Successful Practices in GIS-Based Asset Management (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8C H A P T E R 3 3.1 Outreach Plan Phase 3 of the research project included outreach activities for disseminating the results of the research. These activities were intended to both to jump start the process of adoption of new capabilities and to obtain feedback that can be used to make further refinements to the guidance materials. The original research plan included pilot demonstrations in three states, as well as three regional workshops to pre­ sent and test the guidance. This original plan would have pro­ vided opportunities for concentrated attention to the topic, a thorough vetting of the guidance, and extensive peer­to­peer interaction. However, the research team and members of the panel were concerned that given increasingly restrictive travel policies and tight schedules of agency executives, it would be difficult to secure participation from individuals with the ability to effect change within their agencies. In the second Interim Report, the research team provided an option that substituted a webinar series for the regional workshops. This option allowed the guidance to be presented over multiple sessions in small pieces geared to specific DOT roles. While it did not provide the immersive experience and peer contact of the initial plan, it did have the advantage of reaching a much greater number of DOTs and a greater diver­ sity of individuals within DOTs. In the end, a hybrid outreach strategy was implemented involving the following elements: • Pilot demonstrations in three states: Colorado, Iowa, and West Virginia; • A day­long workshop in Boston, Massachusetts, [hosted by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)] involving staff from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine DOTs; • A workshop held at the 10th National Conference on Transportation Asset Management in Miami, Florida (April 28, 2014); • A workshop held at the 2014 GIS­T Symposium in Burlington, Vermont (May 5, 2014); and • A series of three webinars covering different aspects of the guidance. The pilot demonstrations, workshops, and webinars are described in the remaining sections of this chapter. Col­ lectively, these activities were successful in achieving the objectives of obtaining feedback used to improve the draft guidance materials and spreading awareness of the products of NCHRP Project 08­87 across a wide set of agencies. 3.2 Pilot Demonstrations Pilot Development Pilot demonstrations of TAM/GIS capabilities were imple­ mented in three states: Colorado, West Virginia, and Iowa. While there were many potential candidates for pilot states, the research team selected these based on (1) geographic distribu­ tion, (2) level of interest and established point of contact for a TAM/GIS demonstration, and (3) availability of data that could be used to develop a realistic demonstration of capabilities. Pilot development involved the following activities: 1. A kickoff call with the point of contact to walk through the planned activities and schedule and secure final agree­ ment to participate. 2. A second set of discussions with each state to identify the scope to be included in the pilot. These discussions were exploratory in nature, as the research team identified each agency’s current capabilities, initiatives, and interests. The research team tried to minimize duplication across the pilot states and achieve coverage of the five asset management process areas. 3. Development of initial scripts for review by each agency describing the flow of the pilot demonstrations and iden­ tifying the data that would be required. Outreach

9 4. Refinement of these scripts based on agency review and data availability. 5. Site visits to each state to finalize the scope and flow of each pilot demonstration and to discuss implementation requirements. At these visits, the research team also took the opportunity to review with the state the content of the draft Implementation Guide and obtain feedback. 6. Iterative development of the pilot demonstrations— working with agency staff to identify and obtain required data sources, structure the map displays, and refine the scenarios to reflect likely agency asset management prac­ tice and roles. 7. Completion of the pilot demonstrations—the final pilots consisted of a mixture of live demonstrations, screen cap­ tures from agency systems, and presentation slides. 8. Packaging of the pilots for future reference. A series of web pages was developed, including a home page provid­ ing access to the three pilots. Users can click on a pilot state and select from a list of the different sections of the pilot demonstration. Once they select a section, they can navigate through a series of slides with annotations that describe the activity being demonstrated. Each of the pilots is described further below. An inter­ active viewer for the pilots is available at: http://sites.spypond partners.com/nchrp0887/pilots/. Iowa DOT Pilot Pilot Summary The Iowa DOT was interested in demonstrating how GIS could be used to leverage existing data for providing asset management decision support. It decided to focus on its pavement management function and show the value of GIS for (1) understanding factors contributing to pavement dete­ rioration and (2) maximizing the return on investment from its non­destructive testing program. Pilot Narrative Background. The Iowa DOT has an active and mature GIS program and is well positioned to leverage a variety of data sources for understanding factors contributing to pave­ ment deterioration. In addition, data are available that can be used to fine tune the locations where costly data collection efforts such as non­destructive testing are performed. The department collects and maintains spatially­referenced data sets that may be tapped for information on causal factors behind pavement deterioration. Available pavement data include distress, ride [international roughness index (IRI)], rutting, fric­ tion, and material tests for specific projects. Other available data include traffic, economic contributors, aggregate sources, and weather information. While the network level information is summarized by the pavement management section and made available in the pavement management information system, project­level test results are not easily accessible for use following completion of projects. The Iowa DOT wants to obtain a higher return on its testing investments. The Iowa DOT pilot illustrates the use of GIS to integrate network­ and project­level pavement data with traffic, economic factors, and aggregate source data to support trend analysis and pattern detection—and com­ municate results of these analyses in order to identify appro­ priate actions. It shows how this same body of information can provide value to field office staff as they review potential paving locations and determine appropriate treatments. The pilot also illustrates how the agency might utilize falling weight deflectometer (FWD) test results on an ongoing basis to obtain a higher ROI for dollars being spent on these efforts. Using the Geospatial Portal to Analyze Pavement Performance. The Iowa DOT uses a geospatial portal to integrate information from its different TAM systems. This portion