Civil Integrated Management (CIM) for Departments of Transportation, Volume 2: Research Report (2016)

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.

14 CIM State of Practice at DOTs— Agency and Project Surveys CIM includes a wide variety of tools encompassing emerg- ing technologies and practices. Literature revealed that no project or agency has systematically implemented CIM in its entirety. Moreover, agencies have different levels of expertise with several CIM technologies. Therefore, the research team decided to conduct nationwide surveys of agencies’ practices to comprehend the variety of tools actually being deployed on their projects. These surveys were designed to understand the drivers and the constraints pertinent to the advancement of these technologies on projects. Two questionnaires were prepared to address this objective: agency survey and project survey. The actual questionnaires can be found in the Appen- dix A and Appendix B, respectively. 5.1 Survey Data The agency survey was designed to gain an understanding of the incorporation of CIM technologies and availability of stan- dards and guidelines at the organizational level. Questions were included to determine the impact on contracts and legal issues, as were opinion-based queries regarding the perceived bene- fits and implementation challenges. There were 71 responses, with 64 responses from state agencies (40 different states and 1 Canadian province), 4 responses from FHWA personnel, and 3 responses from engineering firms. The respondents were from different disciplines (survey, design, construction, and traffic management, among others) and areas of work, which pro- vided diverse perspectives and opinions (see Figure 5.1, left). Most of the respondents were also experienced in their respec- tive work areas, thus providing trustworthy and reliable data. Although the majority of the responding entities reported executing projects through design-bid-build (D-B-B), there were numerous responses for alternative contracting methods (see Figure 5.1, right). The projects survey was designed to identify project char- acteristics that led to the deployment of specific technologies, and document the support offered by the Project Execution Plan for using CIM technologies. Specific questions were also included to capture the extent of the collaboration of stake- holders contractually or officially in promoting CIM. A quali- tative assessment of performance measures of the project was also collected to understand the improvements in the cost, schedule, safety, quality, and avoidance of change orders. Over- all, 14 responses were received, describing projects of differ- ent sizes (budget) and complexity. A few follow-up interviews were conducted on some projects that reported high levels of use and good performance measures to understand the ben- efits. A few projects that reported lower levels of use or lower performance measurements were also chosen for follow-up interviews to determine the implementation constraints. 5.1.a Discussion of Results—Agency Survey The research team analyzed the responses of the survey to determine the various issues for deploying CIM tools on projects, such as technology usage, contractual requirements, organizational considerations, and governance issues. Con- sidering the plethora of options, the usage levels of CIM tech- nologies were evaluated by clustering them thematically into four different groups: 2D, 3D/nD, Sensing, and Data Man- agement. Figure 5.2 displays the list of technologies scanned under these four groups. At a higher level, different agencies and contractors reported varying levels of expertise in applying CIM technologies on their projects. Factors such as workforce capabilities, perfor- mance objectives, funding regulations, and project character- istics primarily tend to dictate the use of particular tools by agencies. Other significant inferences from the agency sur- veys are described below. 2D and 3D/nD modeling tools lay the foundation for integrating digital practices for design and construction. Figure 5.3 presents a summary chart for the usage level of the 3D/nD technologies group. Many agencies have incorpo- rated 3D modeling at varying levels based on project char- C H A P T E R 5

15 acteristics. Forty-one percent of the agencies reported using 3D tools for visualization. However, in all the agencies sur- veyed, 2D plan sets, rather than 3D models, continued to be the governing contract documents. Modeling in 4D and 5D were predominantly used on those projects that had complex con- struction sequencing (such as bridges) to facilitate visualization and communication among stakeholders. Of the 38 responses for this area, 12% and 6% reported using 4D and 5D, respec- tively, showing that they remain emerging tools. The survey inquired about different sensing technologies to determine their integration into project delivery processes. GIS and GPS had the highest reported usage levels—96% and 92%, respectively—since they have numerous applications in project delivery and asset management processes. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) also showed an encouraging trend, with 89% of respondents reportedly using one or mul- tiple variants. Eighty-four percent of the agency respondents have invested in collecting LiDAR information (3D imaging) of the facilities being built and reported employing it for facil- ity management (such as recording bridge clearances or taking inventory of assets). Participants agreed that AMG using 3D design and intelligent compaction (IC) have proven benefits. Figure 5.1. Frequency distribution: (left) participants’ disciplines; (right) project delivery methods used in the responding states. Figure 5.2. CIM technology groups used for surveys.

