Training and Certification of Construction Inspectors for Transportation Infrastructure (2023)

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.

13 CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH APPROACH 2.1 Introduction Successfully achieving a research objective requires a rigorous research framework. The framework provides a basis for the proposed research methodology. In this way, the research is conducted systematically and rigorously. Thus, the result and subsequent product are developed based on a solid research approach and, at the same time, are described in a manner readily implementable by transportation agencies. This chapter presents the methodology for the literature review, survey, and focus groups used to achieve this study's objective. 2.2 Literature Review Methodology The literature review involved researching, gathering, reading, note taking, and processing information and literature relating to CI education, training, and certification for transportation infrastructure, as well as the benefits, drawbacks, challenges, and lessons learned in the education, training, and certification needs for CIs. The literature review included the transportation sector and other sectors of construction related to the training and certification of CIs. Searches were performed with the following resources: • General internet search engines (Google, Google Scholar) • TRB Transportation Research Information Systems (TRIS) Online • Academic engineering databases (Engineering Village 2, ASCE Library) • Construction and Engineering Training Center and Organizations (NHI, NICET, AASHTO TC3, LTAPs, ACI, etc.) • Academic business databases (EBSCO, PMI Virtual Library) • International databases (Highway England, Austroads, NZTA) • Selected transportation agency websites • Presentations and papers posted on the AASHTO Committee on Construction websites • STA and public agency libraries and websites Keywords used during these searches include: • workforce development; • education and training; • construction inspections; • competencies; • certifications; • qualification; and • others relevant to CI education and training. The research team compiled a collection of previous studies investigating CI training and career development through a rapid desk scan. Additionally, the research team contacted STAs to request documents, reports, manuals, and other related CIs information not found in the desk scan. Figure 2-1 provides an example list of resources used to collect relevant literature. As observed in the desk scan, STAs provided contact information on their websites to obtain additional information and documents and the ability to submit requests for information to STA libraries.

15 Construction, AASHTO Committee on Pavement and Materials, and AASHTO Committee on Knowledge Management. For the consultant survey, contacts were established by inquiring with STAs to gather contact information for qualified training and certification organizations and third- party construction inspection firms. The STA survey questionnaire is in Appendix C, while the consultant survey questionnaire is in Appendix D. 2.3.1 STA Survey STAs rely on CIs to verify that construction work on transportation infrastructure projects complies with approved plans and specifications. CIs may be in-house STA staff or external third- party inspectors from consultant firms. Currently, STAs face high workforce shrinkage, attrition, and the loss of institutional knowledge as in-house CIs retire or transition to consultant firms. As a result, STAs increasingly utilize third-party consultant CIs from external sources to augment agency staff. To understand the strategies currently used by STAs and consultant firms to identify CI competencies, and recruit, train, certify, and retain CIs, the STA survey was distributed to all 50 STAs. A total of 46 of 50 STAs responded to the survey (92% response rate). Figure 2-2 illustrates the STAs that responded, and the number in parentheses represents the total responses collected from each state. The following sections present the survey results of STAs. It is important to note that for STAs with two or more responses, the research team took a conservative approach to selecting the most comprehensive response to include in the analysis. Figure 2-2. Map showing STAs that responded to the survey Figure 2-3 summarizes the responses from the STA representative on which group or section within their agency they work with. Most of the respondents (78%) work in the construction, materials, and operation groups, which was expected as the survey was distributed to construction

18 outlines the responses collected for the consultant survey. Company names have been removed for the anonymity of the respondents. Table 2-1. Consultant Responses from Survey Questionnaire Response States Where Consultants Provide Construction Inspection Services Consultant 1 CO, ND, SD Consultant 2 KY, WV Consultant 3 IN, KY, SC, TN Consultant 4 KY Consultant 5 FL Consultant 6 FL Consultant 7 FL Consultant 8 MD, OH, PA, VA Consultant 9 FL Consultant 10 AL, AR, MO Consultant 11 FL Consultant 12 FL Consultant 13 TX Consultant 14 AL, AK, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, HI, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY Consultant 15 AL, CT, DE, FL, ID, IL, IN, IA, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WI Consultant 16 CO Consultant 17 DE, MD, PA, VA Consultant 18 CO Consultant 19 IL, MO Consultant 20 DE, FL, GA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, TX, V, WV Consultant 21 FL, IL, IN, KY, OH Consultant 22 MA Consultant 23 FL Consultant 24 AZ, CA, CO, HI, MT, TX, WY Consultant 25 CA, FL, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, NY, NC, OH, TX, VA, WA Consultant 26 FL, KY, LA, MD, NJ, NY, OH, VT Consultant 27 IL, IN, KY, MI, OH, PA Consultant 28 MI, OH Consultant 29 AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, ID, HI, IL, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI Consultant 30 FL The survey collected information on the respondents' roles and experience with transportation construction inspection. Of the consultant respondents, nine (30%) stated that they are the CEO/President/Principal in their firm; six (20%) are vice presidents for construction and engineering; seven (23%) are senior engineers of construction and transportation; six (20%) are managers in their firm; and two (7%) are directors of services. Figure 2-7 shows the experience of the consultant survey respondents, with 81% of the respondents having experience over 20 years.

