Use of Automated Machine Guidance within the Transportation Industry (2018)

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.

NCHRP Project 10-77 24 CHAPTER 4: KEY STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS The project research team developed a detailed plan and conducted (upon NCHRP approval) a worldwide survey to determine what types of software and equipment are currently being used to implement AMG processes. The survey involved these groups of stakeholders: • State transportation agencies; • Software vendors; • Equipment vendors; and • Contractors. • The survey covered these topics: • Current drafting and design software capabilities • Types of electronic files that are submitted to contractors (e.g., .dgn, .dwg, .dtm, .tin, and LandXML files) • When these files are made available to the contractors (e.g., pre-bid or post-award) • Equipment capabilities and reliability • Perceived benefits and liabilities of AMG processes The research team used an Internet browser-based software application to conduct the survey. Internet browser-based applications allow efficient tabulation of results which improved the efficiency of the research team, reduced the probability of mistakes, and have been proven effective in increasing response rates when targeting North American transportation agencies (i.e., up to 80% per NCHRP 37-06 Synthesis). The complete survey report is provided in Appendix D. METHODOLOGY Survey Planning and Question Development The survey was intended to garner information from several groups of AMG stakeholders to define the current state of the industry. The project team developed separate survey questions for the different stakeholder groups based on internal collaboration and literature collected as of the survey date. Draft survey questions were presented to participants in the expert contact group AMG Workshop (Appendix A), and workshop participants evaluated and commented on the questions. After the workshop, the draft survey questions were refined and presented to the project technical advisory panel. Upon receipt and incorporation of the feedback and suggestions from the panel, the survey questions were finalized and integrated into the on-line survey software. Each survey was assigned a specific internet address (URL), and all eight survey URLs were posted on a master Earthworks Engineering Research Center (EERC) webpage hosted by Iowa State University (ISU). The individual survey URLs were included in an e-mail message to each group of targeted survey respondents. The list of targeted survey participants, itself, was formed through multiple channels, including key contacts within the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America, the TRB, and other industry leadership. A total of eight surveys were created; the three surveys that targeted transportation agencies and five surveys that targeted private industry had the following titles: • Transportation Agencies 1. Agency Surveying Functions 2. Agency Design Functions 3. Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions

NCHRP Project 10-77 25 • Private Industry 4. Construction Contractors 5. Heavy Equipment Suppliers 6. Software/Hardware Vendors 7. Legal Aspects 8. Trainers/Educators Contact information obtained from previous NCHRP projects, this project’s AMG Workshop, AGC national membership, and a Mississippi DOT (MDOT) AMG project was consolidated and designated Master List 1. Target survey respondents on this list were expected to complete at least one of the surveys. Contact information from leaders of the Professional Engineering License Boards and the Professional Land Surveyor Associations in each of the 50 states was also collected and designated Master List 2. Target survey respondents on this list were expected to forward the emailed information about the survey to members of their organizations or committees and request that those individuals complete surveys. After the master lists were prepared, the research team completed these steps to solicit survey responses: 1. prepared a letter that described the project and the survey and included a request to help solicit responses from colleagues with knowledge of AMG; 2. used the letter as the body of personalized email messages that were sent to target recipients on both Master List 1 and Master List 2. 3. sent personalized, follow-up e-mail messages to all recipients to remind them to forward information about the project and the survey to colleagues and to remind them about the survey closing date; and 4. contacted survey respondents who had indicated interest in further communication on the survey by phone to obtain additional information or address concerns. More than 5,000 survey respondents were solicited beginning on February 1, 2010, and the process concluded on February 26, 2010. Monitoring Throughout the deployment and implementation of the surveys, contact with the respondents was an ongoing process. Several survey recipients requested an alternate way to take the survey (such as manually-printed copies of the questions by facsimile or electronic document). These requests included the accommodation of viewing the totality of questions before completing the survey(s). The project team handled each of the requests on an individual basis. The team also recorded three survey responses manually, with the respondent on the telephone, followed by completing the on-line survey for the respondent. These responses, taken orally, were the result of several unresolved technical issues experienced by the three survey respondents (out of 504 responses, across all questionnaires). On the day of the e-mail solicitation for Master List 1, three respondents replied by phone or e- mail that the on-line survey application would not allow them to submit or register their questionnaire responses upon conclusion at the final page (or screen). The issue was investigated and one root cause was determined to be that the survey software application requires each question to be classified as either mandatory or non-mandatory, and most of the questions were designated as mandatory. Although the survey instrument was tested considerably (on a smaller scale) prior to this project, the team decided to switch all survey questions to non-mandatory to allow the collection of all feedback from respondents. Encountering this issue likely resulted in many of the survey questions submitted as unanswered, although it is not determined how many respondents would have abandoned the survey completely if they were unable to answer a mandatory question.