16 However, non-standardization of the associated design pro- cesses and initial investment costs of these technologies were cited as a major reason for their lower utilization level. Sixty- eight percent of the respondents reported deploying AMG technology for earthwork operations (albeit not including finished surface stringless concrete/asphalt construction) and around 45% of the agencies reported investing in IC. Utility coordination using subsurface utility engineering (SUE) tech- nologies was recorded at the lowest usage level under sensing technologies. This observation is also reflected in the litera- ture review and the project management practices reported on coordinating with underground utilities. Collection and use of 3D geospatial data for design coordination by deploy- ing advanced technologies (such as ground penetrating radar [GPR] or radio frequency identification [RFID]) remain an emerging practice. Figure 5.4 graphically depicts the usage level of CIM technologies as reported in agency surveys. While technology can provide tools to facilitate the transi- tion to digital project delivery, equally important is having in place robust and coherent data management tools (or stan- dards) to manage the information being generated from vari- ous stakeholders throughout the project life cycle. Seventy-six percent of the respondents surveyed reported using electronic information management systems (such as the AASHTOWare Project suite or Bentley ProjectWise) for managing their resources across projects. The data management categories for CIM include electronic archival of plans, usage of mobile digital devices, digital signatures, materials management sys- tem, and data connectivity. Electronic updating of plans (or 2D as-builts) appears to be a conventional practice at many DOTs, with 84% of the participants endorsing this method. This observation also implies that the adoption of 3D models for O&M and asset management lags behind the conventional document-based approaches. Seventy-four percent of par- ticipants used mobile digital devices on one or more of their agency’s projects, primarily for inspection, progress monitor- ing, and daily work reporting applications. Digital signatures, which have the potential to expedite document reviews and approval processes, saw active implementation by 61% of the survey participants. Finally, data connectivity tools that exam- ined use of real-time site monitoring and control applications on projects (through advanced equipment such as telematics) recorded a 32% utilization rate among the responses. Respondents also have varied perceptions on the ROI for these technologies. They cited the non-availability of a uni- form methodology to guide the investment decisions as the primary concern. However, there was also consensus on the point that such tools can always be subjective and specific to a particular agency’s business or its project environment. The importance of standardizing electronic deliverables and spec- ifications to streamline the information exchange process was also highlighted in the agency survey responses. Availability of quantitative data from several agencies pro- vided opportunities to empirically understand the state of practice across DOTs and derive appropriate conclusions. It also enables identification of certain attributes that lead to increased or decreased use of CIM technologies for project delivery. Figure 5.5 depicts the level of integration of CIM Figure 5.3. Histogram of frequency distribution for 3D/nD group.

17 Figure 5.4. Histogram of frequency distribution for sensing technologies group. Figure 5.5. CIM technologies usage for project work areas at DOTs.

18 Note: The color of each state represents its cumulative CIM score (from 1 through 17). (See State-Level Synopsis subsection of Section 5.1.a). 1 5 7 9 11 13 15 2 No Data 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 5.6. Cumulative CIM usage map. technologies (the four groups) across all the project work areas (from planning to O&M). Figure 5.5 provides several interesting insights. Firstly, use of 2D processes (such as paper-based plan sets) is still prev- alent across all DOTs in project delivery processes. The 2D group also has higher adoption than the other three groups. The 3D and sensing categories have lower integration levels in comparison to the data management and 2D categories. This inference may indicate that both 3D and sensing technologies are emergent and provide promising results for future imple- mentation efforts. Another interesting finding is that, among project phases, design and construction areas recorded the maximum use of CIM technologies, whereas O&M reported the lowest use of CIM technologies. In particular, less than 2% of the respondents reported using 3D/nD technologies for O&M activities, indicating that significant technical and managerial improvements are required to enhance life cycle use of CIM at an agency level. State-Level Synopsis The degree of CIM use needs to be properly quantified to provide a state-level synopsis. A marking scheme was used for each technology in the four groups (shown in Figure 5.2). One point was assigned for a particular category if the agency deployed the tool in one or more of its projects. These points were then added up to arrive at a cumulative CIM usage score, the maximum possible value being 17 and the base score being 1 (since all the agencies use 2D plans for con- struction). The data from eight states were either unavailable or too incomplete to assess their use. Thus, they were not included in the analysis. Figure 5.6 presents a thematic map of the United States with the states identified in accordance with their usage score. Significant points on the current state of practice are dis- cussed below. • Five states displayed a lower value of CIM maturity (1 through 5); these states use traditional and document- based workflow (2D) for project work processes and asset management. They had no or limited use of 3D/nD mod- eling categories. For the sensing and data management categories, some states reported wide variation in their uses. As an example, while Delaware reported using many advanced sensing tools on their projects (IC, AMG, and GPS, among others), they have not adopted many of the

