Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management (2020)

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.

20 As noted in Chapter 1, an online survey questionnaire was built in Qualtrics and distrib- uted by email to the AASHTO Committee on Construction members. A total of 51 responses across 45 states were received. Of the 51 responses, one was from a highway construction con- tractor with e-ticketing experience, and one was from a Canadian territory; therefore, those two responses were not used in the summary statistics provided. The different STAs that par- ticipated provided a 90% response rate (45 responding states). Further, some agencies pro- vided multiple responses. The summary statistics are therefore presented as a percentage of respondents to each question. This approach was selected because, especially during piloting new technologies, varying relevant viewpoints or experiences may be attained within a single agency. Figure 3.1 shows the map of states that responded to the survey. This chapter reports on results from key survey questions. The survey questions and reporting were broken down into several categories of notes based on the scope of this synthesis project. They are outlined in subsequent sections of this chapter and are listed as follows: • Survey Demographics and General Use • Benefits • Challenges • Procurement, Training, and Deployment • Reception and Feedback • Future Use and Needs 3.1 Survey Demographics and General Use It is vital to understand the perspectives of survey participants in any study. Given that the request went to construction personnel in STAs, it is not surprising to see that 76% of respondents work in construction (see Figure 3.2). Eight percent work in materials, while 16% responded with “Other,” which represented some individuals with e-Construction roles or cross-division roles that did not fit into a provided category. Most of the respondents were construction engineers or engineering managers (74%), with a few others identifying as materials engineers/technicians (6%) or technical support (6%), as seen in Figure 3.3. Although the topic of e-ticketing of materials for construction management is of high interest to STAs based on the research and presentations across a variety of agencies, the actual use remains somewhat limited. Of the 45 states responding, only 10 states have com- pleted actual projects using e-ticketing at the time of the survey. Those states are noted in Figure 3.4. C H A P T E R 3 Results of the Survey Questionnaire

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 21 Figure 3.1. Map of states responding to survey. What division do you currently work for in your agency? Construction Materials Other 76% 8% 16% Figure 3.2. Survey respondents’ work division. Most e-ticketing solutions are designed for bulk paving materials, thus the majority of completed projects utilized e-ticketing on asphalt (65%) or concrete (15%), per Figure 3.5. Some states also have experience with aggregates (10%) and milled material (5%). With the emergence of e-ticketing, several providers have also developed solutions. At the time of the survey creation, Fleetwatcher by Earthwave (53%), Libra Systems (16%), and Com- mand Alkon (10%) were the most frequently used providers in the market (see Figure 3.6).

22 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management How would you describe your role in the agency? Construction Engineer/Engineering Manager Materials Engineer/Technician Technical Support Other 74% 6% 6% 14% Figure 3.3. Survey respondents’ position titles. Figure 3.4. Map of states with e-ticketing experience.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 23 65% 15% 10% 5% 5% What materials have you used with e-ticketing? Asphalt Concrete Aggregates Millings Other Figure 3.5. Bulk materials used with e-ticketing. What e-ticketing system have you used? Fleetwatcher by Earthwave iStrada by Sysdyne Command Alkon Libra Systems Developed in-house Trimble 53% 5% 10% 16% 11% 5% Figure 3.6. e-Ticketing provider utilized. Fleetwatcher was the initial system that collaborated with Iowa DOT for the first large-scale pilots of tracking asphalt. Thus, the system was designed specifically for STA use in tracking asphalt paving resulting in the highest usage of all providers. Since the deployment of the survey, Libra Systems has developed a standalone e-ticketing solution called Sentinel. The users responding to Libra Systems and Command Alkon had to pair their respective e-ticketing solutions with a GPS tracking service to reach the full e-ticketing capability as originated in the Iowa DOT pilots. In addition, 11% of survey respondents had an in-house developed solution. As a reference, Table 3.1 maps the e-ticketing solutions that have been utilized by STAs to the type of bulk material.