NCHRP Project 10-77 26 While the technical issues that were encountered on the first day were resolved by changing each survey question in each group of surveys to non-mandatory, it also created an unintended consequence in that the software application automatically provided a No Answer option to all questions, which were previously classified as mandatory. This created an additional category in most of the response tables, thereby having one category for respondents who specifically click the No Answer option and one for respondents who did not have any response and skipped the question entirely as Non-Completed. The team suspects that some of the errors encountered by participants could have been caused by incompatible versions of Java programming language or PHP scripting language. This was not found in initial survey validation testing, as it was not possible to test the survey on every computer, JavaScript, and PHP combination. It appeared to occur on older computers with a sample of the respondents while attempting to complete the questionnaires. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient time after the e-mail solicitation to individually troubleshoot system or software incompatibilities. On the first day of the survey launch, it was feared that this technical problem would scale to a greater number of survey recipients, who were volunteering their time to complete rather complicated surveys. In the end, switching the survey questions to non-mandatory was an effort to mitigate the technical issue, which could have resulted in a lower response rate. Assessment A total of 504 people responded in whole or in part to the eight targeted surveys (See Table 4-1). The largest number of responses was from agency construction/procurement functional areas and construction contractors. The lowest response rate concerned the Legal Aspects survey. Table 4-1. Survey Responses by Targeted Survey Target Survey No. of Respondents Agency Surveying Functions 76 Agency Design Functions 65 Agency Construction/Bid/Contract Functions 121 Construction Contractors 118 Heavy Equipment Suppliers 30 Software/Hardware Vendors 34 Legal Aspects 12 Trainers/Educators 48 Total Number of Survey Respondents 504 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Contractors One hundred and eighteen (118) contractors participated in the survey. Of those, 30 reported experience with AMG. Those thirty contractors, half of which have five or more years’ experience with the technology, represent close to 700 projects annually utilizing automated machine grading, mainly for mass and fine grading earthwork applications. Approximately half of the contractor respondents where middle or executive managers representing mostly prime contractors in the public works sector of the industry. At least one respondent reported use of AMG for subgrade trimming equipment and landfill compaction operations. Of the 118 contractors, 62 participants answered each survey question while 56 answered only a portion of the questions. Sixty-four percent (76 total) of the contractor respondents classified themselves as prime contractors. Approximately half (49%) of all the contractors responding are prime contractors involved in the public works segment of the industry. Conversely, twenty-one percent (21%) of all the contractor respondents identified themselves with the private sector of the