19 data management technologies. On the other hand, Nevada reported usage of noted data management tools (such as mobile digital devices, digital signatures, and electronic as- builts management) while their integration of sensing tech- nologies was limited. • Thirty-two states exhibited a moderate level of CIM matu- rity (6 through 12) and the characteristic workflow of these agencies was discernibly different from the previous cat- egory. They demonstrated integration of 3D technologies on one or more of their projects (particularly for design and visualization), although advanced usage of model- ing tools remained limited (4D/5D). Noticeably higher CIM maturity scores resulted from increased use of sens- ing and data management technologies. As an example, Iowa, Georgia, and California reported adoption of all the technologies examined under the sensing technolo- gies group and the vital ones from the data management category (e.g., electronic updating of plans, mobile digital devices, and digital signatures). Virginia and Washington reported deploying all the data management tools, and experimenting with the prominent sensing tools (GPS, GIS, ITS, and AMG). • Seven states emerged with a high CIM maturity (usage score: 13 through 17). As expected, extensive use of 3D/nD tools on their projects helped these agencies score consid- erably high in the modeling categories. Specifically, New York and Florida have expertise in using 3D, 4D, and 5D processes for project delivery, achieving a holistic matu- rity for modeling integration in practice. Furthermore, these states, in general, have completely integrated sens- ing and data management tools. California and Kentucky reported experience in implementing all the key sensing tools evaluated in this study, while states such as Florida and Ohio recorded the highest usage of data management tools. Overall, Florida (15) and New York (14) emerged as the agencies with the greatest technological integration and process capabilities, according to their cumulative CIM usage scores. 5.1.b Highlights of Results—Project Surveys The responses to this survey were in agreement with the inferences deduced from the agency surveys. Other addi- tional inferences are listed below: • The respondents for this survey indicated that the agencies’ stipulations and contractors’ participation were the pri- mary drivers behind the deployment of CIM on projects. • It was also highlighted that incorporating all the required guidelines, specifications, and definitions in the Project Execution Plan is vital for predictable and profitable use of CIM technologies on projects. • At the project level, respondents had varied perceptions of the improvements achieved in specific performance areas. While some believed that the CIM technologies benefit- ted projects in terms of lower costs (especially avoidance costs through clash detection) and better schedule per- formance, others perceived the maximum advantages are in the areas of safety and the reduction in the number of RFIs (Requests for Information) and construction inspec- tion, such as Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) checks. • Interestingly, 70% of the projects surveyed had not per- formed an internal ROI analysis for the technologies used on projects. However, many agencies have examined the training, hardware, and software requirements for projects and documented the investments made to improve the processes. In the future, the agencies plan to assess perfor- mance improvements through detailed cost-benefit analy- sis for CIM technologies. 5.1.c Formalization of CIM Usage Analysis— Maturity Model The results of the agency survey indicate the varying lev- els of CIM use across state DOTs (see State-Level Synopsis subsection in Section 5.1.a). Fundamental capabilities of the CIM integration processes were analyzed and a three-level maturity model was formulated to serve as an assessment tool for evaluating the current functionalities. Such a model would also provide a standardized language for communi- cation purposes and setting a strategic goal for CIM imple- mentation. Note that this assessment tool cannot directly translate to detailed planning and operational specifica- tions at an agency; rather, its objective is to serve as a basic framework for devising operation-level standards. While the actual maturity model is included in the Guidebook (Chap- ter 3, Section 3.2), Section 5.1.c elaborates on the rationale behind the three maturity levels created to characterize all the asset phases. Scoping and Surveying The two major changes that influence the maturity levels in this phase include level of GIS use and the ability to deploy integrated surveying methods for supporting model-based delivery (including LiDAR, robotic total stations, and aerial imagery, among others). Many agencies now have application platforms that support the basic GIS requirements during project development. However, the research process revealed that agencies have differences in their use of surveying tech- nologies to support CIM. Literature reveals that currently any DOT has to combine multiple surveying methods to collect and process the required data for digital design. Secondly,

