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.
45 The primary objective of this synthesis study was to identify STAs that have experience with e-ticketing technology and provide an overview of the implementation of these technologies to date and lessons learned that identify success factors and challenges. Secondary objectives were to identify material tracking technologies used by STAs, current pilot efforts using e-ticketing and lessons learned, strategies for effective use, and knowledge gaps and future research needs. Each objective was previously addressed in Chapters 3 and 4 that discusses the national survey results and case example interviews, respectively. The following sections revisit the primary findings of this NCHRP synthesis study. The information used to generate the conclusions is inclusive of 45 of the 50 STAs that responded to the survey. When specific numbers are quoted, the five nonresponsive states are not considered in the findings. 5.1 Material Tracking Technologies Being Used by STAs ⢠The primary material tracking technology being used is e-ticketing, with 10 states having completed projects with e-ticketing (Figure 3.4). However, since survey deployment, there have been additional states piloting the technology. ⢠Few states have tried bar codes and RFID tags, which can be difficult to use with bulk material. Most do not have experience with material tracking technologies other than e-ticketing. ⢠Most states believe e-ticketing has the greatest potential value for material tracking (Figure 3.11). 5.2 Current Pilot Efforts Using e-Ticketing and Lessons Learned ⢠Most of the pilots have been conducted using asphalt or concrete, with aggregates and millings rarely being used (Figure 3.5). ⢠The technology is typically acquired by a lump sum bid item in the RFP or through a change order or contract modification (Figure 3.9). The latter procurement strategies allow agencies to test the technology on a project with greater likelihood of success/learning with willing part- ners. Projects in areas with good network coverage, with willing partners, and with upgraded material supplier IT systems were all noted characteristics that made for positive experiences. ⢠Training is typically conducted by the software providers and varies between web/phone training, face-to-face office training, and on-the-job training. STA and contractor personnel are most often involved with the training, but plant operators, engineers, and hauling com- panies also have received training on certain pilots (Figure 3.10). Specific training on system integration may be necessary for batch plant operators. C H A P T E R 5 Conclusions
46 Electronic Ticketing of Materials for Construction Management ⢠Applications included project documentation, determining pay quantities, and recording QC results (Figure 3.7). Some pilots have also used e-tickets to track yield and accept/reject materials. Contractors use the system to optimize fleets, troubleshoot inefficiencies, and see real-time progress. ⢠A noted trend with users who have experienced pushback regarding the tracking of material haulers is to eliminate the GPS tracking component and focus on the electronic transfer of only the material ticket information. This trend would be a detriment to some of the most substantial partnering aspects of e-ticketing given the value that tracking has for contractors (Chapter 4). 5.3 Strategies for Effective Use of e-Ticketing ⢠Echoed primarily in the case examples outlined in Chapter 4, finding willing partners for pilot efforts is the best success strategy. Having suppliers, haulers, and contractors willing and interested in testing a new technology vastly improves the experience, especially given the reliance on these parties to participate in project setup and sharing of project information. ⢠When using a software provider for the e-ticketing solution, develop a plan for data transfer and storage. Most providers store data online, but having critical project data sit on a third- party server can lead to future problems. Thus, an internal database with appropriate field alignment needs to be created, and an individual should have the responsibility of transferring the data from the third party to the internal database (Chapter 4). ⢠While still limited in national practice, there are enough prior users to leverage their experi- ences for new users. For those new users, identify states with experience in a material/project type similar to your own (see Table 5.1) and reach out for a discussion. 5.4 Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Needs ⢠Many states are interested in use of e-ticketing but have several concerns/knowledge gaps. With current solutions and by having a generic specification for electronic tracking, inspec- tion staff may end up having to learn several systems. In addition, current solutions also require manual data transfer to payment systems, although ongoing developmental efforts are attempting to address this (Chapter 4). ⢠In open-ended responses, there is a disconnect with some nonusersâ understanding of the capabilities of e-ticketing technology. For instance, several nonusers mention a concern that there is no verification of a load delivery with e-ticketing. However, e-ticketing has the capa- bility to report a latitude and longitude with high accuracy as to the location of a load dump. Further, haulers can be outfitted with hard-wired GPS devices that reports power take-off engagement that provides another level of verification of load delivery. ⢠There are also several concerns and unknowns regarding the geospatial tracking of materials. One is that of material ownership. If a STA does not take ownership of material until onsite acceptance, do they need or have the right to track the delivery of those materials, and how is this different for bulk materials versus manufactured materials? The second area of concern is in the liability taken on by tracking deliveries to the jobsite. If tracking shows violations of speed limits or driving limitations, does the STA, contractor, or other stakeholder assume any liability if there happened to be an injury or accident resulting from these misbehaviors? These considerations need further investigation. ⢠According to participating states, the greatest research need is a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the e-ticketing process implementation, indicative of statesâ interest yet hesitation (Table 3.4). Other research of interest is the impact collaborative technologies have on partnership between agency and contractor and automating QA/QC processes in STAs.
Conclusions 47 The findings from this synthesis show a strong interest in e-ticketing but limited use of e-ticketing for materials in highway construction nationally. Users have reported consistent satisfaction with limited concerns across all stakeholders, and all reported plans for expanded use. However, the national trend for users is shifting toward a focus on the e-ticket aspect of the technology and ignoring the tracking capability. Dropping the GPS tracking component, which is the most significant value for the contractor and hauling companies, loses the collaborative nature of the initial e-ticketing initiatives. However, it circumvents some of the frequent STA concerns such as sole sourcing a software provider, liability concerns, and privacy invasion of supplier/contractor. Regardless, e-ticketing is expected to continue in technical advancement, process adaptation, and nonuser interest given the value it provides. As initiatives push the high- way construction industry into modern tools and technologies, e-ticketing will be prominently featured as material tickets are still largely printed and transferred in paper form. As a final reference point, Table 5.1 provides a quick reference tool for new and potential users to identify early adopters of e-ticketing with important aspects and lessons learned of their pilot efforts. This provides an opportunity for the new users to contact those already experienced with the technology. Material Type Procurement States with Experience Vendors Used Cost Reported Effective Practices Asphalt ⢠Bid Item ⢠Change Order ⢠Developed own system ⢠Purchased by STA AL, FL, IA, KY, MN, MO, ND, PA, UT, VA ⢠Fleetwatcher by Earthwave ⢠In-House ⢠Trimble ⢠Libra Systems $1.04/ton (KYTC) $10,000 per project (PennDOT) ⢠Early stakeholder communication ⢠Hands-on training ⢠Data storage and transfer plan Concrete ⢠Change Order FL, IA ⢠iStrada ⢠Command Alkon None reported ⢠Contractor-producer early buy- in ⢠Contractor-producer communication ⢠Thorough stakeholder training Aggregate ⢠Change Order VA ⢠Fleetwatcher by Earthwave None reported ⢠None reported Millings ⢠Bid Item PA ⢠Fleetwatcher by Earthwave ⢠Libra Systems None reported ⢠Early stakeholder communication ⢠Hands-on training ⢠Data storage and transfer plan Earthwork N/A None N/A N/A N/A Table 5.1. e-Ticketing experience summary.