NCHRP Project 10-77 27 industry as shown in Table 3-2. Table 4-2. Contractor Survey Respondents by Industry Segment Answer Count Percentage Prime Contractor-Private Market (A) 18 15% Prime Contractor-Public Works Market (B) 58 49% Subcontractor-Private Market (C) 3 3% Subcontractor-Public Works Market (D) 10 9% Consultant-Private Market (E) 4 3% Consultant-Public Works Market (F) 2 2% Other* 5 4% No answer 18 15% Non-completed 0 — *Other: Prime - Private & Public, Oil Refinery, General Contractor, Equipment Dealer, DOT. Responding Transportation Agencies Three of the project's surveys were targeted at specific transportation agency functional areas defined by NCHRP Synthesis 385, Information Technology for Efficient Project Delivery: Design, Planning and Surveying, Procurement and Construction. The three targeted transportation agency surveys represent responses from 49 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Ontario, Canada. Most of the transportation agency responses were from individual state agencies; however, there were also responses from city, county and consulting transportation agencies and organizations. Figure 3-2 represents transportation agency responses from the United States by type of survey completed: D=Design Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire PS-Planning and Surveying Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire PC=Procurement and Construction Transportation Agency Survey Questionnaire Figure 4-1. Transportation Agency Responses by U.S. State Software and Hardware Vendors Thirty-four (34) persons associated with AMG software and/or hardware functions participated in this survey. The survey results consist of 19 surveys in which all the questions were answered in total.

NCHRP Project 10-77 28 Heavy Equipment Vendors Thirty (30) persons associated with AMG heavy construction equipment functions participated in this survey. The survey consisted of 61 questions. Training and Educational Organizations The survey questionnaire for training and educational organizations was intended for discovery of AMG training opportunities related to the process in general, specific hardware or software utilization, or for operators on heavy equipment. This specific survey was populated by forty-eight (48) responses with 42 full responses and 6 responses not completely filled out. As the close deadline of the online surveys approached and responses to this survey were low, the survey URL was solicited on the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) email list server, therefore approximately half of the respondents were from universities or colleges as displayed in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Training and Education Survey Respondents by Delivery Organization Type Answer Count Percentage Surveying and positioning equipment manufacturer and dealer (A) 3 6% Design software developer and down channel sales and training partner (B) 0 0% Equipment manufacturer and dealer (C) 4 4% Independent professional trainer (D) 1 2% University or college (E) 26 54% Other* 8 17% No answer 8 17% Not completed 0 0% *Other: DOT, Construction Company, Construction Company, General Contractor, Construction positioning equipment dealer, FHWA, Engineering Company, 3D MC software & Design. BARRIERS TO AMG ADOPTION Contractor Perspective The contractor’s survey contained a series of questions regarding the reasons why their organization was not utilizing AMG. The answers given to these questions are summarized as follows and displayed in Table 3-4 below:

NCHRP Project 10-77 29 Table 4-4. Contractor Reasons for Not Utilizing AMG Reasons Chosen No. Percentage Cost of entry is too high. (A) 14 22% Lack of vendor/technical support in this geographic area. (B) 6 10% Do not understand the technology. (C) 7 11% Lack of employees with appropriate technical skills. (D) 6 10% We plan to learn more about AMG. (E) 6 10% We plan to implement AMG in the future. (F) 7 11% The owners we work for will not cooperate. (G) 2 3% Other* 15 24% *Other: Nothing for our work has been developed; Not our market; No applications in building construction; We build buildings not roads; Subcontract most grading work; Our Subcontractors utilize this technology; We do not directly use it, does not apply to our trades; We use very little machinery- five skid-steers, two telescopic lifts, one small excavator; This work is subcontracted out; We do not self-perform site work; We are an engineering firm; and We do not perform site/grading work; Existing sub surface conditions may not be safe/allow; We use 3-D technology, but grade with layout because of entrance fees Agency Perspective Obstacles to 3D design at transportation agencies were reported as follows: • A perceived steep/deep learning curve for transitioning from 2D to 3D design. This challenge had the most individual votes and the lowest standard deviation. • The perception of overcoming existing transportation agency “mindsets” of design procedures. • The perceived additional time and effort required to develop accurate 3D models, compared to conventional 2D design. • A perceived lack of agency design specifications for 3D models. DTM CREATION, USE, AND SHARING Contractor Perspective Responses to the Contractor Survey revealed the following: • Within construction contracting organizations, the creation of the DTMs are tasked equally between estimator functional roles, specialists whose functional role is dedicated to modeling, and outsourced consultants. • The DTMs that contractors use for AMG are just as likely to be created from scratch (completely built from 2D plans) as shared at 100% design maturity by the owner’s engineers. • When an owner shares EED with the contractor (for DTM purposes), the exchange process is not standardized in the industry. It is just as likely to occur at pre-bid, post-bid, or post- contract stages. • More than half of the EED is shared via computer networks and compact disc (CD) or digital video disk (DVD) media. • More than half of the responding contractors share EED back to the owner (as-built conditions). • A heavy majority of the responding contractors utilize DTMs for estimating quantities and