24 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management 3.2 Benefits There are a variety of uses and benefits from moving paper ticket collection to an electronic format when combining that with a GIS interface that tracks load location and timing through GPS technology. According to survey respondents, the most frequent use cases for e-ticketing is to improve project documentation, determine pay quantities, and record quality control results (Figure 3.7). Similarly, in a weighted response question (Table 3.2), the most sig- nificant benefit reported was reduced paper documentation. Having ticket collectors out of hazardous situations was a close second in value-added benefits. One benefit not frequently reported was production tracking. This may be due to it being more of a contractor concern than an agency concern. Regardless, it is an opportunity for solutions to be tailored for produc- tion tracking as needed by stakeholders. Additional insights on specific benefits and use cases are detailed in the case examples discussed in Chapter 4. 10 8 7 5 4 4 3 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 N um be r of R es po ns es How are you using e-tickets? Pr oje ct do cu me nta tio n De ter mi ne pa y q ua nti tie s Re co rd ing qu ali ty co ntr ol res ult s Tr ac k y iel d Re co rd ing in sta lla tio n l oc ati on M ate ria ls ac ce pta nc e/r eje cti on Cu rre ntl y j us t p ilo tin g Op tim ize fl ee t Figure 3.7. e-Ticketing use applications. Material Type Vendor Solutions Used (as of Spring 2019) Asphalt • Fleetwatcher by Earthwave • Trimble • Libra Systems Concrete • iStrada by Sysdyne • MOBILEticket by Command Alkon Earthwork • Fleetwatcher by Earthwave Millings • Fleetwatcher by Earthwave • Libra Systems Table 3.1. Mapping e-ticketing solutions by material type.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 25 3.3 Challenges Given the relative newness and limited use of e-ticketing technologies, there are many issues to be resolved as more states test the technology and further adoption occurs. Issues were broken down into technical challenges that focus on concerns with the technology and process barriers that include broader concepts such as cost and stakeholder perceptions. The primary technical challenges for those with e-ticketing experience were accessibility of the data for users, integration with plant/supplier IT systems, and loss of connectivity (see Figure 3.8). Noted in the case examples in Chapter 4, there were issues in access and ownership of the data for some users. Another cost is either upgrading plant systems or accessing plant systems for the scale data. The e-ticketing data is automatically generated based on reading What were the primary benefits of using e-ticketing technologies? Topic Weighted Score (higher is better) Rank Reduced paper documentation 75 1 Safety benefits 71 2 Time savings in review and consolidation of material quantities 65 3 Readily available material quantity information 64 4 Real-time material tracking 58 5 Archived material placement location 40 6 Production tracking 27 7 Fleet management to assist with thermal uniformity 5 8 Table 3.2. Primary benefits of using e-ticketing. 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 7 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 Inaccurate quantities Identifying which pavers the load went to when pavers are near each other Accuracy of equipment Data transfer from 3rd party to DOT storage Specifying use for third party suppliers 3rd party haulers with multiple contractors or multiple e-ticketing systems Integrating with current project administrative systems Loss of connectivity Integrating with plant/supplier IT systems Accessibility for users Number of Responses What are the greatest technical challenges? Figure 3.8. Technical challenges of e-ticketing use.