of the pilot demonstration illustrates how to use the power of GIS to overlay information to determine areas of concern or interest. The first portion of the Iowa DOT pilot demonstrates the ability to “swipe” a GIS view of pavement condition across two years. This temporal analysis tool allows visualization of what conditions are today [in this case based on good (green), fair (yellow), poor (red) categories]—and what the condition categories were for these same locations in the previous year. The second capability for visualizing pavement deteriora­ tion was developed by creating a new theme based on cal­ culated deterioration rates. The deterioration rates can be viewed along with the current pavement condition category by using offsets in the geospatial portal. This allows the DOT to see areas in which deterioration is occurring rapidly— even where the pavement is currently still classified as “good condition”—as well as highlighting locations currently in poor condition that have dropped from a higher condition category. Looking at spatial patterns of deterioration adds a new dimension to just looking at condition maps. Using loca­ tion as the integrating element, various potential causal fac­ tors for higher than expected deterioration can be explored: weather, truck traffic volumes, locations of grain elevators, pavement type, and aggregate sources used for the most recent paving projects. In terms of traffic, even though there is a great deal of traf­ fic on some of these deteriorating segments, adjacent seg­ ments with the same traffic counts don’t have the same level of deterioration. Regarding grain elevators and warehouses, it can be observed based on the data that the deterioration rates on segments adjacent to grain elevators and warehouses are not substan­ tially different from other segments in the area, so heavy truck

10 traffic doesn’t appear to be a strong factor contributing to deterioration. For aggregate sources and pavement types, it can be seen that the aggregate source for several of these areas is the same— Acme Aggregates. This could be the basis of the deterioration problem. After exploring the data, the redlining capability is used in the geospatial portal to highlight the areas of concern with possible causes noted for further investigation. These notifi­ cation capabilities of the portal can then be used to send the redlined map to maintenance personnel. Needs Assessment. After finding problem locations, geo­ spatial tools can be used to assist with developing recommen­ dations for addressing the identified concerns. This portion of the pilot demonstrates the ability to use GIS to analyze differ­ ent possible scenarios by integrating program information and deterioration model results to assist in determining if the right areas for improvement are targeted. Iowa DOT personnel can look at the quickly deteriorating areas together with the DOT’s planned and recommended projects. The recommended projects are from the Iowa DOT’s pavement management system (PMS) application and they are shown on the map as hatched lines. The programmed projects from the Iowa DOT’s Five­Year Program data are shown as solid lines. Zooming in on the deteriorating pave­ ment that runs north to south, it can be seen that there is a “Grade and Pave” project planned for just north of this area for 2014. The associated files, such as design files and photographs, can be displayed with the pavement project. The DOT might then make the recommendation to extend the selected proj­ ect to cover the deteriorating pavement section. Pavement Test Targeting. For the final portion of the Iowa DOT pilot, the research team reviewed the agency’s process of conducting FWD tests. Using GIS, the Iowa DOT may be able to focus testing on those locations that are potential candidates for structural rehabilitation within a three­to­five­year period. This map shows the planned projects, PMS recommendations, as well as the location of FWD test sites over the past 10 years. The DOT may use this as well as other overlays of informa­ tion to produce better plans for where it wants to do testing in future years. Colorado DOT Pilot Pilot Summary The Colorado DOT was interested in showing the role of GIS for risk­based TAM program development. Their pilot featured multiple components—some demonstrating poten­ tial new uses of GIS, and others highlighting the agency’s existing applications of GIS for asset management. Pilot Narrative Background. Before the MAP­21 legislation was signed into law, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) had embraced asset management as an important business practice for maintaining its assets in a state of good repair over the long term with the least investment of resources. For example, since 2011 CDOT’s asset managers have been working with the Multi­Asset Management System (MAMS, now renamed the Asset Investment Management System, or AIMS) to develop budget scenarios and explore the relation­ ship between funding and performance. Now that MAP­21 is in place, CDOT is establishing risk­based asset management as the official approach for strategic preservation of CDOT’s assets and related investment decisions for those assets. The Transportation Commission of Colorado approved the Risk­Based Asset Management Plan (RB AMP) in January 2014. It provides a comprehensive plan for implementing and sustaining TAM at CDOT. The plan is intended for CDOT’s asset managers and stakeholders, including the citizens of Colorado. It provides a summary of the assets maintained by CDOT and an assessment of financial and risk considerations relating to these assets. The CDOT pilot illustrates the use of GIS in conjunction with AIMS to assist in CDOT’s program development pro­ cess, as well as the use of new risk­based approaches to project prioritization. It illustrates integration of multiple spatially­ referenced data sets, analysis of the performance implications of different resource allocation scenarios and project selec­ tions, and communication of the selected projects to agency stakeholders and the public. Life-Cycle Forecasting. CDOT uses AIMS, which is based on a commercial asset management application and supports life­cycle forecasting of nine different asset categories includ­ ing pavement, bridges, maintenance, fleet, intelligent transpor­ tation system (ITS) devices, buildings, tunnels, culverts, and rockfall sites. AIMS integrates this information from a variety of sources. AIMS uses deterioration models and decision rules for each asset to enable analysis of current and future needs. Each of these nine assets is managed from within AIMS, laying the foundation for cross­asset trade­off analysis. Temporal Analysis and Budget and Scenario Planning. To make effective decisions, DOTs need to view condition data as it changes through time. This portion of the pilot illustrates the ability to view the temporal aspects of bridge and pavement condition data. The geospatial portal also allows for viewing, integrating, and reporting data associated with each of CDOT’s asset categories. The analysis capabilities included in the portal allow for budget and scenario planning. They provide the ability to view and analyze data in support of effective deci­ sion making based on budget and asset conditions.