NCHRP Project 10-77 30 the means and methods of earthwork construction tasks. • A heavy majority of the contractors utilize DTMs for quantity work progress and payment. • Contractors report a wide range costs for DTM development ($150-$2,500 per lane mile; $750 per acre). Agency Designer Perspective Transportation design agencies reported the following from their targeted survey: • Most of the design agencies receive DTMs from their agency’s planning/survey function. • A roughly equal number of design units produce DTMs as do not. • A roughly equal number of respondents share DTMs with contractors as those who do not. • When DTMs are shared by agencies with contractors, a clear majority share them “as-is,” with no manipulation for AMG. • The most common EED shared are: 1) horizontal and vertical alignment, 2) conventional design files, and 3) TIN triangles. • The most common file formats shared are: 1) .dtm, 2) .tin, and 3) .ttm, in that order, descending. • A clear majority of the designers report that 3D models expose design errors and that 3D design review requires additional time (versus the 2D process). Agency Planner and Surveyor Perspective • The photogrammetric topographical collection method was the most prevalent at agencies, followed by RTK GPS and conventional Total Station surveying. • 76% of agency planning/survey units indicate that they create DTMs. Agency Procurement and Construction Function Perspective • An equal number of procurement/construction units responding to the survey share EED with contractors as those that do not. • A clear majority of respondents in the agency procurement/construction functional areas reported that field inspectors do not have access to DTMs. Agency Procurement/Construction Functional Areas (Agency P/C), which do not share EED with contractors: • A clear majority of procurement/construction units that do not share EED hold the opinion that contractors should be responsible for creation of DTMs for AMG. • An equal split of procurement/construction respondents felt that the responsibility for DTM contract compliance rested with either the agency or the contractor. • A clear majority of the respondents who do not share EED felt that agencies should share DTMs with contractors and vice-versa. • A clear majority of procurement/construction units that do not share EED hold the opinion that contractors should share EED back to the agency. • A clear majority of procurement/construction units that do not share EED felt that DTMs should be shared with contractors in the pre-bid stage, while a significant portion of respondents felt that the exchange should occur after a pre-construction conference. It appears from comments received that many plan to provide DTMs at pre-bid. Agency P/C Functional Areas, which do share EED with contractors:

NCHRP Project 10-77 31 • Of procurement/construction units that do share EED, an equal number of respondents stated that DTM creation responsibility was that of either the contractor or the agency. • A clear majority reported that EED exchange actually occurs after contract execution, at the pre-construction conference or stage. • A clear majority of respondents reported that the owner’s warranty of constructible plans was for 2D-stamped drawings, only. • About half of the respondents who share EED with contractors reported contractors exchanging EED back to the agency. • Alignment EED was the most reported dataset exchanged. • An equal number of respondents who exchange EED with contractors reported that primary responsibility for DTM creation was either with the agency or the contractor. • Regarding revisions to the DTM after the initial share with the contractor, agencies were split on how to align plan changes to the model. AMG QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCURACY Topographical Data and Collection • Transportation planning and surveying units are increasingly mature in their data collection processes and use of cutting-edge technology (RTK Post-Processed GPS Surveying). • Most surveying units responding to the surveys have effective and validated RTK GPS specifications, which guide their processes of data collection. • Planners and surveyors reported that Robotic Total Station surveying was slightly more accurate than conventional total station surveying, both of which were deemed considerably more accurate than GPS and Photogrammetric surveying, as shown in Table 4-3. The lower the number in the table, the higher the rating of the respondents (on a scale of 1 to 4). • 90% of respondents reported horizontal accuracy of 2 cm or less with GPS surveying equipment. • 45% of respondents reported vertical accuracy of 2 cm or less with GPS surveying equipment. Table 4-5. Surveyor and Planner Rankings of Surveying Technology Accuracies Ranking of Surveying Technology Accuracy No. Std. Dev. Avg. Rank Robotic Total Station surveying 32 0.50 1.52 1 Conventional Total Station surveying 32 0.79 1.52 2 GPS 48 0.93 2.29 3 Photogrammetric 75 0.79 3.57 4