20 variation was observed in the usage levels of cloud-based technologies for project development. These tools create the opportunities to collaborate and share the required informa- tion among stakeholders. Accordingly, these objectives are organized into the three maturity levels. The research process (comprising the literature review and two national surveys) did not identify an agency that falls under a specific maturity level for scoping and surveying phase (as a whole). Never- theless, there were examples of functional capabilities under project development planning and surveying that reflect an agency’s maturity. Preliminary and Detailed Design Phase CIM implementation in design and associated deliverables plays a significant role in driving digital project delivery. Spe- cifically, the levels of CIM use in this phase are related to an agency’s potential to perform model-based 3D design for various project elements, comprehend and produce CIM- related information deliverables (such as for plans, specifi- cations, and estimates [PS&E] or related contract language), and leverage clash detection capabilities for performing util- ity coordination tasks. The research process revealed that many agencies, in general, generate digital terrain models (DTMs) in CAD/DGN/XML formats and make them avail- able for further design and construction purposes. However, major differences arise across agencies in the use of model- based design for utilities and structures (such as bridges and retaining walls). In addition, the contribution of CIM-based PS&E and contract documents varied from one project to another and across agencies. Also, agencies can experience several challenges in performing 3D clash detection, depend- ing on their data expertise and resources availability. Thus, these capabilities were categorized as the three maturity levels in the model. Construction Planning and Procurement Phase Four primary functions are influenced by CIM tools in this phase: scheduling, estimating, traffic control planning, and materials management. The DOTs represented different lev- els of maturity for all four of these functions. In practice, 4D is implemented on projects that involve staged construction (to examine temporary structures, drainages, crossovers, and detour configurations). Use of 5D cost estimating and materi- als management is relatively new and currently few instances are reported in highway projects. There are also variations in using traffic microsimulation tools for visualization and other purposes on projects. While some agencies reportedly perform their traffic management planning in 2D, some agen- cies have used microsimulation for several analyses and a few have integrated it with the design visualization process. All these capabilities are included in the definitions of the three maturity levels. Construction Phase One major advantage of implementing CIM on projects is the potential to automate various construction operations related to pavements (such as grading, excavation, finished surface laying, and compaction, among others). The research process indicated that agencies use different levels of auto- mation on projects ranging from commonly used grading for dirt work to performing finished surface construction using AMG. Furthermore, IC remained a specialized tech- nology, reported in only a few instances of application based on project requirements. In addition, using CIM tools for monitoring and controlling site equipment remotely was also reported in a few projects, but the survey responses and literature review indicated that this usage might well increase in the future because this technology has productivity and safety benefits. These functional capabilities are used to define the three maturity levels to demonstrate the agencies’ varying utilization levels. Operations and Maintenance The CIM-related O&M capabilities of an agency are pri- marily driven by two critical CIM functions: availability of geospatial data and the associated software platform to sup- port various decisions and organize information in a digital data archive. Many agencies use GIS tools to track the condi- tion of assets; however, inventories may or may not contain CIM (3D) data of assets. Similarly, agencies commonly use electronic (or paper-based) records of handover data from projects and the update intervals vary from one agency to another. Increasingly, agencies are envisioning creating and maintaining a digital data archive that will be used to col- lect, organize, and update the digital information of various project elements. Several CIM tools (including LiDAR, GPS, and GIS, among others) could be used to collect the data from projects to create this archive. The agencies’ potential capabilities in these areas determine their maturity levels. Information Management Although it is unconventional to perceive information man- agement as a separate category, this area needs special attention because information is generated, shared, organized, stored, and used for subject-related studies throughout a project’s life cycle. There are several indicators that reflect an agency’s

21 expertise with CIM for information management. First, the ability of an agency to produce and manage information deliverables in document- and model-based formats can act as an indicator for measuring the flexibility of its informa- tion management systems. Second, the relative use of digital signatures by different functional areas can provide insight into the ease and effectiveness of information transfer among major stakeholders. Thirdly, an agency’s current capabilities for spatially referencing data will also be a measure of the strength and usefulness of asset data throughout its life cycle. Adopting common industry standards across the agency for generating and sharing information is an indicator of infor- mation integration capabilities (examples include 3D design and deliverable standards, and interoperable standards for modeling such as IFC). Finally, the extent and frequency of updating as-built data and processes and continuous usage across the project life cycle also provide insights into the efficiency of information management. All these aspects of information management are separated into the three matu- rity levels detailed in the Guidebook.