21 2.5 Interview Methodology The objective of the follow-up interviews with survey participants was to confirm questionnaire results and obtain additional information beyond the questionnaire where appropriate. The research team conducted both STA and consultant interviews, as summarized below. 2.5.1 STA Interviews The STA interviews aimed at examining the perspectives of STA personnel regarding issues related to training and certification, career development, lessons learned, and future challenges of construction inspection programs across the nation at various STAs. An interview protocol specifically focused on STAs was developed based on the literature review, data from the survey questionnaire responses, and internal discussions with the project team. The data collected from the survey questionnaire was used to identify STA representatives for qualitative interviews using the following criteria: • The survey responses identified novel or innovative practices related to construction inspection. • Form procedures identified for training and certification, career development and lessons learned; and • The willingness of the STA representatives to participate in an interview. Based on these criteria, 14 representatives from STAs across the U.S. were invited initially to participate in the qualitative interviews. Solicitation for participation occurred through emails. Each participant was further asked to extend the invitation to other contacts within their STA that could be interested in the study. The interview participants were from the Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, and Tennessee DOTs. The research team later followed up with the participants to verify the documented data and obtain any additional information as needed. Table 2-2 shows the list of STA interview participants. Table 2-2. STA Interview Participant Information Participant Title STA Participant #1 Materials Tennessee Participant #2 Technician Trainer Tennessee Participant #3 District Engineer Arkansas Participant #4 Materials Engineer Idaho Participant #5 Construction and Materials Engineer Idaho Participant #6 Construction Engineer Arizona The interview questions inquired about STA perspectives on components that are working well and are required to be improved regarding construction inspector training, certification, development, career paths, certification, recertification, lessons learned, and future challenges of construction inspection programs. The interviews were conducted in April and May of 2021. Interview questions were structured around three areas: 1) Training and Certification; 2) Inspector Development; 3) Lessons learned and future challenges. Appendix E provides the detailed interview questions for STAs.

22 2.5.2 Consultant Interviews The consultant interviews aimed to examine the perspectives of third-party consultant firms that provide inspection services for transportation infrastructure projects regarding the training and certification, career development, lessons learned, and future challenges for construction inspectors. An interview protocol focusing on the consultant firms was developed based on the literature review, consultant survey questionnaire responses data, and internal discussions with the project team. The data collected from the survey questionnaire was used to identify representatives of consultant firms for qualitative interviews using the following criteria: • Experience in working for STAs to provide construction inspection services; • Number of STAs that provide inspection resources; and • The willingness of the representatives of consultant firms to participate. Based on these criteria, 17 representatives from consultant firms across the U.S. were invited initially to participate in the qualitative interviews. Solicitation for participation occurred through phone calls and emails. Each participant contacted was asked to extend the invitation to other contacts within their consultant firm that might be interested in the study. Then, based on the availability of consultant staff, seven interviews with nine participants were scheduled to be conducted virtually or via phone calls, based on the participants' preferences. Two of the seven interviews had two participants, each from within the same consultant firm. The consultant firms that participated provide inspection services in 44 states. The research team later followed up with the participants to verify the documented data and obtain any additional information as needed. Table 2-3 shows the details of the interview participants. Table 2-3. Interview Participant Information Participant Title Location Experience STAs they work with Participant #1 Principal/Highway Construction Manager Texas 20+ years Texas Participant #2 Asst. CEI Manager Kentucky 16 to 20 years Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee Participant #3 Senior VP – Construction Management and Inspection Ohio 20+ years Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia Participant #4 Group Manager Pennsylvania 20+ years 32 states Participant #5 Senior Transportation Engineer Colorado 20+ years Arizona, Colorado, California Participant #6 Senior Construction Engineer Ohio 20+ years Michigan, Ohio Participant #7 Senior Construction Project Manager Louisiana 20+ years Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas The interview questions inquired about consultants’ perspectives on components that are working well and are required to be improved regarding construction inspector training, certification, development, career paths, certification, recertification, lessons learned, and future challenges of construction inspection programs. The interviews were conducted in April and May of 2021, while each interview lasted between 45 minutes to 75 minutes. Interview questions focused on three areas: 1) Training and Certification; 2) Inspector Development; 3) Lessons learned and future challenges.

23 2.6 Conclusions The research team used various research methods to execute this study, including a comprehensive literature review, two questionnaire surveys (STAs and consultants), focus groups, and interviews (STAs and consultants). Specifically, the research team first conducted a comprehensive literature review to investigate the current practices and processes used for education, training, certification, and development of transportation CIs. Second, the STA questionnaire survey approved by the NCHRP Project Panel was distributed to members of the AASHTO Committee on Construction and the AASHTO Committee on Materials and Pavement. A total of 57 responses represented by staff from 46 STAs were collected for the STA survey. Simultaneously, the consultant questionnaire survey was distributed to third-party construction consultant firms. A total of 30 responses were recorded, representing 26 different consultant firms that provide consultant inspectors to 45 states. Third, the research team conducted three focus group interviews in April 2021 that included a total of 21 participants. The first focus group collected data on education requirements, core competencies, training programs, and certifications for CIs from eight training and certification personnel representing four STAs and one industry organization. The second focus group collected data on recruiting and retaining CIs from nine HR personnel representing eight STAs. The third focus group collected data on training, certification, development, and career paths of CIs from five construction inspectors representing five consultant inspection firms. Finally, after completing the focus group interviews, the research team conducted 13 interviews (six STA and seven consultant interviews). The interviews were conducted with survey respondents to gather more in-depth information.