NCHRP Project 10-77 32 Digital Terrain Modeling Table 4-6 and Table 4-7 summarize survey feedback concerning DTM and EED accuracy. Table 4-6. Important DTM Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software/Hardware Vendors DTM Accuracy Factors* Contractor Agency P/C SW/HW Number of data points in DTM 70% 90% 80% File types of shared data 52% 56% 67% Number of data translations 56% 77% 63% DTM constructability review 77% 70% 73% * Percentage of respondents choosing DTM Accuracy as Important or Very Important Table 4-7. Factors contributing to EED Accuracy According to Software/Hardware Vendors Factors Contributing to EED Accuracy* SW/HW Elevation point density 94% Adhering to CAD Standard/Defined work-flow processes 81% The sequence of when the models are created in the delivery process 88% Engineer design competencies in design software use 100% * Percentage of respondents choosing EED Accuracy as Important or Very Important AMG Accuracy Table 4-8 summarize survey feedback concerning factors affecting AMG accuracy. Table 4-8. Important AMG Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Software/Hardware Vendors AMG Accuracy Factors* Contractor Agency P/C SW/HW File size of DTM 46% 47% 10% DTM constructability review 75% 76% 40% Training/competencies of model builders 100% 90% 100% Training/competencies of field personnel (rover-checkers) 85% 85% 70% Training/Competencies of grading machine operators 81% 88% 70% Training/competencies of owner-agency inspectors 52% 70% 60% In-field QA/QC programs/procedures 89% 84% 80% * Percentage of respondents choosing AMG Accuracy as Important or Very Important

NCHRP Project 10-77 33 QA/QC Comments received concerning QC/QA are as follows: Contractors: • A large majority of contractors felt that AMG Quality control and tolerances should be controlled via existing standard specifications, versus special provisions. • A majority of contractors who use AMG perform grade checking with a rover. • A majority of contractors using AMG perform QA/QC checks daily, versus hourly or by sections/geometry of the project. • A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process exposes design errors earlier than conventional processes and, therefore, reduces rework. • A majority of contractors with AMG experience believe that the process is more accurate than conventional staking processes. • A majority of contractors felt that providing a surveyor and rover to agencies was sufficient for quality assurance, while they were equally divided over providing: 1) rover and training, 2) grade stakes and grade sheets, and 3) cut sheets. Heavy Equipment: The following AMG accuracy factors were reported as very important or important by the contractor, agency, and heavy-equipment-vendor stakeholder groups, by more than 50% of their respective respondents: • Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) • Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic-control response) • Lack of operator training • End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) • Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer • Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners • Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process • Errors in setting up the control network • Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM Tolerances specified by agencies/owners were deemed important by the contractors and equipment vendors, but only a third of the agency respondents thought the same. Hydraulic sensor selection was considered an important accuracy factor by more than half the contractors, while less than a half of the agencies and less than a third of the vendors rated it as important.