26 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management the plant loadout systems, and if those are outdated or proprietary, there is an added cost for integration. Loss of connectivity is another potential issue, but it is one that occurs on the user end primarily. Within the predominant system, the GPS devices are set to ping on a given time interval (typically 30 seconds to a minute) and have storage capability. Thus, if the GPS tracker loses signal temporarily, all the data will still be stored and accessible. Connectivity may be an issue in the field when someone seeks to determine a location of a hauler en route. Integrating with current project administrative systems is a key for future use. While the ticket collection and storage process is automated with e-ticketing, pulling that data into a project administrative system for payment and archiving is still a manual process. There are two ongoing trends to address this concern. One is that some states are developing their own e-ticketing solution that pulls data from the plant right into their project administrative system. The other is a preliminary investigation between an e-ticketing provider and a software company that provides enterprise services to many STAs. This conceptual effort seeks to integrate the two services so there is effective interoperability in the data. Both of these options are set up to strictly document the ticket information and loses the functionality of GPS tracking and fleet management options. Beyond the technical issues with the e-ticketing solutions, there are other barriers to use outlined in Table 3.3. The primary concern for STAs is connectivity of the systems. Losing signals may be a concern for the field personnel who are tracking material in real-time; however, some systems allow for the data to still be captured and retrievable when a signal is reestablished. The ticket infor- mation is logged immediately on loadout and should be accessible at any time with internet access. The next significant challenges were all related to stakeholder pushback. Hauling/trucking companies can naturally be hesitant to adopt a technology that provides location of their people and equipment at all times. Plant/supplier pushback was typically from allowing a third party to access internal information technology (IT) systems and pull data from them. Contractors, similar to the hauling/trucking companies, were hesitant to allow the agency to monitor the movement of their equipment. The least significant challenges were internal to the STAs. They did not feel like their personnel would be resistant to changes in either their work processes or to using the new technology. However, in discussing issues with specific states in Chapter 4, there were some instances of internal pushback not necessarily tied to e-ticketing specifically but toward using new, unfamiliar technology. Which of the following challenges do you believe is most significant to e-ticketing use? Topic Weighted Score (higher is more significant) Rank Connectivity (cellular/Wi-Fi signals) 92 1 Haul company pushback 84 2 Plant/supplier pushback 76 3 Contractor pushback 64 4 Cost 58 5 Accessibility to DOT system/mobile devices to third-party e-ticketing data 41 6 Technical use 40 7 Data security 39 8 Communication/collaboration challenges 34 9 DOT staff resistance to process change 32 10 DOT staff resistance to technology 22 11 Table 3.3. Greatest barriers to e-ticketing use.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 27 3.4 Procurement, Training, and Deployment As far as procuring, training, and organizing the technology, there are a variety of options available to STAs. For procurement, most states included e-ticketing as a bid item (37%) in the request for proposals (RFP) or used a contract modification/change order (36%) to include e-ticketing (see Figure 3.9). A select few (18%) purchased the technology directly. In using the bid item or change order approach, there are several design specifications written to outline the e-ticketing needs (see Appendix D for a sample special note). This pushes the technology on to the contractors, which can lead to some communication issues (see Chapter 4). Training for e-ticketing use is often conducted by the software provider. Its form, length, and involvement may vary. In discussions with STAs, providers have offered web-based, in-person, and on-site training options. The primary recipients of training have been STA inspectors and engineers, contractor management and field personnel, and plant operators (see Figure 3.10). Only one respondent that was involved with e-ticketing did not receive training. Although most of the data collection occurs automatically, there are some setup tasks necessary prior to work beginning. This is where the training is the most valuable for project personnel. Some examples How did you procure e-ticketing? 37% 36% 18% 9% Included in RFP as a bid item Contract modification/change order Purchased directly by DOT Other Figure 3.9. Procurement approaches for e-ticketing. 12 11 10 10 9 3 3 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 DOT inspectors DOT engineers Contractor management personnel Plant operators Contractor field personnel Haul truck managers Haul truck drivers No training was provided N um be r of R es po ns es Who received technical training on e-ticketing use? Figure 3.10. Training received by stakeholder.

28 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management include creating the geozones at the plant, scale, and project, setting up work shifts for fleet management, and tagging appropriate equipment with the correct GPS units. 3.5 Reception and Feedback e-Ticketing, though a new application of existing technologies, is far from the first material tracking solution available for construction materials. Bar codes, RFID, and plate readers all provide opportunities to automatically track and code information related to material delivery. However, the use of those technologies has not been widespread, and when asked which solution provided the greatest value, the strong majority believe e-ticketing has the best future (Figure 3.11). Despite some technical and procedural challenges, the majority of e-ticketing users anticipate additional use of the technology. There were no respondents that believed they were “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to use the technology again (Figure 3.12). Further, approximately 70% of experienced users are “very likely” to use the technology again. 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 37 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Truck identification readers (License plate/DOT number) DTMs from LiDAR surveys PDF tickets Combination Unsure RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Bar codes e-Ticketing Number of Responses Which material tracking technology has the greatest potential value for use in transportation construction management? Figure 3.11. Material tracking technology with greatest potential. 9 4 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very likely Likely Unlikely Very unlikely N um be r of R es po ns es How likely are you to use e-ticketing again? Figure 3.12. Likelihood of future e-ticketing use.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 29 Stakeholder feedback is an important takeaway given the broad impact and involvement required of the technology. According to STA survey respondents, the greatest proponents of e-ticketing were the STA engineers, as all believed it was a positive impact to their projects (Fig- ure 3.13). The most negative stakeholders were the hauling companies according to STAs. Contractors, plants/suppliers, and inspectors all were perceived to have generally positive experiences with e-ticketing on their projects. One of the concerns previously noted by survey respondents was the cost of the tech- nology, thus a question was asked to specifically consider costs and benefits in an overall evaluation of e-ticketing. A 5-point scale was offered for a level of satisfaction. Of 13 respon- dents with e-ticketing experience, 77% were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their e-ticketing use (Figure 3.14). Only 23% had a neutral or breakeven evaluation of e-ticketing. No respondent was dissatisfied, indicating, in general, the benefits outweighed the cost of the technology. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Positive Neutral Negative N um be r of R es po ns es What general feedback was received from stakeholders? Contractors Hauling Companies Plants/Suppliers Inspectors Engineers Figure 3.13. General stakeholder feedback. 4 6 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied N um be r of R es po ns es Considering costs and benefits, what was your level of satisfaction with using e-ticketing? Figure 3.14. Satisfaction level of STA.

