Visualization for Project Development (2006)

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.

31 VISUALIZATION AND DESIGN PROCESS Transportation agencies face many challenges in using visu- alization technologies, particularly the lack of centralized standards and guidelines. Without such standards and guide- lines, visualization technologies cannot be formally inte- grated into the design process. Most agencies studied for this synthesis showed that visual- ization, when used, is usually an independent process performed only at the end of the preliminary design phase, not in the final design phase. During the end of the preliminary design phase— the public involvement period—multiple preliminary design alternatives are presented to the public for approval. Once a pre- ferred alternative selection is made, the final design phase begins and the use of visualization ends. This approach, which most decision makers take, is not ideal. In an ideal approach, visual- ization would continue into the final design phase, and visuals that were created in the preliminary design phase would be mod- ified and enhanced in the final design phase. In this way, visual tools can add tremendous value to the design process, as has been demonstrated in this synthesis. During the 1990s, highway design changed rapidly throughout the United States. A new and better way of design- ing highways evolved based on growing interest in the improvement of highways and their integration into the com- munities they serve. Whereas the old way was to design, announce, and then defend a project, which led to poor rela- tions between DOTs and the public, the new way is to provide context-sensitive design (CSD) solutions that consider the impact of highways on the environment and communities (16). Visual tools have become part of the CSD process by enhancing the communication between DOTs and the public through the use of the Internet and other mass communication mechanisms. For example, designers have created project websites, such as the Caltrans website for the Devil’s Slide project. In time, all DOTs may seek to enhance their CSD solu- tions through the use of 3-D CADD. By using CSD techniques to improve the design and implementation process, DOTs are reaching out to community leaders and concerned citizens. COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS Because planners and designers need to see data to support the use of visualization, a detailed cost–benefit analysis needs to be conducted on a series of projects to provide mea- surements. If a project manager perceives that the use of visualization will improve the overall design process, the project manager will probably decide to use visualization in the design process. Because 3-D CADD is a particularly effective way to incorporate visualization into the design process, cost–benefit analyses should pay particular attention to this process. The case studies for this synthesis have supported the use of visualization; however, they have not provided quantitative measures of costs versus benefits. For example, although visualization played a vital role in the redesign of the Caltrans Devil’s Slide project and in getting approvals that have eluded the DOT for years, no cost–benefit analysis was completed for the project. The improvements and savings are valued by the project team, but translating them to non-team members has proven to be difficult. Similarly, in other studies cited in this synthesis, although visualization was determined to aid with various projects, the benefits (design improvements, cost savings, efficiencies, and so forth) were difficult to quantify. A detailed study to measure the benefits of the technology is needed. The TRB Visualization in Transportation Task Force (ABJ95T) formed a subcommittee to initiate a project to coordinate and assess the systemic use of visualization tools and methodologies throughout the entire life cycle of the pro- posed Kennedy Center Access Project (17). The intent was to generate a detailed cost–benefit analysis on the impacts of visualization on the project. The study was not conducted owing to the cancellation of funding. The perception of visualization by senior-level managers, decision makers, and project managers will need to change to further integrate visualization into the design process. Many of the interviewees for this synthesis expressed a need for a visualization outreach/educational program directed toward these professionals. UNDERSTANDING VISUALIZATION TECHNOLOGY Visualization Decision Maker Another reason why visualization has not been integrated into the design process is because most designers do not CHAPTER FOUR CHALLENGES