NCHRP Project 10-77 34 Table 4-9. Important Equipment Accuracy Factors Rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Heavy Equipment Organizations Heavy Equipment Accuracy Factors* Contractor Agency P/C H_Eqp Limitations in the positioning methods (GPS, Total Station, Laser) 77% 75% 81% Tolerances specified by agencies/owners 73% 34% 50% Hydraulic sensor selection 58% 44% 23% Machine response time to positioning information (hydraulic control response) 77% 62% 63% Lack of operator training 80% 75% 81% End-user misuse of products (equipment, hardware, software) 77% 65% 63% Lack of system understanding (technological) by customer 85% 70% 93% Lack of system understanding (technological) by inspectors/owners 62% 70% 94% Failure to identify inaccuracies during the QA/QC process 88% 74% 88% Errors in setting up the control network 96% 89% 94% Inaccuracies in final surfaces of the DTM 96% 75% 80% Inaccuracies in the original survey contained in the DTM 81% 74% 87% Not cross-checking the final ground model of the DTM with owner. 69% N/A N/A * Percentage of respondents choosing Heavy Equipment Accuracy as Important or Very Important Contractors: • 72% of the responding contractors felt that quality control should be specified using the exiting agency standard specifications. • A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that conforming or aligning the DTM to the contract documents was their responsibility, versus the owner/agency or consultants. • A clear majority of the responding contractors felt that design changes to the DTM after creation of the original model was their responsibility. • Almost half of the contractors responding perform quality control by grade checking with a GPS rover. • A majority of the responding contractors check AMG quality daily, versus hourly or by project geometry. EED AND DATA FORMATS The research team attempted to determine the data formats involved with EED exchanged between the functional areas during the project lifecycle, in iterations of inputs and outputs (or imports and exports) between software applications. A primary software application does not currently exist to perform all the functions required in producing the information for each stakeholder. Therefore, the exchange of EED is accomplished by exporting the data produced in one function’s software application and importing it into another function’s software application. The survey questionnaires revealed that the most-utilized output file formats were .dgn and .tin, at the beginning of this multi-function process, and that the end-users of the EED for AMG were using .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn files for input file types (to create .dtm or other proprietary file formats). Figure 3-3 shows a general Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0) map of the

NCHRP Project 10-77 35 EED exchanged across AMG functions and the file formats utilized in the exchanges, as reported by the survey respondents. The percentages represent the number of respondents who chose that file type as an input or output to their functional processes. Figure 4-2. File Types of EED Exchanged Across AMG Functions Interestingly, about half of the software and hardware vendors responded that their products were capable of data exchange via LandXML, and they ranked that methodology as the most important. LandXML was reported as one of the most prevalent import/export file formats by the software and hardware vendors, along with .dwg, .dgn, and .dxf file formats. The vendors expressed that their software import/export capabilities were equally driven by owner and contractor needs, requirements, and demands. AMG LEGAL ASPECTS The project investigators developed a separate, specific survey questionnaire to gain information about the perceived legal issues surrounding AMG. Only 12 people responded and only one respondent was an attorney (who did not provide identification or contact information). The most pertinent piece of information gained from the survey was in response to the question, “Are you aware of any legal issues regarding 3D design or the sharing of EED in general?” One respondent provided this answer: “An administrative ruling by the PE and PLS licensing board requires [professional engineer/professional land surveyor] PE/PLS to build the 3D model. This is being challenged. Essentially, if the design is complete, then building the model is a CAD technician function that does not involve design decisions.” This small piece of information is pertinent and is addressed in Chapter 4. Additional questions about legal issues associated with the filing of claims and the sharing of EED were included in the survey questionnaires for contractors, agency design, and agency procurement/construction functions. In response to the question, “Has your agency been involved in any ‘claims for equitable adjustment’ or arbitration associated with shared electronic design and/or DTMs?” only three responses answered affirmative out of 304 total respondents to the three questionnaires (or two of 57 answering yes or no to the question). These responses are shown in Table 4-10.

NCHRP Project 10-77 36 Table 4-10. Respondents Reporting Claims or Arbitration Related to AMG Contractors Agency Designers Agency P/C Answer No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage Yes (Y) 2 1% 1 2% 0 0% No (N) 21 18% 12 18% 21 17% No answer 48 41% 15 23% 37 31% Non-completed 47 40% 37 57% 63 52% Table 4-11 reveals that agencies feel more exposure to liability because of sharing EED than contractors feel they should. Table 4-11. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Liability Exposure with EED Exchange Sharing EED with contractors exposes agencies to liability. Contractors Agency P/C Strongly Agree 0 1 Agree 4 15 Disagree 20 17 No Opinion 3 2 No Answer 44 23 Non-Completed 47 63 Table 4-12 reveals that a majority of both contractor- and agency-respondents, who answered the question, strongly agree that the sharing of EED contributes to a culture of cooperation between the stakeholders. Table 4-12. Contractor and Agency Opinions of Sharing EED and Cooperation Sharing EED with contributes to cooperation between owner-contractor. Contractors Agency P/C Strongly Agree 16 5 Agree 9 31 Disagree 1 0 No Opinion 1 3 No Answer 44 19 Non-Completed 47 63 AMG EDUCATION AND TRAINING Contractors reported that they receive AMG training mainly from equipment and software vendors, as well as from internal “champions.” Agency survey responses regarding AMG training were negligible. And agency responses regarding 3D CAD training were negligible. Most of the respondents to the training course survey were academic institutions. Results presented in Table 4-13 through Table 4-14 are from the Contractor survey. Table 4-13. Contractor Field Personnel Software Training Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for the required software?

NCHRP Project 10-77 37 Answer No. Percentage Our organization trains internally. (A) 21 41% Our organization hires 3rd-party consultants. (B) 7 14% The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. (C) 23 45% N/A (D) 0 0% Other 0 0% Table 4-14. Contractor Field Personnel Hardware Training Survey Question: How do your field personnel receive primary training for AMG related hardware (handheld and tablet computers, GPS rovers, etc.)? Answer No. Percentage Our organization trains internally. (A) 21 40% Our organization hires 3rd-party consultants. (B) 6 11% The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. (C) 25 47% N/A (D) 0 0% Other* 1 2% *Other: Trade shows Table 4-15. Contractor Machine Operator Training Survey Question: How do your machine operators and maintainers receive primary training for Machine- specific equipment related to AMG? Answer No. Percentage Our organization trains internally. (A) 22 43% Our organization hires 3rd-party consultants. (B) 6 12% The hardware/software vendors train as part of purchase agreement. (C) 22 43% N/A (D) 1 2% Other 0 0% PERCEIVED RISKS OF AMG Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their respective surveys to rate factors pertaining to risks in AMG technologies and methodologies on a scale of 1 to 5. (1=Highest Risk and 5=Lowest Risk.) The results from the three surveys are shown in Table 3- 16, with the percentages representing responses of 1 and 2, or highest and next-highest risk.

NCHRP Project 10-77 38 Table 4-16. AMG Risk Factors rated by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors AMG Risk Factors* Contractor Agency P/C H_Eqp Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors 57% 33% 80% High initial investment in equipment-lack of Return-On- Investment data 54% 43% 44% Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally) 75% 58% 81% Lack of training required to implement (internally) 64% 74% 69% Dependence on 3rd-party consultants for DTM creation 41% 42% 69% Operators may be distracted by looking at monitors in the machine cockpits 11% N/A N/A * Percentage of respondents choosing the factor at the two highest risk levels Here are the notable differences in stakeholder responses regarding importance or significance of the risk: • Lack of cooperation by owner-agency inspectors: More than half of the contractors and almost all of the equipment vendors considered this factor as highly important, while only a third of the agency respondents thought so. • Lack of competent personnel for implementation (internally): More than half of all three stakeholder groups felt that this factor was important, with the contractors and equipment vendors voting roughly the same (75%-80%). • Lack of training required to implement (internally): All stakeholders were unanimous in voting this factor as important (64%-74%). • Dependence on third-party consultants for DTM creation: Less than half of the respondents considered this factor highly important, with exception of the equipment vendors. Respondents to the Contractor survey provided additional risk factors and comments deemed important: • Maintenance of AMG-related hardware on the equipment can be expensive over time • No matter how you say it, the risks are greater without the use of AMG • Over-reliance on AMG capabilities • Complacency regarding QA/QC • Incomplete site calibration • Safety to ground personnel • Risk of damage to expensive equipment • Faulty equipment • Reception to GPS • Employee cooperation PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF AMG Contractors, agencies, and heavy equipment manufacturers/vendors were queried in their respective surveys to rate factors pertaining to perceived benefits in AMG technologies and methodologies on a scale of 1 to 5. (1=Highest Risk and 5=Lowest Risk). The results from the three surveys are shown in Table 4-17, with the percentages representing responses of 1 and 2 (highest and next-highest risk).

