Technological Capabilities of Departments of Transportation for Digital Project Management and Delivery (2022)

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.

52 Summary of Findings The primary objective of this synthesis study was to document the use of ADC management systems by state DOTs in the delivery of highway projects, from planning, design, and con- struction to maintenance and asset management. ADC includes components of BIM, such as e-Construction, 3-D models, digital documentation, and geospatial tools, that are working to leverage digital efficiencies. Secondary objectives were to identify DOT use of various compo- nents of ADC, extent of ADC use, transfer and use of digital data, challenges to use, and DOT policy documentation. Each objective was previously addressed in the survey results presented in Chapter 3 and the DOT case examples described in Chapter 4. The following sections revisit the primary findings of this NCHRP synthesis study. The information used to generate the conclusions is inclusive of the 42 DOTs that responded to the survey. When specific numbers are referenced, the non- responsive state DOTs are not included in the findings. Use of Various Components of ADC • Of the 16 ADC technologies identified by the panel and research team, all had at least pilot-level experience with a DOT. The most frequently used technologies were electronic bidding, electronic construction document management systems (e.g., bidding and letting documents), mobile devices for inspection and acceptance (e.g., GPS rovers, tablets, smart- phones, etc.), and construction administration software (e.g., AASHTOWare Project Construction & Materials). Maps of DOT experience with each technology broken out into pilot experience, project experience, or programmatic experience were reported in Figures 3.3 through 3.18. Extent of ADC Use • Through the experience of the research team and guidance from the project panel, each technology had a basic-use, intermediate-use, and advanced-use category. These categories sought to capture an extent of use for each technology. If a respondent previously noted experience with a technology, they were asked to respond to the extent-of-use question. Table 3.1 reported responses for each technology in each category. The technology used most frequently at a basic level was AR. Other technologies that had basic use as the most frequently noted were digital as-builts; reality capture (e.g., LiDAR); IC or IR; and 5G/small cell technol- ogies. The technology with the most-advanced-use responses, relative to the total responses, was electronic bidding. Other technologies with advanced use as the most frequently noted were digital signatures, electronic construction document management systems (e.g., bidding and letting documents), and construction administration software (e.g., AASHTOWare Project Construction & Materials). C H A P T E R 5

Summary of Findings 53   Transfer and Use of Digital Data Between Highway-Construction-Project Stakeholders • When it comes to storing digital data in a project administration software and allowing access to external project stakeholders, the technologies most frequently noted with those capabilities were construction administration software (e.g., AASHTOWare Project Construc- tion & Materials); mobile devices for inspection and acceptance (e.g., GPS rovers, tablets, and smartphones); and 3-D models used for information purposes only, as seen in Figure 3.20. • According to the survey respondents, technologies that automatically generate reports and distribute them to external project stakeholders are electronic bidding, electronic construction document management systems (e.g., bidding and letting documents), and digital signatures, as seen in Figure 3.20. • Most often, data from ADC technologies is retained in either a land-based server or cloud- based server, as seen in Figure 3.21. Less frequently, data is incorporated in a lessons-learned or knowledge-management database or linked with other agency systems, as seen in Figure 3.21. Eleven of the 16 technologies were noted by 2 or fewer respondents as currently being inte- grated in other agency information systems. This means many of the technologies are currently standalone products that are not fully automated and not fully integrated to their potential. • Other methods to share digital data with external stakeholders include a contracts bureau website with all digital data—refer to Section 4.1.2 for Iowa DOT—and an FTP website for sharing data with utility companies, as noted in Section 4.1.2 for Iowa DOT. In Chapter 4, several DOTs noted Bentley’s ProjectWise as a document-collaboration software that they utilize to share files with consultants and utilities. In addition, several noted that a public- facing website might be built for high-profile projects, which communicates project infor- mation, traffic impacts, and schedule updates. • With the technological advancements and capabilities, several DOTs noted that data transfer does still occasionally happen by email or USB drive, primarily when transferring data to utility companies or contractors, as see in sections 4.2.2 and 4.5.2. Transfer of Digital Data for Asset Management • Allowing data access to internal stakeholders was primarily noted for mobile devices and drones/small UAS. Depending on the use case, that data could be relevant to design, con- struction, and asset management. However, there were several other technologies noted as providing access to internal stakeholders, as seen in Figure 3.20. • Similarly, the DOTs in the case examples discussed varying attempts at transferring project data to asset management. Iowa DOT has policies and procedures for data security but lacks procedures for transferring to asset management. They do have a central hub for all e-Ticketing data to flow through, given that they have multiple vendors; however, it is currently inefficient—see Section 4.1.2. Texas DOT is working on a standardized asset management system—see Section 4.2.2. They do house an online platform for hosting plans, including as-builts, which would provide access to asset management. Colorado DOT has a temporary solution with archiving as-builts in ProjectWise but is currently working on a permanent solution—see Section 4.3.2. West Virginia DOT has a folder structure in ProjectWise for as-builts that bridge, maintenance, and operations can access. Most often, asset data is physically transferred through USB drives, and even that is inconsistently occurring—see Section 4.5.2. Challenges to Implementing, Collecting, and Sharing Digital Data • The most significant challenges noted to digital project delivery through ADC are the expenses related to software and hardware, insufficient knowledge or training for inspectors (e.g., DOT or CEI), and insufficient knowledge or training for office staff, as seen in Figure 3.24.

