(1), pp. 29–35. doi: 10.3311/PPtr.10753.
15. Kozłowski, W. (2017) ‘Innovative Municipal Transport Stops for Opole’, IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245, p. 042078. doi:
10.1088/1757-899X/245/4/042078.
16. Fagnant, D. J., and Kockelman, K. M. (2018) ‘Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a
system of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin, Texas’, Transportation, 45(1), pp. 143–
158. doi: 10.1007/s11116-016-9729-z.
17. Levine, J., Inam, A. and Torng, G.-W. (2000) ‘Innovation in Transportation and Land
Use as Expansion of Household Choice’, 2000 Conference of the Association of
 Khan, Bierds, Bringardner, Chow 17

Collegiate Schools of Planning, (July).

18. Bell, E. et al. (2017) ‘Annual accomplishments : advancing transportation innovation for
the public good’. Available at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12400.
19. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models for
sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization &
Environment 29(1), 3-10.
20. Fagnant, D. J., and Kockelman, K. (2015) ‘Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles:
Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations’, Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice. Elsevier Ltd, 77, pp. 167–181. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003.
21. Szalay, Z. et al. (2018) ‘Development of a test track for driverless cars: Vehicle design,
track configuration, and liability considerations’, Periodica Polytechnica Transportation
Engineering, 46(1), pp. 29–35. doi: 10.3311/PPtr.10753.
22. Shaheen, S. A., Cohen, A., and Martin, E. (2018). U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Mobility on Demand Initiative. Transportation Research Circular, E-C231.
23. Lee, E.-K. et al. (2016) ‘Internet of {Vehicles}: {From} intelligent grid to autonomous
cars and vehicular fogs’, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 12(9), p.
155014771666550. doi: 10.1177/1550147716665500.
24. Qian, H. (2016) ‘Knowledge base differentiation in urban systems of innovation and
entrepreneurship’. doi: 10.1177/0042098016629314.

View publication stats