NCHRP Project 10-77 39 Table 4-17. Perceived AMG Benefits by Contractors, Agencies, and Equipment Vendors Perceived AMG Benefits* Contractor Agency P/C H_Eqp Labor savings (direct cost on projects) 96% 76% 80% Environmental-Fuel savings N/A 36% 60% Project schedule compression 86% 57% 93% Avoidance of re-work (re-grading) 93% 60% 87% As-built documentation 58% 57% 80% Ease of constructability review 44% 49% 73% Jobsite safety 68% 44% 60% Safety of the traveling public N/A 31% 40% * Percentage of respondents choosing the benefit at the two highest risk levels All three types of AMG stakeholders agreed as to the value of the perceived benefits (queried in the survey questions), except for constructability review and jobsite safety. • Labor savings (direct cost on projects): More than half of all stakeholders deemed this benefit as high, and virtually 100% of contractors rated this benefit as high. • Environmental-fuel savings: By mistake, this question was not asked of the contractors. More than half of the equipment vendors rated it as a benefit, while less than half of the agencies considered it high. • Project schedule compression: Contractors and vendors realize this benefit, while just more than half of the agencies do. • Avoidance of re-work (re-grading): Virtually all contractors and vendors rated this benefit very high, while almost half of the agencies did not. • As-built documentation: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high, over both contractors and agencies. • Ease of constructability review: The equipment vendors rated this benefit very high, while contractors and agencies apparently do realize the benefit. • Jobsite safety: This question was not asked of the contractors and neither agencies nor vendors rated it highly. Productivity gains and cost savings reported by contractors and equipment vendors are compared in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19. The equipment vendors appear more optimistic about construction productivity gains, while the majority of contractors report gains between 11 and 25%. A majority of the contractors report cost savings between 6 and 25% using AMG.

NCHRP Project 10-77 40 Table 4-18. Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Productivity Gains with AMG Productivity Increase Using AMG Contractor Vendor 0-5% 0 1 6-10% 0 0 11-15% 4 2 16-20% 6 0 20-25% 5 1 26-30% 3 1 31-35% 3 2 36-40% 2 6 Table 4-19. Comparison of Contractor and Equipment Vendor Cost Savings with AMG Cost Savings Using AMG Contractor Vendor 0-5% 0 0 6-10% 6 1 11-15% 4 0 16-20% 5 0 20-25% 7 2 26-30% 1 2 31-35% 0 3 36-40% 0 0 >50% 1 1 In open-ended questioning, one contractor reported the following benefit: “Allows operators greater understanding of design of final product.” Also in open-ended questioning, equipment vendors offered the following about customer (contractor) cost savings: “It really depends on the size of the job and how much AMG is utilized. The more AMG utilized, the higher the percentage. Low-end 10%, high end could be upwards of 50%.” And “Depending on design and type of projects, ranges for 40 to 60%.” and “Back office costs increase, even as field costs decrease. Overall, 10%.”