Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions (2012)

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.

44 C h a p t e r 6 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the training materials developed as part of this research project and describes the workshop structure, lesson plan, and individual lesson topics. (All the training materials will be available online at www.trb .org/Main/Blurbs/166731.aspx.) It also summarizes feedback on the effectiveness of the training materials the research team received from participants at two pilot training sessions held at the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (Arkansas SH&TD) and the South Dakota DOT (SDDOT). Lesson plan The research team structured a lesson plan and developed training materials to assist in disseminating the research find- ings. The 1-day utility conflicts and solutions seminar is divided into six lessons: • Lesson 1. Introductions and seminar overview (30 minutes). • Lesson 2. Utility conflict concepts and SHRP 2 Renewal Project R15B research findings (75 minutes). • Lesson 3. Utility conflict identification and management (75 minutes). • Lesson 4. Hands-on utility conflict management exercise (90 minutes). • Lesson 5. Use of database approach to manage utility conflicts (45 minutes). • Lesson 6. Wrap-up (15 minutes). The seminar provides 5.5 hours of direct instructor con- tact and 1.75 hours of breaks (including lunch, which usu- ally would occur between Lessons 3 and 4) for a total time of 7.25 hours. There are many opportunities for participant interaction, and the instructor can adjust session and lesson start times and durations depending on the audience and the level of participant engagement in the discussions. Tables 6.1 through 6.6 provide a more detailed description of the lesson plan. The training materials use National Highway Institute (NHI) standards and templates, which take into consideration adult learning principles. Using these templates should facili- tate the implementation of the training materials at the conclu- sion of the research. An integral component of the training materials is the use of actual project data that the research team requested from the states visited to illustrate UCM concepts and procedures. Companion training Materials All the training materials described in this report will be avail- able online (www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166731.aspx). The training materials are organized as shown in Table 6.7. pilot training Sessions The structure and content of the training materials reflect rec- ommendations received by the research team at the conclusion of pilot training sessions held in January 2011 at the Arkansas SH&TD and SDDOT. Each workshop participant received a binder that included the following materials: • Instructional materials, including workshop instructions and lesson plan; • Participant handout of the slides presented during the workshop; • Lesson materials, including UCM samples, UCM sample database reports, sample project files, sample test-hole reports, and selected database look-up tables; • Feedback forms; and • Companion CD, including all the above files and a copy of the prototype utility conflict database in Microsoft Access 2007. Training Materials

45 Table 6.1. Lesson 1: Introductions and Seminar Overview Lesson Number 1 Lesson title Introductions and Seminar Overview Topics • Introductions (both instructor and participants). • Overview of seminar objectives, outcomes, agenda, and reference materials. • Discussion of ground rules, sign-in sheet, feedback forms, and other housekeeping items. Instructional method Activity 1. Instructor welcomes participants, introduces him/herself, and leads participants through introductions. Participants introduce themselves and provide a brief description of their role and experience in utility coordination, design, or other project development process matters. Activity 2. Instructor provides an overview of the seminar objectives, outcomes, agenda, and reference materials. Activity 3. Instructor discusses ground rules, sign-in sheet, feedback forms, and other housekeeping items as needed. Instruction time 8:30–9:00 a.m. Time allocation • Activity 1: Introductions • Activity 2: Seminar overview • Activity 3: Housekeeping • Total Lesson 1 15 minutes 10 minutes 5 minutes 30 minutes Note: Depending on the seminar setting and the length of time actually spent on Lesson 1 activities, it might be possible to increase the time allocated to Lessons 2 or 3. In any case, for maximum effectiveness, it is not recommended to extend Lesson 3 beyond noon. Evaluation plan Instructor uses the instructor review form to take notes on the background, experience, and role of participants in utility coordination, design, or other project development process matters. References • Seminar binder. • Lesson 1 PowerPoint file and handouts. • SHRP 2 R15B research report (www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166731.aspx). Table 6.2. Lesson 2: Utility Conflict Concepts and SHRP 2 R15B Research Findings Lesson Number 2 Lesson title Utility Conflict Concepts and SHRP 2 R15B Research Findings Learning outcomes • Understanding of relevant concepts related to the management of utility conflicts within the project development process. • Understanding of the findings of the SHRP 2 R15B project. Instructional method Activity 1. Instructor uses PowerPoint slides to describe typical utility conflict management concepts and issues. Activity 2. Instructor uses PowerPoint slides and printed UCM materials to • Describe the purpose and main findings of the SHRP 2 R15B project, with a focus on the stand-alone UCM and prototype Access database application. • Summarize trends and other information gathered through the online surveys and follow-up interviews. • Summarize process used to develop stand-alone UCM. • Describe prototype UCM data model and Access database application. Activity 3. Questions and answers • Instructor answers questions from participants. As needed, other participants participate in the discussion. • Depending on the seminar setting, instructor might choose to encourage questions from participants throughout the presentation instead of allocating 10 minutes at the end of the lesson for questions and answers. Instruction time 9:00–10:15 a.m. Time allocation • Activity 1: Utility conflict concepts • Activity 2: SHRP 2 R15B research findings • Activity 3: Questions and answers • Total Lesson 2 25 minutes 40 minutes 10 minutes 75 minutes Evaluation plan • Instructor uses the instructor review form to summarize the types of questions and comments from participants. Depending on the setting, this activity might need to be completed after the seminar. • Participants use the participant feedback form to rate the effectiveness of the presentation. References • Lesson 2 PowerPoint file and handouts. • Stand-alone and sample UCM printouts.