11 The information from the line graphs outputted from AIMS can also be shown through a geospatial portal. Using the tem­ poral slider, it is possible to explore the AIMS results from both a spatial and a temporal perspective. Bridges and pavement are color­coded based on years of remaining life. As the DOT slides across years on bottom, it can be seen how these assets are expected to deteriorate. In some cases, the conditions may improve because a maintenance or rehabilitation project is scheduled for that route or bridge. In one instance, a route segment went from zero to three years of service life remaining to greater than ten years because a major treatment is planned in 2018. In order to consider risk within the program development process, CDOT has a number of data layers that can be used to identify potential threats that can impact multiple assets. For example, CDOT can view flood zones (shown as cross­ hatched areas), fire boundaries or burn scar areas (shown in red), and rockfall hazard locations (shown as thick yellow lines). Each of these risks could affect multiple assets. This information can be used to illustrate risk­based bud­ geting for the culvert program. One area that has quite a few flood zones is zoomed in on and then the culvert layer is turned on. The culverts are color­coded based on their risk score. According to CDOT’s risk matrix, all culverts within a flood zone are given a risk score of 24. Burn­area culverts are given a risk score of 22. As can be seen from the map, CDOT has identified a fairly large list of “critical culverts” and all of these culverts are recommended for replacement or some kind of treatment to address the risk of failure of the culvert and other assets in the area. Because it will take many years to fund all of these projects, there is a need to prioritize which culverts are going to be replaced first. Users can view the locations of the critical culverts together with layers that help to assess both likelihood and conse­ quences of failure. Users can also view the location of planned pavement and bridge projects. In this case, the user can see the location of a planned pavement project for 2014 shown in bright yellow. Then a “Culvert Calculator” tool that illus­ trates a potential new GIS capability to assist with the pro­ gram development and budgeting process is launched. The Culvert Calculator shows the planned budgets for culvert replacements for the next four years as blue bars. This tool can be used to add culverts to any of these four years while keeping track of the dollars allocated. The use then can con­ tinue to add culverts to the program until most of the funds are allocated as shown by the red bar. Now that all of the culverts have been added to the program, a query can be run to locate them on a map. The query looks for all culverts that have a replacement year equal to 2014. Now the programmed projects for 2014 can be seen for four different assets: pavement projects are in yellow, rockfall miti­ gation projects are in blue, bridge projects are red circles, and the culverts that were just selected to be added to the program are shown in green. To end this portion of the pilot, a report is created of the culverts that were added to the program. Interactive Reporting. After CDOT’s program is devel­ oped and funded, project and budget information are sum­ marized and made available through the Your CDOT Dollar (YCD) website. The YCD website provides maps and reports on projects and budgets as well as the performance of the agency’s assets based on defined performance goals. First, bridge information is reviewed. From the YCD website, information on the condition of the bridges versus the agency’s goal can be accessed. Trends and budget information can also be seen. In addition, it is possible to view the bridges on a map. Maps are an integral part of the website—complementing the network­level charts with more detailed views of the individual bridge conditions as well as associated photos. A second example shows the estimated drivability life for CDOT’s maintained pavement. The green routes have a high drivability life, blue are moderate, and the purple are low. This example also includes the agency’s goals and budget for this asset. West Virginia DOT Pilot Pilot Summary The West Virginia DOT (WVDOT)was interested in demon­ strating the value of an integrated approach to asset inventory, work scheduling, safety analysis, and performance manage­ ment using GIS as the data integration and analysis engine. Pilot Narrative Background. In 2012, the state of West Virginia began the wvOASIS project. wvOASIS reaches across many state agencies to implement enterprise resource planning (ERP) technology. The goal of the project is to “gain operational efficiencies and seamless integration across administrative business functions by fundamentally transforming how the state manages its financial, human resources, procurement, and other business processes.” For WVDOT, the ERP project focuses on imple­ menting several modules of a commercial asset management suite including maintenance, fleet, traffic, and safety. While the wvOASIS project has been underway, WVDOT has made big strides on the geospatial front. The agency has developed a number of geospatial applications that allow for viewing, mining, reporting, and mapping asset and event data. These geospatial applications include a new LRS, a straight­line diagram (SLD) solution with integrated mapping and video log components, and a highway performance monitoring system (HPMS) console. WVDOT is now implementing an interface between the enterprise LRS and asset management modules. The WVDOT pilot highlights the effectiveness of perfor­ mance measure dashboards and then focuses on the integration of maintenance and crash data from asset management sys­ tems, cost data from wvOASIS, roadway characteristics data

