Collaboration among Stakeholders in Transportation Innovation

Government and Intermodal Transport Innovation

Chapter 15 posits that the U.S. government should be the primary catalyst for intermodal transport innovations, arguing that in a free market industry alone is limited in terms of being able to deliver on the innovation front. I disagree with this assertion and can support my position by looking at historical precedents where both government and industry have had a hand in advancing innovation. In fact, as Tsamboulas (2008) points out, sometimes all that is needed is a spark—like seaports—to drive additional innovation. But government does not necessarily serve as the primary catalyst—for other stakeholders are definitely needed just as much.

That is not to say government intervention stymies innovation or is irrelevant, either. There is evidence showing that government support of the development of nuclear power, for example, is a case of successful government-led innovation. The U.S. government did spearhead nuclear technology, which led to the development of nuclear power plants. Not all large-scale, high-risk projects like nuclear energy can be pursued by private capital, especially if commercial returns are uncertain. So, it makes sense that government support would be needed. At the same time, the development of new weapons and tech for the Department of Defense has been driven by industry, although supported still by government contracts. Companies like Lockheed Martin innovate thanks to government contracts, but they are of the private sector. The relationship is basically one of government and business working hand in glove.

In the context of intermodal transportation, the government has historically aided in infrastructure development, necessary for intermodal networks. This was certainly the case with the autobahn in Germany in the 1930s and with the U.S. Interstate Highway System, which was also a government initiative that boosted intermodal transfers between roads, rails, and ports. The government has been part of port expansions and rail improvements continuously.

However, industry-driven innovation should not be overlooked. Companies within the intermodal transport sector are always looking for ways to develop and grow. This is the nature of industry. Information and communication technologies have come from industry’s R&D. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in intermodal network modeling shows how industry-driven technology can take transport routes to the next level and improve overall system efficiency (Schwarz, 2008).

On top of this, the European experience with intermodal transport shows the organic nature of collaboration between government and industry (Tsamboulas, 2008). The European Union has helped to support environments beneficial for intermodal transport. Such policies have helped with the promotion of investment by the private sector in infrastructure and innovation through incentives (Tsamboulas, 2008). As Jensen (2008) shows with his model, there is a socio-economic dimension of innovation that all stakeholders have to consider, and the private sector can and does do exactly that.

Thus, in establishing a sense of whether government is absolutely needed (in and of itself), one should look at Jensen’s (2008) model regarding the optimization of intermodal transport systems, as it incorporates government agencies, private companies, and even academic institutions. The process of innovation is not something that can be completed by any one entity. Instead, it actually requires inputs from many different stakeholders at different levels. It is a truly collaborative process. It

In conclusion, government is certainly important in supporting innovation at times, by funding projects and helping to set up infrastructure development and regulatory frameworks. However, the private sector's expertise in technological innovation (also thanks to academic inputs) are equally important. Therefore, synergy should exist among government, industry and academia.