Phase I Report for FHWA - Alaska...

Page | 1

Experimental Feature in Highway Construction Phase I Report

AASHTO SiteManager Evaluation

For Inclusion in

Alaska Highway MP 1412 to 1422 Rehabilitation

IM‐0A2‐2(5)/61777

Steese Highway MP 62‐81 Surface Treatment

STP‐0670(34)/60916

Dalton Highway MP 274‐289 Rehabilitation

STP‐NH‐TEA‐065‐5(5)/67018

NR Bridge Rehab‐Nenana River at Rex & North Fork 12 Mile Creek

BH‐000S(739)/63739

Tok Bike Path Rehabilitation

TEA‐000S(715)/63501

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Northern Region Construction Section

Prepared by Jaclyn Elmes, SiteManager Administrator, for:

Frank Ganley, P.E., Construction Manager

November 2011

Page | 2

Table of Contents

AASHTO SiteManager Evaluation

Executive Summary .................................................................................. 3

Unit Costs .............................................................................................. 3‐4

Installation and Maintenance ............................................................... 4‐5

Evaluation of the Modules .................................................................... 5‐7

Overall Performance and Response ......................................................... 8

Customization Needs ........................................................................... 9‐10

Recommendations and Conclusions .................................................. 10‐11

Appendices

Appendix A ........................................................... Technological Overview

Appendix B......................................................................... Project Reports

Appendix C .............................................................. Central Region Report

Appendix D ...................................................................... Info Tech Report

Appendix E .................................................... Trns•Port Newsletter Article

Page | 3

Executive Summary

Overall, NR Construction has been extremely pleased with SiteManager. We plan to expand our use of this product to eventually include all highway and airport construction contracts. This report will detail the results of our experiences in 2010 and 2011 as well as recommendations for future action.

The Northern Region Construction Section carried out an Experimental Feature of the AASHTO Trns•Port SiteManager software. The Experimental Feature was used to evaluate SiteManager as a program that allows both on site and off site monitoring of the project during construction and facilitates project close out. The Northern Region Construction Section evaluated SiteManager on a limited basis in 2010 as an experimental feature on the Alaska Highway 1412‐1422 project. Evaluation continued to include larger construction projects in 2011 on the referenced projects and also included the Materials Management component of the program.

Trns•Port SiteManager is a comprehensive client/server based construction management tool. It provides for data entry, tracking, reporting, and analysis of contract data from contract award through finalization. SiteManager is built on the same multi‐tier architecture as the rest of the Trns•Port suite, allowing for easy integration and data transfer. It can be used by all levels of construction and materials personnel such as: field inspectors, technicians, project managers, clerks, auditors, lab personnel, management, contractors, and the FHWA.

In order to fully implement SiteManager, the Construction Section needed to complete an Item Master, populate the Materials Management reference tables with sampling and testing requirements, and conduct training for Construction staff. Throughout the Construction season, project staff was instructed to keep notes documenting their experiences with SiteManager so they could give reports on their analyses. At the end of the season, the Construction Section needed to create a cohesive review of the Experimental Feature with recommendations for the future based on the experience of the collective group of Northern Region Construction.

This report will cover Phase I, the full use of the Construction Administration component and the initial use of the Materials Management component in both the 2010 and 2011 seasons. A final report for Phase II will be submitted at the end of the 2012 season once all experimental feature projects have been completed and the LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) module has been implemented.

Unit Costs

Info Tech proposed that implementation of SiteManager for this experimental feature would take approximately 5 one week workshop sessions to complete. NR Construction completed

Page | 4

implementation in preparation for the 2011 season within 3 one week sessions with Info Tech due to Department’s staff dedication and enthusiasm for the new software. Staff worked on getting the software implementation in between Info Tech work sessions. The system administrator’s support costs are combined into the staff’s implementation costs reported above. Info Tech provides customer support when the system administrator is unable to fix an issue independently, and the cost is included in the licensing fee.

The licensing fee from AASHTO for SiteManager is $195,000 per year. This license is then available to the Department statewide. The Department also purchased Additional Service Units for $256,500. These Service Units pay for implementation, support, and customization costs. Due to strong support and dedication from Construction staff, we were able to save considerably on the cost of implementation from Info Tech (see Appendix D for a report from Info Tech). The following is a table tracking all expenses related to SiteManager to date.

SiteManager Expenses Budgeted Actual

Licensing fee – annual licensing fee for SiteManager $195,000 $195,000

Training, support, system setup – 23 AASSHTO service units less 2 free evaluation units and 1.5 units left from Pilot project

$263,250 $66,825

Staff time for training and system setup – Approximately 2000 staff hours

$200,000 $130,000

TOTAL $653,250 $391,825

Attached in Appendix A is a Technological Overview from the Department’s Computer Support Specialist detailing the process of installing and using SiteManager. Although the Department purchased several new laptops this year, the cost of those laptops was not in addition to the normal costs of keeping equipment up to date. The total estimated cost of upgrading the computer systems to SiteManager’s requirements was basically limited to staff time spent on the upgrade.