12 from WVDOT’s Geospatial Transportation Information (GTI) Unit, and Google’s Street View data. The integration of these data layers is used to communicate the performance of assets and the WV road network, and to analyze crash and asset data to assist with recognizing trends and mitigating risks by addressing areas of concern. The pilot also illustrates the ability to collect data in the field using tablets and to assign work to maintenance crews in an efficient manner. Finally, it describes the integration of enter­ prise LRS data maintained outside of the TAM system with the location components of assets managed within. Performance Measure Dashboard. Performance mea­ sure dashboards allow DOTs to access information about how a DOT is performing. Many DOTs are establishing measures based on recommendations outlined in MAP­21. This portion of the pilot demonstrates the ability to review trends and to drill down to additional information about key performance indica­ tors (KPIs). Each of the KPIs on the operational dashboard can be “clicked” to view more detailed information. As a KPI is selected (e.g., percentage of good pavements, or safety), a thematic map that complements the information displayed in charts can be viewed. This asset management scenario begins with a review of the “maintenance cost” KPI. By choosing the “maintenance cost summary” tab, the maintenance costs associated with a num­ ber of WVDOT assets can be viewed. It can be seen that the maintenance costs for guardrails over the past two years is high. From here, the geospatial portal is used to examine guardrail maintenance costs and possible causes for the high expenses. Geospatial Portal, SLD, and Video Log. Geospatial por­ tals and straight line diagramming applications are used to view, analyze, and report on the many layers of information maintained by DOTs. This portion of the pilot demonstrates WVDOT’s planned geospatial portal, and its existing SLD and integrated video log solutions. The portal is used to review three geospatial layers: (1) routes color­coded by functional classification, (2) guard­ rails color­coded by maintenance costs, and (3) crash frequen­ cies color­coded by the number of crashes at each location. An area in downtown Charleston that has high guardrail maintenance costs (indicated by the thick red line) as well as a number of crashes is zoomed into. The attributes associated with one of the crashes on the corresponding route are viewed and it can be seen that the first harmful event is “guardrail face,” indicating that the crash involved hitting the guardrail. Zooming in further and launching the SLD for this loca­ tion provides more details about the assets and roadway char­ acteristics of the selected route. The top portion of the screen provides a stick diagram and is generally used to display point features such as intersections, signs, culverts, and bridges. The bottom portion of the screen includes attribute bars showing linear features such as functional classification, surface type, and pavement width. It can also be seen that a portion of the guardrail in the area selected is in poor condition and part of it is in good condition. “Driving” up and down the route allows for the viewing of additional information. Google’s Street View is launched at this location. The “Watch for Ice on Bridge” sign that is in the inventory (as shown on the SLD) is also shown on the image but the “20 MPH” advisory sign is missing. It is concluded that the sign could have been knocked down since the inventory was collected. In addition, it can be seen that the portion of the guardrail near the sign is in good condition, indicating that it might have been replaced recently and the portion just past the sign is in poor condition, which might be a result of recent crashes. Based on what is observed on the SLD and associated video images, the decision is made to request a field inspection to determine if the “20 MPH” advisory sign is still missing and to inspect the nearby guardrail that is in poor condition. Redlining tools are used to make notes on the SLD. After the redlines are complete, a notification is sent to the person responsible for maintenance. The notification will allow the maintenance personnel to open the SLD at the same location and also view the redlines. Field Data Collection. WVDOT is moving toward using tablets for field data collection. This portion of the pilot demonstrates field data collection of asset inventories and inspections. The SLD interface that was accessed from the web is also available on a tablet. This interface can be used to find assets that need to be added to the inventory or to perform inspec­ tions on existing assets. Here, the redlines from the previous workflow are reviewed. The SLD and map move as the inspector drives down the road using the tablet­based GPS device. The map helps the inspector to verify that he or she is at the right location in the field and that new assets are added to the inventory correctly. The inspector views one of the inventory screens associ­ ated with the sign record indicating the sign was in the field as of the last inspection date. He or she pulls up the most recent sign inspection record. The associated photograph shows the sign in the field on the last inspection date. He or she adds a note to the inspection record indicating that the sign is now missing and needs to be replaced. Similar screens would be used to inventory and inspect the guardrails. Work Order Management. As part of the wvOASIS project, WVDOT is implementing TAM modules for main­ tenance, fleet, traffic, and safety. A core capability of the TAM system is the ability to assign and track work. This portion of the pilot demonstrates assigning work to address conditions recorded in the field.