30 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management 3.6 Future Use and Needs This section looks ahead for material tracking use in STAs. There has been little effort in this area nationally. Only 11 respondents have experience with a material tracking technology outside of e-ticketing. Most (8) of those were with bar codes with a few using RFID and plate readers (Fig- ure 3.15). With most of the materials used in highway construction being bulk material, tracking must be done with the heavy equipment used to transport or manipulate the material. Figure 3.16 shows an interesting snapshot of STA’s future plans for e-ticketing based on material type. There does not appear to be much interest in using e-ticketing for tracking and documenting millings or earthwork. The primary interest is in asphalt, concrete, and aggregate materials. These tend to be higher ticket items and the source of critical inspection tasks. When 78% 16% 4% 2% Other than e-ticketing, what material tracking technologies has your agency used? None/None yet Bar codes RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Truck identification readers (license plate/DOT number) Figure 3.15. Other material tracking technology experience. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Have yet to use it and have no plans to Have yet to use it but are interested Have piloted it but do not plan future use Have piloted it but would like additional evaluations Have piloted it and are planning to scale up its use Interested in adopting it as policy Have a standard specification for its use What is the future use of e-ticketing in construction management for your agency based on material type? Asphalt Concrete Aggregates Earthwork Millings Other Figure 3.16. Future plans for e-ticketing by material type.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 31 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6% 12% 39% 41% 53% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 18% 35% 41% 0% 0% 4% 31% 0% 45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 43% 33% 47% 67% 0% 0% 6% 8% 51% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 49% 0% 47% 65% 22% 53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% Lack of Proper Documentation with Commercial Vehicles No Concerns with Law/Vehicle Enforcement No Concerns with Trucking Companies Independent Trucking Privacy Concerns Software Compatibility No Concerns with Material Suppliers Insufficient Mobile Devices No Concerns with STA Policy/Regulations Restrictions Internal IT GPS Tracking No Concerns with Contractor Cost Resistance to Change Data Security Personnel Training Technology Deficiencies What stakeholder concerns do you consider to be a barrier in your e-ticketing initiatives? Contractor STA Material Supplier Hauling Company Law Enforcement Figure 3.17. Contractor barriers for e-ticketing use. a state has piloted e-ticketing on a construction material, the state plans all future efforts. Most of the states with experience are interested in scaling up use or adopting e-ticketing as policy, or they already have a standard specification for use. Combining these results with the reception in Section 3.5 illustrates overwhelming positive experiences with e-ticketing. Survey respondents were asked to consider barriers for specific stakeholders (Figure 3.17). Response options were specific to potential barriers for each stakeholder, and not all response

32 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management options were available for each stakeholder. For instance, a barrier of “policy/regulation restriction” was asked solely as a barrier for the STA, and no other stakeholder, because it would not apply to the others. For barriers with an overlap across stakeholders, common responses can be seen, such as for the barrier of “cost.” Technology deficiencies, personnel training, and resistance to change were common concerns for many stakeholders. STAs had concerns with their own internal IT systems or policy restrictions. The only other significant concern was that of privacy for the hauling companies with the tracking of their equipment activity. Given the lack of widespread use, a greater understanding of the value of e-ticketing and other material tracking technologies is needed. In identifying what research is needed to advance the state of practice of materials tracking and management for highway construction, the most desired work is in a cost-benefit analysis of e-ticketing (Table 3.4). A close second was an inves- tigation into quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) automation practices with studies on collaborative technologies and automated alert systems for materials tracking, testing, and acceptance not being far behind. The lack of variability may be an indicator that much work is needed in this area, or that not enough is known to establish specific needs. Suggestions in the “Other” category include automated quantity tracking and completion of STA construction forms and LiDAR-based digital terrain models (DTMs). Regardless, with many construction practices moving toward electronic solutions, the delivery and documentation of bulk materials is one that has readily available solutions but limited national use. What research is needed to advance materials tracking and management in highway construction? Topic Weighted Score (higher is better) Rank Cost-benefit analysis of e-ticketing 159 1 Investigation into QA/QC automation 155 2 Use of collaborative technologies for partnership advancement 142 3 Automated alert system for materials tracking, testing, and acceptance 138 4 Other 17 5 Table 3.4. Research needs for material tracking and management.