46 Table 6.3. Lesson 3: Utility Conflict Identification and Management Lesson Number 3 Lesson title Utility Conflict Identification and Management Learning outcomes • Understanding of process used to develop and maintain a UCM using data from a sample project. • Understanding of the types of reporting options available when using a database representation of the UCM. Instructional method Activity 1. Instructor uses PowerPoint slides and sample materials to • Demonstrate process used to identify utility conflicts using sample project drawings and associated information. • Describe structure and format of the prototype UCM and the process used to populate and maintain the UCM using sample project data. Activity 2. Discussion, questions, and answers • Instructor answers questions from participants. As needed, other participants participate in the discussion. • Instructor encourages participants to share and discuss real-world examples and/or the applicability of UCMs to real-world situations. • Depending on the seminar setting, instructor might choose to encourage questions and discussion from participants throughout Activity 1 instead of allocating 30 minutes at the end of the lesson for questions and answers. Instruction time 10:30–11:45 a.m. Time allocation • Activity 1: Utility conflict management and use of UCM • Activity 2: Discussion, questions, and answers • Total Lesson 3 45 minutes 30 minutes 75 minutes Evaluation plan • Instructor uses the instructor review form to summarize the types of questions and comments from participants. Depending on the setting, this activity might need to be completed after the seminar. • Participants use the participant feedback form to rate the effectiveness of the presentation. References • Lesson 3 PowerPoint file and handouts. • Sample UCM printouts, plan sheets, and test-hole reports. Table 6.4. Lesson 4: Hands-On Utility Conflict Management Exercise Lesson Number 4 Lesson title Hands-On Utility Conflict Management Exercise Learning outcomes • Identification of utility conflicts on sample project design drawings. • Use of UCMs to manage utility conflicts. Instructional method Activity 1. Participants (individually or in groups depending on the setting) use sample project materials and blank UCM template to • Identify as many utility conflicts as possible on sample project materials. • Transcribe utility conflict information into the UCM. Instructor uses PowerPoint presentation and other sample materials to • Direct seminar participants during exercise. • Answer questions as needed. Activity 2. Instructor uses sample materials and feedback from individuals or groups to • Display design drawings with all utility conflicts identified and the UCM completely filled out. • Lead a discussion with participants about the detection and management of utility conflicts using a UCM approach. Instruction time 1:00–2:30 p.m. Time allocation • Activity 1: Individual/small group hands-on exercise • Activity 2: Discussion • Total Lesson 4 70 minutes 20 minutes 90 minutes Evaluation plan • Instructor uses the instructor review form to summarize the types of questions and comments from participants. Depending on the setting, this activity might need to be completed after the seminar. • Participants use the participant feedback form to rate the effectiveness of the presentation. References • Lesson 4 PowerPoint file and handouts. • Sample UCM printouts, plan sheets, and test-hole reports.

47 Table 6.5. Lesson 5: Use of Database Approach to Manage Utility Conflicts Lesson Number 5 Lesson title Use of Database Approach to Manage Utility Conflicts Learning outcomes • Understanding of utility conflict data model capabilities. • Understanding of the process used to develop customized queries and reports. Instructional method Activity 1. Instructor uses PowerPoint slides, prototype Access database, and sample materials to • Describe data model structure and capabilities. • Describe data model connections with other DOT information systems. Activity 2. Instructor uses PowerPoint slides, prototype Access database, and sample materials to • Describe how utility conflict data are stored into the database. • Illustrate the process used to develop and run Access queries and reports. Activity 3. Instructor uses prototype Access database to demonstrate the use and capabilities of the UCM data model and database structure. Activity 4. Questions and answers • Instructor answers questions from participants. As needed, other participants participate in the discussion. • Depending on the seminar setting, instructor might choose to encourage questions from participants throughout the presentation instead of allocating 10 minutes at the end of the lesson for questions and answers. Instruction time 2:45–3:30 p.m. Time allocation • Activity 1: Data model structure • Activity 2: Use of Access database to manage utility conflicts • Activity 3: Access database demonstration • Activity 4: Questions and answers • Total Lesson 5 5 minutes 20 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes 45 minutes Evaluation plan Participants’ learning will be evaluated by their participation and questions. References • Lesson 5 PowerPoint file and handouts. • Printed copies of the logical data model of the database. • Printed copies of sample database queries and reports. Table 6.6. Lesson 6: Wrap-Up Lesson Number 6 Lesson title Wrap-Up Topics • Instructor provides summary of seminar. • Instructor collects feedback forms. Instructional method Activity 1. Instructor summarizes the activities of the seminar, addresses any final questions of seminar participants, provides closing remarks and collects the feedback forms provided by the seminar participants. Instruction time 3:30–3:45 p.m. Time allocation • Activity 1: Final questions and closing remarks • Total Lesson 6 15 minutes 15 minutes References • Participant feedback form.