13 Now that it has been verified that both the sign and the por­ tion of the guardrail in poor condition need to be replaced, work orders are created that describe the work to be completed. The next step is to assign staffing resources and equipment to the work order. After the work has been completed, the accomplishment is logged, and the location of completed work is verified. LRS and TAM Integration. At WVDOT, as with most DOTs, different business units are responsible for the individ­ ual TAM modules and these units are generally also different from the units responsible for the LRS and geospatial appli­ cation development. Although separate, information needs to be shared across these business units, which means that the network and LRS information must be kept in sync with the TAM modules. This portion of the pilot describes the approach being taken by WVDOT to keep its LRS network up to date and to build interfaces between the LRS and the TAM modules. As an epilogue to this scenario, the pilot demonstrates the steps of a realignment that straightens a curve and cuts out .05 miles from the route where the guardrail and sign replace­ ments were made, which causes the milepoint location to change. The GIS unit uses its LRS management software to update the route centerline and LRS information. This first screen shows the original alignment. The first step is to digitize the new alignment. The new seg­ ment is added to the road network and measures are assigned to its endpoints. Because the LRS software has been interfaced with the DOTs asset management software, linear referencing for the asset information is systematically adjusted to reflect changes in the road network. For example, it can be seen that the functional classification record has moved with the alignment because of the rule assigned to that type of business data. Lessons Learned from the Pilots The pilot demonstration task was a useful way to explore both the “big picture” of what kinds of GIS/TAM capabilities DOTs are interested in adding, as well as the “nuts and bolts” of implementing these capabilities. With respect to identifi­ cation and design of new capabilities, key observations and lessons learned were: 1. The five TAM business areas and associated opportunities for using GIS provide a useful context and framework for states to consider specific new capabilities. 2. There is no one­size­fits­all approach to GIS/TAM—each agency’s decision process about new capabilities to imple­ ment will be dependent on how it has structured its asset management program—both functionally and organiza­ tionally, which asset management business areas they are looking to improve, what data they have, and what tools are in place or under development. 3. Using a business scenario approach for the design of new GIS/TAM capabilities is a good technique. Documenting the sequence of events or activities undertaken in which the GIS/TAM capability would be used allows for a review process to provide feedback on whether the new capabil­ ity will add value to the agency. It encourages an agency to think through the business context in detail: who specifi­ cally would use the new capability, how, and why. 4. A brainstorming process involving individuals represent­ ing a range of perspectives is a valuable way to identify potential improvements. 5. Bringing together individuals playing key roles in the asset management business process (e.g., program development, budgeting, pavement management, work scheduling) with GIS and data management experts enables a productive dis­ cussion about what capabilities would be of value, what is feasible or infeasible, what would be easy to do, and what would require a greater level of effort. In addition, it is use­ ful to include individuals who have more hands­on imple­ mentation responsibilities as more senior managers. This allows for GIS capabilities to be defined that address both strategic and tactical concerns. 6. Out­of­the­box thinking should be encouraged, since GIS offers opportunities to change how work is done and how decisions are made. With respect to the mechanics of implementing new GIS/ TAM capabilities, the research team has made the following observations: 1. Data availability was the biggest challenge in pulling the pilots together. Even when an agency initially thought that the data were available, a host of issues were discovered that had an impact on access to or use of the data for the pilots. These included reluctance on the part of the data owner to release the information (especially for safety data); in complete data—lacking in desired attributes, only available for selected years, or only available for selected portions of the network; lack of spatial referencing; and lack of currency. 2. The next biggest challenge (after data) was implement­ ing a seamless workflow across the various tools that exist within the organization. While the pilots did not involve any system integration work, the story lines that were devel­ oped envisioned integrated use of GIS within asset man­ agement business processes. Mocking up these integrated capabilities highlighted the reality that multiple systems are typically utilized for asset inventory, maintenance manage­ ment, needs assessment, tradeoff analysis, budgeting, and programming. Integrating GIS query and analysis capa­ bilities so that they work seamlessly across these various systems requires considerable planning, coordination, and technical effort.