32 understand its full potential. The case studies in this synthe- sis revealed that the primary decision makers for its use are the project managers. Most project managers do not incor- porate visualization into the design team early in the process. Visualization should be a byproduct of design if it is under- stood and agreed that “design” begins early in the project development phase. However, most highway departments view design as beginning after the project development phase is complete and after the preparation of final construc- tion plans and documents is underway. Overall, project managers are not well versed in the visu- alization process. They have limited knowledge of what technology is available and, more importantly, how it is pro- duced. Their perceptions are mostly that the visualization process is time consuming and expensive. However, there are some examples of project managers consistently reusing the technology for the next project. Several examples within this synthesis show how visualization played an important role in the design or approval process for a project. Because visualization is not usually part of the design process, it is often misunderstood. The technologies used to implement visualization are not standardized the way they are for engineering or CADD applications. This causes conflict, because management must make decisions concerning its use while having little to no guidance. For example, the software applications used for visualization often require more advanced graphics cards and significant amounts of random access memory. These unique require- ments are not standard for purchasing. Because there are no guidelines for visualization, managers often refer to CADD standards for guidelines. However, in most cases, as described in the Caltrans case study, CADD hardware requirements fall short of visualization requirements. The case studies frequently refer to relying on underpowered systems to produce visuals. Visualization Workforce Another significant challenge is properly staffing transporta- tion agencies with qualified visualization technicians. The lack of qualified visualization technicians has hindered the development of visualization at these transportation agencies. Although many agencies do not have qualified visualiza- tion technicians, an available workforce is slowly develop- ing as visualization technology matures. Most of the staffing requirements from transportation agencies have been filled by in-house transfers, who typically come from the CADD and landscape architecture departments. The transfers are generally self-motivated and have good CADD skills and art backgrounds. Often, this type of individual is difficult for transportation agencies to find. There is usually a significant investment needed to train these people on how to use visu- alization technologies. TRAINING The case studies convey that training has generally been lim- ited. Mentoring and cascading information are the primary methods used for training. Informal training is frequently done through self-taught or on-the-job processes. By creat- ing proper job titles, career paths with training guidelines can be accomplished. This, in turn, will lead to more accurate budgeting and scheduling for formalized training. A significant challenge with training is the lack of fund- ing. Limited agency budgets have significantly curtailed the amount of formal training that individuals receive. In addi- tion, there have been significant reductions in travel, which hinders attendance at formal training seminars, conferences, and professional societies. Without standards and guidelines for visualization it is difficult for management to justify training expenses. The current tight funding trend will most likely continue, at least for the near future. Another training challenge is to determine the type of training. There is a diverse array of visual applications to select from. Training often depends on the software applica- tions that each transportation agency uses. The wide variety of software applications and the lack of standardization for visualization training make it difficult for a supervisor to assist the technician in selecting the correct training regimen. During the review process for this synthesis, interviewees noted several times that learning 3-D modeling was difficult for most individuals. This difficulty is considered the biggest impediment in the visualization process. Training sources for 3-D vary from software vendors, universities, and technical schools to CADD vendors offering 3-D CADD modeling classes. The transportation agencies interviewed for this syn- thesis all started the 3-D modeling process using CADD applications, which have built-in 3-D modeling capabilities; therefore, no additional software or hardware investment was needed by these agencies. Once individuals became profi- cient with 3-D CADD modeling and rendering, other visual- ization software applications were purchased. In addition to in-house training and professional seminars, visualization is increasingly being taught by universities and technical schools. However, although these schools produce quality students who know the visual tools quite well, most stu- dents do not know how to adequately read design plans and/or understand the design process itself. Significant time is required by transportation agencies for the training of these individuals. In the case of UDOT, it is estimated that an additional 80– 120 h of training is required. The training ranges from CADD design to learning specific UDOT design specifications and procedures. The average trainee requires several additional months of on-the-job training to become fully proficient. Despite the need to provide on-the-job training for new hires, many of the new hires who have recently graduated

33 from colleges and universities have the potential to be good visualization technicians because they have already been trained on 3-D CADD. Most of the visualization technology is done by these new hires, who might otherwise gravitate to alternative employment opportunities if they cannot apply what they have learned. 3-D CADD Training To assist in incorporating visualization into the design process, 3-D CADD needs to be taught and implemented. Most trans- portation agencies already have the proper hardware and soft- ware assets in place to implement 3-D CADD. Transportation agencies such as NYSDOT and UDOT have used their exist- ing 3-D CADD capabilities to progress to more advanced 3-D CADD applications, such as virtual reality-based real-time simulation. Each of these agencies has concluded that, in addi- tion to budgeting for training, there will be a need to budget time to create content in 3-D. Initially, it will take longer to produce a 3-D plan set than a traditional 2-D plan set. There are no factually based estimates; however, the agencies concur that, on average, it will take one and a half to two times as much time to generate a plan set using 3-D CADD as to gen- erate a traditional 2-D plan set. To fully justify these expenses, the agencies have recommended that a cost–benefit analysis on the efficiencies of visualization be undertaken; there needs to be a distinct return on investment to justify the significant training and production expenses associated with learning 3-D CADD. Many transportation agencies have trained staff on using 3-D visual tools, but none are training specifically for the 3-D design (i.e., 3-D CADD) process. All interviewees expressed a desire to learn 3-D CADD, but none were willing to implement 3-D CADD owing to the upfront costs associ- ated with the training. In the early 1980s, when CADD programs were first ini- tiated within transportation agencies, there was a tremendous expense to train users. However, because the benefits of the CADD training have outweighed the expenses, CADD design has become prevalent. Many of the people inter- viewed for this synthesis recognize the benefits of training and using 3-D CADD design and would like to have these benefits documented and verified, preferably through a detailed cost–benefit analysis. Project Manager Training A common theme mentioned in case study review was the recommendation of visualization training for project man- agers. Because they are the primary decision makers for the use of visualization, there should be resources available to inform them of their options. Currently, project managers rely solely on consultations with visualization specialists, consul- tants, or general opinion. Project manager training can be aug- mented by having a standardized guideline on visualization, such as the NYSDOT Visualization Project Workflow. STANDARDIZATION As mentioned throughout this synthesis, there is a distinct lack of national standards and guidelines for the use of visualiza- tion. Instead, there are only minimal guidelines to consult within individual transportation agencies. Many interviewees expressed the notion that standardization is needed to better integrate visualization technologies into the design process. National standards and guidelines similar to the standards developed by NYSDOT (18) could be incorporated into the CADD process. In addition to standardizing the use of visualization, related issues need to be standardized to make visualization a viable tool for transportation agencies. Official Visualization Department or Discipline With the exception of Mn/DOT and NYSDOT, no transporta- tion agencies interviewed have formally recognized visualiza- tion departments. Visualization is usually incorporated into other departments, such as landscape architecture or structural design. Because of this, there is inadequate measurement of budgeting, expenses, and staff-hour requirements. Senior- level management continues to request a cost–benefit analysis to justify the use of visualization, but such an analysis is diffi- cult without a mechanism in place to measure budgeting, expenses, and staff-hours. Official Job Titles Almost all of the transportation agencies interviewed have no specific job titles for their visualization technicians. Such employees are usually lumped into another category. For example, the job title for the lead visualization technician at NYSDOT is Principle Drafting Technician. This title was given to fit the salary structure of the technician to an existing and accepted position within the DOT. However, this nondis- cipline title undervalues the role of the technician and also makes a visualization career path within the agency difficult. Not having a defined career path can be detrimental to retain- ing good staff. Agencies interviewed would like to see proper recognition and titling of the people who create visuals. Guidelines for Use Transportation agencies interviewed would like to see a national set of guidelines that could be tailored to their specific agency. These agencies believe that such standards and guidelines are needed if visualization is to become a viable discipline within the design process. The national guidelines should be basic and written to the level of a project manager or decision maker. They should include, but not be limited to, the following: • Tools available, • Benefits of using each tool,

• Typical production schedules for each tool, • Costs associated with each tool, and • Considerations for creating a budget. Case studies could be used as the basis for the guideline. Project managers and other decision makers need to be able to associate themselves with the guidelines to fully under- stand them. Writing the national standards and guidelines will be dif- ficult, and many issues need to be addressed. How detailed do the standards need to be? What group or organization will be responsible for drafting these standards? How should the standards address the many software applications and output formats that can be used for visualization? How can the stan- dards be flexible enough to apply to the varying policies and procedures at each transportation agency? FUNDING AND APPROVALS Without proper standards and guidelines for visualization, funding and approvals will continue to be a challenging task. The transportation agencies participating in this synthesis do not have specific budgets for visualization, making it difficult to track expenses. A cost–benefit analysis for visualization cannot be properly conducted without having official visual- ization budgets to measure. Most expenses are included within specific project budgets or are part of overall budgets for departments, such as IT departments, or from disciplines, such as landscape architecture. Some agencies, such as UDOT, are actually incorporating visualization expenses into the overall project budget. Although this approach provides a more pro- ductive mechanism to obtain approvals and funding, it makes the budgetary process difficult to track. Frequently, the disci- pline manager or overall project manager is in charge of approving visualization products and services. IMPROVED VISUALIZATION TOOLS AND COSTS Another key challenge expressed by project managers inter- viewed for this synthesis is the cost of using visualization. For example, some applications, such as computer animation, require long production times. These production times depend on variables such as the 3-D modeling required and the length (in time) of animation needed. Visualization specialists con- veyed a concern that better visualization applications are needed to help reduce some of these overhead costs. These applications need to make using visual tools easier, provide better functionality, and increase overall productivity. Automation is one available tool to reduce costs by increasing the accuracy and speed with which 3-D models are created. Some software applications already have the ability to automatically call out design interferences during design and drafting; however, this ability should be added to more applications. Another cost reduction approach to consider is to inte- grate multiple functionalities within CADD applications. Currently, most visual technicians model with one software application and render the model in another. The method leads to inefficiencies that, in turn, lead to longer production times. Therefore, eliminating the need to use multiple appli- cations could improve productivity and reduce costs. Costs can be further reduced if the design is initially done in 3-D. Creating renderings can be a minimal process if 3-D elements are already in place during the design process. CADD can also easily produce traditional plans and sections from a 3-D model. Another way to reduce costs is for the vendors to decrease the price of visualization applications. Over the past 10 years, software applications specifically designed for visualization have dramatically decreased in cost. However, despite the reductions in cost, software for visualization is still more costly than software for traditional CADD applications. Many interviewees concluded that vendors need to continue to drive down these costs if transportation agencies are to implement the visualization software. AWARENESS OF AND ACCESS TO INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES This synthesis study has revealed that most transportation agencies are isolated from one another concerning issues on visualization. This isolation has helped to inhibit the advancement of the technology. Most research and develop- ment activities are self-implemented and are limited in their execution, and are primarily done without conferring with other transportation agencies. Many interviewees expressed a desire to have better awareness of societies and organiza- tions that promote the use of visualization. Hundreds of infor- mative user groups and organizations deal with the subject of visualization. Determining which group is best for an agency depends on the personnel within that organization. Many of these organizations are affiliated with a specific application and may be interested in learning about only that application. Two of the leading transportation-related groups that focus on visualization are the TRB Visualization in Transportation Task Force (ABJ95T) and the AASHTO Taskforce on Envi- ronmental Design. Both of these groups provide direction and resources for the use of visualization. However, these groups are attended by a finite group of people. One reason for reduced participation in these groups is travel restrictions placed on transportation agency employees. Agencies such as Caltrans expressed the need for alternative outreach methods, such as web-casting meetings. Better informational access will result in greater efficien- cies for research and development, thereby assisting in the process of creating standards and guidelines for visual tech- nologies within transportation agencies. 34