54 Technological Capabilities of Departments of Transportation for Digital Project Management and Delivery • In Section 4.1.4, Iowa DOT noted the challenge of the rapid proliferation of technologies. They are inundated with options, including the fact that they currently have five different e-Ticketing vendors in use across the state. That can create staffing challenges in the form of additional training and potential lower morale from frustration of working with various platforms. Similarly, Texas DOT described some decision paralysis due to the variety of solutions to address a singular problem, as noted in Section 4.2.4. Agency structure provided unique challenges to Colorado DOT—see Section 4.3.4—as they lacked decision-making authority, and high personnel turnover led to inconsistent procedures. West Virginia DOT struggled with legal and legislative hurdles, particularly in the area of digital signatures but also received pushback from their staff and the contracting industry when seeking to deploy new technologies, as noted in Section 4.5.4. DOT Documentation on Data Governance • Few DOTs have a formal strategic data approach or data-management plan, as seen in Figure 3.22. While many noted they were developing one, most respondents suggested none existed and there are no plans for one. Some respondents did note the inclusion of policy language around data access, privacy, and security; integrating ADC systems into standard operating procedures; and roles and responsibilities for data entry. However, a similar number of respondents also noted that no policy manual documents procedures for ADC— see Figure 3.26. • Iowa DOT noted that they have a policies and procedures manual for data security but otherwise lack data governance documentation as everything is fluid with their technology use, as noted in Section 4.1.2. Texas DOT has some guidance on storing, retaining, and delivering project documents, but it is not formally standardized yet, as noted in Section 4.2.2. Colorado DOT has a data-management plan and a headquarters data office that evaluates and manages Colorado DOT’s data. That office will also create policies and procedural direc- tives on information use and data management, as noted in Section 4.3.2. The findings from this synthesis project demonstrate variations in the use of the different ADC technologies in project management and delivery. There is a wide range in experience in both the extent of use and the years of experience with ADC technologies. Some technologies, such as electronic bidding and construction administration software, have seen significant use across the country for over a decade. While others, such as 5G/small cell and AR, appear to be emerging. DOTs noted the difficulty of the current landscape of ADC technologies as they emerge quickly and have numerous vendors providing solutions. In combination with the fact that few technologies were noted as being automated and integrated to the DOTs’ existing systems, this presents a need to focus evaluation and deployment of technologies on those that alleviate burdens through integration rather than adding significant training, hardware, and software demands. This could be further assisted by having a strategic data approach or data-management plan to inform in areas where automation and integration fall short. Most DOTs noted the lack of such a plan. Benefits noted by ADC use were wide ranging. However, there was a disconnect between benefits that are perceived to exist versus benefits that have been quantified and realized. Most respondents perceive that cost savings exist, but far fewer have actually quantified that benefit. In addition, many of the typical quantifiable business-case drivers, such as cost savings, reduced delays, reduced change orders, and reduced claims, are noted as being perceived at a much higher rate than actually being quantified. As is common with many emerging technologies, the lack of a documented business case can be a deterrent to use. Having one would assist in decision-making and upper-management support. Challenges certainly exist and present

Summary of Findings 55   some significant barriers for DOTs. This includes up-front expenses for hardware and software and training for office staff, contractor staff, inspectors, surveyors, and equipment operators. There are additional hurdles to having appropriate IT infrastructure to effectively support ADC technologies, as well as the lack of available standards and specifications. The rapid increase in solutions and vendors also presents challenges to identifying an appropriate solution specific to DOT needs. Even with the lack of a business case and the numerous challenges to ADC use noted by DOTs, there was not a single respondent that stated their experience with ADC technologies resulted in no performance improvement. In addition, the majority of respondents suggested that their future use of all 16 ADC technologies would expand or increase from its current levels. With a rapidly changing technology landscape, there does not appear to be a shortage of solutions. Despite the technology proliferation and the challenges it provides based on the findings of this synthesis of practice, the highway industry continues to push forward to innovate and digitalize its project-management and delivery processes. This indicates a willing- ness and capability to utilize and advance ADC systems and technologies through a project’s life cycle.