14 3. While it is relatively straightforward to use available GIS tools to view and analyze available spatial data on an ad­ hoc basis, it requires more effort to implement a continuing analysis capability and ensure that the data are sufficiently current and accurate to support the intended uses. Both technical effort to automate data feeds and data governance structures and processes in place to determine and enforce updating cycles are needed. 4. It is important to allocate sufficient time and attention to information design and to allow for an iterative process to arrive at a design that works well. GIS portals often suffer from what one pilot participant termed “layerrhea.” When too many data layers are available and selected it can be impossible to understand what the data are showing. The practice of developing specialized maps that are tailored for a particular purpose can be used to limit the num­ ber of available layers and available attributes that can be viewed for each feature. 5. Related to the above point, part of the information design process should consider development of specialized themes that combine information from multiple feature sets. For example, in the Iowa pilot, pavement condition data from multiple years was combined to derive a theme showing road segments that exceeded a threshold level of deterioration. 3.3 Workshops New England Workshop A day­long workshop was held on February 24, 2014, hosted by MassDOT. There were 12 participants from MassDOT, three from the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), two from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RiDOT), and one from the Maine Depart­ ment of Transportation (MaineDOT). This workshop pro­ vided an opportunity for the research team to present and obtain feedback on the Implementation Guide materials. The workshop began with introductions and review of the day’s agenda. In the morning session, participants completed assessments of agency GIS capabilities and agency use of GIS for TAM, guided by presentations from the research team. The morning session concluded with discussion and feed­ back from participants, including the following: • The assessment portion of the Implementation Guide was a useful exercise to the participants. The four participating states had a range of implementation levels for their GIS capabilities and GIS/TAM capabilities: – Massachusetts: High GIS maturity; low GIS/TAM matu- rity. A majority of items on the GIS­practice list (see Implementation Guide, Table 8) were checked. GIS managed by the planning department was strongest at keeping a core set of legacy layers up to date. MassDOT had no strategic plan and no implementation of mobile GIS apps at the time of the workshop. Capabilities not well understood across the agency; outreach is important but GIS staff are spread thin and there is a need to prioritize requests. Bridge and pavement are in good shape, though highly siloed. Maintenance is highly privatized, which makes it difficult to track what has been done. MassDOT has made some progress with the implementation of a commercial maintenance management system. – Connecticut: Medium GIS maturity; Low GIS/TAM matu- rity. Checked 10 of the 28 items on the GIS­practice list— other functions are in the works. ConnDOT is trying to use TAM to build momentum with an initial focus on major assets and construction projects. Working to integrate bridge and project data as part of commercial construc­ tion information management system implementation. Can produce thematic maps with bridge condition—on web but not integrated with other data. – Rhode Island: Medium GIS maturity; Basic GIS/TAM maturity. Checked 14 of the 28 items on the GIS­practice list, working to build additional capabilities. – Maine: High GIS maturity; Intermediate-Advanced GIS/TAM maturity. Checked 24 of the 28 items on the GIS­practice list and is currently piloting mobile apps. MaineDOT has found that data governance is key. MaineDOT has a formal structure and update process. • An agency’s GIS capabilities may not be well understood by stakeholders outside the GIS group; clearly communi­ cating current GIS capabilities to a broader base of stake­ holders may help drive new GIS/TAM initiatives. Similarly, before assessing agency­level GIS capabilities, the GIS group should clearly communicate current GIS capabilities through presentations, demonstrations, and other outreach efforts. • The guidance should emphasize the important role of data governance in enabling GIS for TAM. • Upper management doesn’t always appreciate the level of effort that is needed to collect spatially­enabled data, which can be very expensive. Once it is collected, a strict change/update process needs to be followed. The afternoon session addressed the business case for agency investment in GIS for TAM. Participants used materials and guidance developed by the research team to outline a basic busi­ ness case for example GIS/TAM initiatives: • Rhode Island selected a computer­aided design (CAD) to GIS initiative to produce complete right­of­way and asset data from as­built plans. RiDOT cited efficiency benefits from decreased effort to update asset data. It would build in require­ ments for extracted asset data as a pay item in contracts. • Massachusetts selected implementing uniform geospatial data standards across projects. MassDOT would include this as part of its IT Strategic Plan and create standard specifica­ tions. MassDOT estimated that doing so would decrease design effort and time (less effort needed to find and integrate data from different sources).