48 Table 6.7. Training Materials Folder Name File Name No. of Slides or Pages Formata Binder Training material binder participants 204 pdf Training material binder presenter 416 pdf Forms Instructor review form 6 pdf Participant feedback form 6 pdf Sign-in sheet 4 pdf Instructional materials Lessons 1–6 participant handout 76 pdf Lessons 2–5 sample UCMs, plan sheets, look-up tables 90 pdf Lesson 3 test hole form 1 pdf Lesson 3 utility conflict matrix 3 pdf Lesson 4 Group 1 exercise materials 13 pdf Lesson 4 Group 2 exercise materials 16 pdf Lesson 4 Group 3 exercise materials 13 pdf Lesson 4 Group 4 exercise materials 13 pdf Lesson 4 group assignment 1 pdf Lesson 4 group exercise instructions 2 pdf Lesson 4 test hole forms 5 pdf Lesson 4 utility conflict solution sheet 1 pdf Presenter notes 214 pdf Lessons Lesson 1 4 pptx Lesson 2 74 pptx Lesson 3 54 pptx Lesson 4 43 pptx Lesson 5 33 pptx Lesson 6 3 pptx UCM training outline NA xls Prototype 1–Stand-alone UCM Utility conflict matrix NA xls Prototype 2–Data model and database UCD data dictionary 11 pdf UCD data model NA erwin UCD export schema Oracle 10 NA sql Utility conflict database NA mdb Note: UCD = utility conflict database. a erwin: Computer Associates ERwin Data Modeler; pptx: Microsoft PowerPoint 2007; mdb: Microsoft Access 2003; sql: structured query language; pdf: Adobe portable document format; and xls: Microsoft Excel 2003.

49 • Revised several presentation files to add clarity, explain acronyms, and improve the flow of the presentation. • Added examples provided by SDDOT after the Pierre training session that describe real-life situations of utility conflicts and solutions. The research team included these examples in Lesson 2 to enhance the discussion about potential ways to address utility conflicts. • Edited the plan sheets to indicate an area of the plan sheet for each group in Lesson 4 to work on, instead of asking each group to work on the whole plan sheet. • Produced one set of plan sheets for each group in Lesson 4 in Arch D format (22 × 34 in.) to complement the 11 × 17-in. plan sheets for individual participants. • Increased the time to find utility conflicts and discuss solutions in Lesson 4. • Produced a solution sheet of utility conflicts in Arch D for- mat for each group in Lesson 4 (after each group had an opportunity to find utility conflicts independently). • Reduced the overall duration of Lesson 5 and changed its focus from a detailed demonstration on how to do data- base data entry to a short demonstration of database que- ries and reports. This change was necessary to take into consideration that most participants at this type of event are design engineers and utility coordinators, not informa- tion technology professionals. The Arkansas pilot training session took place at the Arkan- sas SH&TD headquarters in Little Rock. Twenty participants representing the Arkansas SH&TD, FHWA, and county agen- cies attended the session. Arkansas SH&TD attendees included officials involved in design, as well as right-of-way and utility coordination. Most attendees were involved in utility coor- dination. Overall, the workshop was well received, and the feedback from participants was positive. More than 90% of participants thought Lessons 1, 2, 3, and 6 were good or excel- lent. The corresponding percentages for Lessons 4 and 5 were lower: 63% and 78%, respectively. The second pilot training session took place at SDDOT headquarters in Pierre. Twenty-seven SDDOT participants attended the session, including officials who work on project development, design, right-of-way, and utility coordination. The proportion of officials who were involved in project devel- opment or design was higher in South Dakota than in Arkan- sas. The South Dakota workshop was also well received. About 73% of participants rated all lessons good or excellent, with the exception of Lesson 3, which was rated good or excellent by 96% of participants. Based on specific recommendations from training session participants, the research team made several changes to the training materials, particularly in Lessons 4 and 5, including the following: