Use of Advanced Geospatial Data, Tools, Technologies, and Information in Department of Transportation Projects (2013)

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.

21 This chapter provides an overview of the key topics and find- ings from the distribution of a service provider questionnaire, similar to the DOT questionnaire discussed in the previous chapter. The service provider questionnaire results provide the service providers’ perceptions of trends regarding the use of advanced geospatial technologies by the transportation agencies. The objectives for this questionnaire were the same as those listed in chapter two. Providers to be interviewed were selected by the follow- ing criteria: (1) providers who work frequently with DOTs, (2) providers who are active in disseminating experiences at national or international conferences, and (3) geographical distribution of selected providers across the country. It can be noted that the sample size of service provider responses was 13 (of 16 contacted) compared with 97 DOT responses, roughly one-tenth. However, because of potential service pro- vider biases, these responses should not carry equal weight with the DOT responses and a direct correlation of responses should not be inferred from this report. For example, ser- vice providers likely will be aware of technology usage only among transportation agencies with which they are working. DEMOGRAPHICS Thirteen service providers were interviewed by telephone. These service providers varied from software and hard- ware developers to companies providing geospatial services, including acquisition, processing, and analysis. As shown in Figure 25, most service providers had at least 10 years of expe- rience with geospatial technologies, indicating that largely experienced companies were interviewed. The service providers are making extensive use of 3D geospatial technologies (Table 5), including 3D-model- based design, laser scanning, machine control, and even cloud computing. This contrasts with the DOTs, who have not been as quick to adopt 3D-model-based design. How- ever, as seen in the DOT list, GIS and GPS technology are at the top. DOTs indicated video logging is one of the top technologies used; however, only 54% of the service provid- ers provide this service. Only 24% of these service providers derive more than 40% of their business from the DOTs, indicating that the service providers have significant experience working with organiza- tions other than DOTs (see Figure 26). ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY During the phone interviews, the responses were input. The results were then exported as a Microsoft Excel file for analy- sis. All questions were analyzed using the 13 respondents that were interviewed. Note that as a result of rounding error, some results may not add to exactly 100% but will be within ±1%. GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGY USAGE The service providers identified that the technologies being used extensively by advanced DOTs include GPS, GIS, laser scanning, 3D-model-based design, video logging, and machine control. The DOT responses did not indicate this level of adoption. This difference can be explained by these service providers tending to work with the DOTs that are mak- ing use of these technologies, rather than those that are not. One service provider noted that its experience indicates 90% of mobile laser scanning is being used for mapping and 10% for design. The service providers reported the three key drivers of success when it comes to the introduction of new geospatial technologies in an organization are an early adopter mindset, an internal champion, and an interest in safety. However, the service providers identified several challenges to geospatial adoption. The most common were management, technical expertise, and lack of approved standards. The majority of the service providers reported that the use of focused research projects would help overcome some of these challenges. Some service providers indicated they spend a lot of time educating DOTs about the multiple uses of data. One service provider recommended that a DOT consider establishing a cross-functional technology innovation team that would be responsible for collecting the needs of each group and evalu- ating available technologies to meet those needs. California, Nevada, Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas were identified as having experience with this approach. Deliverables The majority of service providers stated that it was necessary for a geospatial technology service provider to report on its chapter three SERVICE PROVIDER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

22 Q 4 - How long has your company been involved with geospatial technologies, data tools and/or information products? ________ years 8% 38% 8% 23% 8% 15% 0-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years 15-20 years 20-25 years >25 years 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Pe rc en ta ge o f V en do rs (% ) Ave = 16 years Max = 42 years FIGURE 25 Years of experience for service providers with geospatial technologies. Technology Yes No In the Near %0 %0 %0 %0 %001 SIG %0 %0 %0 %8 %29 ngised desab-ledom D-3 %0 %0 %0 %51 %58 SPG %0 %0 %0 %51 %58 RADIL eliboM %0 %0 %0 %13 %96 gninnacs resal D3 citatS %0 %0 %0 %13 %96 yrtemmargotohP %0 %0 %51 %32 %26 gnitupmoc duolC Statewide GNSS real-time networks 62% 31% 8% 0% 0% Tablet computers/smartphones 62% 31% 8% 0% 0% %0 %0 %0 %93 %26 secivres gnippam enilnO %0 %0 %0 %93 %26 krowten SROC ediwetatS %0 %0 %0 %93 %26 lortnoC enihcaM %0 %0 %8 %93 %45 Logging oediV %0 %0 %0 %64 %45 SUPO %0 %0 %0 %64 %45 yhpargotohP euqilbO %0 %0 %0 %45 %64 RADIL enrobriA %0 %0 %0 %45 %64 ecivreS a sa erawtfoS Low Distortion Coordinate Systems 39% 46% 8% 0% 8% Unmanned Airborne Vehicle (UAV) 39% 54% 8% 0% 0% %0 %0 %0 %26 %93 erawtfoS ecruoS nepO %0 %0 %0 %96 %13 radaR gnitarteneP dnuorG %8 %0 %0 %77 %51 RASFI/RASnI %0 %0 %0 %58 %51 gnigamI citengamortcelE Future No Interest Not Sure TABLE 5 TYPES OF GEOSPATIAL SERVICES OR PRODUCTS USED BY SERVICE PROVIDERS, SORTED BY MOST PREVALENT TO LEAST PREVALENT

23 FIGURE 27 Methods for systematically disseminating best practices. FIGURE 26 Annual revenue for companies from DOTs. Q 6 - What percent of your company’s annual revenue involves a DOT? 38% 0% 31% 8% 8% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100% N um be r o f V en do rs (% ) Ave = 30% Max = 90% Min = 0% methodology as part of the project deliverable rather than merely certifying the final accuracy. INFORMATION RESOURCES Similar to the DOTs, the service providers supported a cen- tral website (Figure 27) as a way to disseminate best practice information more systematically, followed by more federal support and coordination. The service providers reported that for nearly 70% of projects the results are “sometimes” or “often” documented (Figure 28). The service providers stated that for slightly more than 50% of the projects, the results are “sometimes” or “often” made public (Figure 29). The service providers reported that results, when published, were published on a public website or in print. The service providers cited liability as the primary reason results are not published. The service providers reported that the top three geospatial technology research needs are the transition from 2D to 3D, data management, and data integration. One ser- vice provider indicated that a new technologies group that can do evaluations and pilot projects would be beneficial. One service provider recommended a workshop before TRB conferences to disseminate report findings and highlight best practices at advanced DOTs. This service provider also suggested compiling an executive version of this report (no more than six or seven pages) emphasizing how the DOTs can Q 11 - How can “best practices” information be more systematically disseminated? 46% 77% 38% 38% 15% 38% 8% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pe rc en ta ge o f V en do rs (% ) Mo re Fe de ral Su pp ort Ce ntr ali zed W eb sit e De dic ate d T RB co nfe ren ce ses sio ns Un ive rsi ty co lla bo ra tio ns Fin an cia l in ce nti ve We bin ars Ot he r

24 become successful using a new technology and what is the return on investment (ROI). This service provider indicated that service providers have not done a good job of document- ing and explaining the value proposition. STANDARDS The service providers reported that slightly more than 50% of the DOTs that they work with have written geospatial standards and specifications. To improve the effectiveness of these stan- dards (Figure 30) the service providers recommended that the DOTs make use of national standards, emphasize performance rather than procedure, and involve an industry panel in the pro- cess. One service provider noted that standards are too complex. Procurements To streamline procurement for advanced geospatial tech- nologies, the service providers recommended that bidders be prequalified and that indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts be established (Figure 31). One service pro- vider suggested that DOTs qualify firms for data acquisition, similar to what has been done for photogrammetry. KEY GEOSPATIAL PERSONNEL Additional geospatial personnel were identified by the ser- vice providers and are included in the table in Appendix D. Many of these also were identified in the DOT questionnaire. Regularly 15% Often 23% Sometimes 46% Rarely 8% Never 0% Not Sure 8% Q 14 - Are the results of your company’s DOT advanced geospatial technology projects generally documented? FIGURE 28 Level of documentation by service providers. Regularly 0% Often 15% Sometimes 39% Rarely 31% Never 0% Not sure 15% Q 15 - Are the results typically made public? FIGURE 29 Public availability of documentation by service providers. FIGURE 30 Methods to improve standard effectiveness, as perceived by service providers. 38% 62% 46% 15% 54% 38% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Seek input from more departments Make use of national standards whenever possible Involve industry group in development Peer review Emphasize performance rather than procedure Integrate with procurement Pe rc en ta ge o f V en do rs (% ) Q 17 - What can be done to improve the effectiveness of these standards?

25 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS One service provider commented on the Highway Performance Monitoring System FHWA mandate and indicated that inte- grated systems can collect as much as 70% (the rest is not geo- spatial) of the required data with such systems. Another service provider commented on the importance of focusing on the end result, rather than the actual data or technology used to obtain that data. CONCLUSIONS The service provider questionnaire uncovered several key points of information related to geospatial technology usage within the DOTs: • Service providers are early adopters of geospatial tech- nologies, particularly 3D workflows. • The three key drivers of success when it comes to the introduction of new geospatial technologies are an early adopter mindset, an internal champion, and an interest in safety. • Similar to the DOTs, service providers reported that focused research projects would help overcome barriers. • Service providers were also in support of a centralized website for disseminating best practices. • Service providers, however, indicated that projects are only sometimes documented and only sometimes made public once documented. Liability was a signifi- cant concern in determining whether or not to publish the results. • Service providers indicated that data management, data integration, and transition from 2D to 3D were the top three geospatial technology research needs. • Service providers favored national standards, when possible. They also preferred performance-based specifications. • Service providers also believed that the prequalifica- tion of contractors is important for streamlining the procurement process for data acquired using geospatial technologies. Other factors indicated include IDIQ con- tracts, alignment with 3D workflows, and focusing on results rather than methods. FIGURE 31 Possible methods to improve the procurement process for geospatial technologies, as perceived by service providers. 46% 38% 15% 38% 54% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Establish IDIQ contracts Establish a vendor advisory panel Focus on results not methods Pre-qualify bidders Pe rc en ta ge o f V en do rs (% ) Q 21 - What can the DOTs do to streamline the procurement process for geospatial technologies? Align procurement with new 3D workflows