15 • Maine selected the same example as Rhode Island—with a similar approach and benefits statement. • Connecticut selected an initiative to map candidate projects and programmed work—both capital and maintenance. Estimated benefits included improved coordination between construction and maintenance—the idea being to avoid needing to touch the same asset more than once in a given two­year period. It would coordinate processes between consultant and state forces. It would also allow for self­service information about project status, which would cut down on phone calls that currently need to be fielded by project engineers. Following this exercise, the workshop concluded with dis­ cussion and feedback from participants. Discussion addressed issues including: • Agencies have many options for GIS data management and IT architecture. It would be useful to have information on these options and practical guidance on how to select the most appropriate options, addressing questions such as: What common resources should be set up for GIS data? Where in the organization should GIS expertise reside? Given the technology’s rapid rate of change, a decision frame­ work would be more useful than an inventory of options. • The exercises would be most valuable if undertaken by a group, rather than by a single individual. To this end, work­ shop materials could provide a template for a committee review processes. • The best way to communicate the value of GIS/TAM ini­ tiatives is through good examples of successful practices. Supplementing this research with FHWA­supported pilots would help make the case for greater investment. After the conclusion of the scheduled workshop activities, the MaineDOT delivered a brief presentation demonstrating the agency’s current GIS/TAM capabilities. Workshop at the 10th National Transportation Asset Management Conference A morning workshop was held at the National Conference on Transportation Asset Management in Miami, Florida, on April 28, 2014. Over 40 people registered for the workshop, representing 12 state DOTs (AL, CA, CT, DC, IA, MD, MA, MI, NM, RI, SC, and VA), three transit agencies, and one city (New York). The workshop covered material from the Implementation Guide as well as demonstrations of the West Virginia and Iowa pilots. Participants provided positive feedback on the GIS/TAM framework that was presented. When polled at the close of the workshop as to which of the seven ingredients for success was the biggest challenge, leadership and integrating GIS with asset management systems were tied (with seven votes each) for first place. The workshop agenda is shown below; the slides for the workshop are included in Annex C to this report. 8:30 AM Introduction (Frances Harrison) Workshop Overview Participant Introductions GIS Capabilities Checklist 9:00 AM Implementing GIS for Transportation Asset Management (Frances Harrison) NCHRP Project 08-87 Objectives and Products Fundamentals Opportunities and Implementation Levels 10:15 AM Break 10:30 AM Scenario Demonstrations: Using GIS for Transportation Asset Management (Connie Gurchiek, Eric Abrams, Hussein Elkhansa) West Virginia Iowa 11:30 AM Implementation Challenges and Success Factors (Frances Harrison) Common Challenges Seven Ingredients for Success 12:00 PM Adjourn Naonal Conference on Transportaon Asset Management Workshop Agenda

16 Workshop at the 2014 GIS-T Symposium An afternoon workshop was held at the GIS­T symposium in Burlington, Vermont, on May 5, 2014. Over 70 people registered for the workshop, representing 23 state DOTs (AK, AL, AR, CA, CO, DE, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, VT, WA, WV), and six metropolitan planning organiza­ tions (MPOs)/local agencies. The workshop began with a unit on MAP­21 asset management requirements. This was followed by the material on the Implementation Guide framework, a presentation from Colorado DOT on its risk­based asset man­ agement approach, and then a demonstration of the pilots, focusing on the Colorado pilot. When polled at the close of the workshop as to which of the seven ingredients for success was the biggest challenge, “data management and stewardship” and “foundational spatial data” were tied (with seven votes each) for first place—reflecting the composition of GIS­T conference attendees. The workshop agenda is shown below. GIS-T Symposium Workshop Agenda 1:00 PM Introduction (K. Zimmerman) Workshop Overview Participant Introductions 1:15 PM MAP-21 Asset Management Requirements (K. Zimmerman) Performance Measures and Targets Risk-Based Asset Management Plans Implications for GIS—Are You Ready? 2:30 PM Implementing GIS for Transportation Asset Management (F. Harrison) NCHRP Project 08-87 Objectives and Products Understanding the State of the Assets Assessing and Managing Risk Identifying Needs and Work Candidates Packaging Projects into Effective Programs Managing and Tracking Work Activities 3:30 PM Break 3:45 PM Colorado DOT’s Approach to Risk-Based Asset Management CDOT’s Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Plan Future Directions for Using GIS for Risk Analysis 4:15 PM Scenario Demonstrations: Using GIS for Transportation Asset Management (C. Gurchiek) Colorado West Virginia Iowa 4:50 PM Wrap-Up (K. Zimmerman) 3.4 Webinars A series of three webinars was conducted in June 2014. These webinars were hosted by AASHTO. The AASHTO TAM mailing list was used to publicize the webinars. There were roughly 80 registrants for the three webinars. (Typically each registrant will bring others into the room to participate as well.) The webinar announcement is shown below, fol­ lowed by the detailed agendas for each workshop. The webinar slides are available at: http://tam.transportation.org/Pages/ Webinars.aspx#gis. Webinar Announcement AASHTO is hosting a three­part webinar series on GIS and TAM sharing the results of the NCHRP Project 08­87— Successful Practices in GIS­Based Transportation Asset Management. This project is producing two guides—an EXECUTIVE GUIDE that focuses on the value of TAM and GIS and the key components of an effective GIS supported TAM program and an IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE tar­ geted to practitioners that supports the steps necessary to improve how GIS supports TAM programs. The following

17 is a description of each webinar and a link to register for the webinar. Webinar 1: GIS for Transportation Asset Management—What DOT Managers Need to Know Thursday, June 12, 2014—11:00 AM EST The first webinar is geared to agency executives, chief engi­ neers, and planning directors. It will cover benefits of GIS for gaining insights needed for asset management, managing risk, and communicating across units within the agency and with external stakeholders. It will feature effective demon­ strations of GIS capabilities and remarks from DOT leaders who have made GIS implementation a priority. Webinar 2: GIS for Transportation Asset Management—Planning, Managing, and Tracking Work Monday, June 16, 2014—11:00 AM EST This webinar is geared to unit and section managers responsible for specific asset classes (pavements, bridges, traf­ fic and safety assets, ITS assets, roadside assets, etc.) as well as DOT field office staff responsible for planning, scheduling, managing, and tracking maintenance and construction activ­ ities. It will feature examples of GIS applications for under­ standing the state of the assets, identifying needs and work candidates, and work tracking and management. It will also include discussion of challenges and strategies for successful implementation that are related to the featured examples. Webinar 3: GIS for Transportation Asset Management—Developing Balanced Programs to Meet Performance Targets Monday, June 23, 2014—11:00 AM EST This webinar is geared to DOT staff responsible for pro­ gram development—within and/or across asset categories. It will feature examples of GIS applications for managing risks, prioritization, tradeoff analysis, and work coordination. It will also include discussion of challenges and strategies for success­ ful implementation that are related to the featured examples. Webinar Outlines Webinar 1: GIS for Transportation Asset Management—What DOT Managers Need to Know This initial webinar is geared to agency executives, chief engineers, and planning directors. It will cover benefits of GIS for gaining insights needed for asset management, managing risk, and communicating across units within the agency and with external stakeholders. It will feature effective demonstrations of GIS capabilities and remarks from DOT leaders who have made GIS implementation a priority. Introduction—5 minutes • Webinar objectives • Definitions of TAM and GIS GIS/TAM Applications Overview—15 minutes • How GIS adds value to TAM – Understanding the state of the assets – Assessing and managing risks – Identifying needs and work candidates – Developing programs – Managing and tracking work Agency Executive Presentations—20 minutes (Presenters: John Selmer, Iowa DOT and Greg Slater, Maryland State Highway Administration) • Approach to using GIS for TAM • Key lessons Preview of the NCHRP Project 08-87 Guides—10 minutes • Executive and Implementation Guide contents • Common data layers • Implementation levels • Ingredients for success Q&A—10 minutes Webinar 2: GIS for Transportation Asset Management—Planning, Managing, and Tracking Work This webinar is geared to unit and section managers respon­ sible for specific asset classes (pavements, bridges, traffic and safety assets, ITS assets, roadside assets, etc.) as well as DOT field office staff responsible for planning, scheduling, manag­ ing, and tracking maintenance and construction activities. It will feature examples of GIS applications for understanding the state of the assets, identifying needs and work candidates, and work tracking and management. It will also include discussion of challenges and strategies for successful implementation that are related to the featured examples. Introduction—5 minutes • Webinar objectives • Definitions of TAM and GIS Opportunities for Enhancing TAM Processes Using GIS—10 minutes • Understanding the state of the assets • Identifying needs and work candidates • Managing and tracking work

18 Pilot Demonstrations—25 minutes (Presenters: Hussein Elkhansa, West Virginia DOT; Eric Abrams, Iowa DOT—with Connie Gurchiek, Transcend Spa­ tial Solutions) • West Virginia DOT: Using GIS for guardrail inventory, inspection and maintenance management • Iowa DOT: Using GIS to integrate and optimize pavement work planning Preview of the NCHRP Project 08-87 Guides—10 minutes • Executive and Implementation Guide contents • Implementation steps for integrating new spatial data for TAM • Building a business case for new GIS/TAM capabilities • Ingredients for success Q&A—10 minutes Webinar 3: GIS for Transportation Asset Management—Developing Balanced Programs to Meet Performance Targets This webinar is geared to DOT staff responsible for pro­ gram development—within and/or across asset categories. It will feature examples of GIS applications for managing risks, prioritization, tradeoff analysis, and work coordination. It will also include discussion of challenges and strategies for successful implementation that are related to the featured examples. Introduction—5 minutes • Webinar objectives • Definitions of TAM and GIS Opportunities for Enhancing TAM Processes Using GIS—10 minutes • Assessing and managing risks • Developing programs Pilot Demonstration—25 minutes (Presenters: William Johnson, Colorado DOT, Connie Gur­ chiek, Transcend Spatial Solutions) • Colorado DOT: Using GIS to develop a risk­based asset management program Preview of the NCHRP 08-87 Guides—10 minutes • Executive and Implementation Guide contents • Implementation steps for integrating new spatial data for TAM • Building a business case for new GIS/TAM capabilities • Ingredients for success Q&A—10 minutes