Installation/Maintenance

In the attached Appendix A, Travis Tynes‐Peissner, Northern Region Construction’s Computer Support Specialist details the SiteManager installation process. In summary, the installation

Page | 5

went smoothly, with no problems holding up the process of getting SiteManager into production. All problems encountered were quickly overcome and solved by staff on site.

The maintenance of the program is performed by the developers, with patches and updates delivered to the Department. For users accessing SiteManager through Citrix, maintenance has been extremely simple since the Northern Region computer support specialist can update the program directly in one location (on the servers in Juneau). For the “fat client” application loaded directly on the users’ computers, our computer support specialist has been able to push updates directly to the users with an auto‐install application emailed to them. Upgrades and major maintenance is slated for the winter seasons, when the majority of the computers will be in the regional office.

Upon evaluation, the program appears to be aesthetically somewhat dated, but also has very few bugs for a program of this scope. SiteManager was initially developed in the 1990s and has been licensed by 26 states and a province in Canada. The program’s maintenance and upkeep is done by AASHTO through a recommendation process with all of the licensed agencies. Licensed agencies are invited to participate in a Trans•Port User Group (TUG) Conference annually. The TUG Conference is a forum for the agencies to discuss and vote on issues they feel need to be addressed by the ballot. Following the TUG, licensed agencies participate in an online ballot process, voting for which issues should be resolved and incorporated into further updates to the program. Since the software is several years old, the developers have had time to work through all of the major bugs or glitches and currently focus on improving the software for the end users. Info Tech is in the process of developing a web based version of all current software for AASHTO. Estimated completion of the Construction/Materials module is in Aril 2014.

Project staff has reported that while the program may have initially seemed to propose a challenge, within a day staff was comfortable with using the program. The SiteManager team will be designing a training program and training guides for Department use during the winter 2011‐2012 season. NR Construction believes customized internal training will make the training process simpler and more focused on the Department’s needs than the training given by InfoTech.

Evaluation of the Modules

Contract Administration

The Contract Administration module consists of two components: Contract Records and Contractor Management.

Page | 6

Currently, all contracts are entered into the system through Contract Records. Contracts with multiple construction projects can be entered, as well as funding sources, funding categories, and pay items. This system allows for a great deal of detail and control, which we believe will help project staff keep track of item funding accurately and thoroughly, with much less confusion than in the previous methods we have used. Contract Records is used to give Contract Authority, or permissions, to users based on their needs; Contract Authority appears to provide excellent security and control of access to contract information. Contract Records has also been utilized for electronic filing, force account setup, and stockpiled materials. The stockpiled materials function has been one of the most useful and innovative tools within SiteManager, automatically deducting stockpile materials from contractor payments as they are incorporated into the project.

Contractor Management is used solely to input Subcontracts. While this function was perhaps underutilized this season, as only basic information was input, this tool allows a great level of detail on subcontracts to be entered. Through this tool, we were able to set up pay items a subcontractor could be reported working on, so that an inspector would not be able to attribute work to an unauthorized subcontract in error.

Daily Work Reports

The component with the most exposure to all users is the Daily Work Report (DWR). In SiteManager, DWRs are the replacement for Inspector Daily Reports (IDRs). Virtually every staff member on a contract will use the DWR feature. The basic functionality of this tool served the projects well, allowing for even more detailed reporting than the traditional Inspector’s Daily Reports. Since contractor payments are pulled directly from DWRs, project staff had to input and report information accurately and in detail. This component also contains the Diary, which allows the project engineer to keep their diary and requires that every DWR generated by inspectors to be authorized before incorporation into the progress estimate. Feedback from project staff was that the DWR was easy to learn and was an improvement on paper IDRs for ease of editing and entry. NR Construction implemented a few customizations on the DWR screen during construction to include a larger remarks box and a check box with a validation statement for each work item entry.

Contractor Payments

The culmination of all DWR entry and approval is the contractor payment. In the Contractor Payments component, project staff generates a progress estimate with a click of a button. Office engineers from participating contracts in the 2011 season were extremely pleased with the ease of generating a progress estimate. The main complaint from both DOT staff and

Page | 7

Contractors was that the estimate only detailed items paid that estimate period and did not break out each individual stockpile payment. This problem is being solved with a customized progress estimate report. Within this component, materials discrepancies and overruns were reported so that project staff could reconcile and solve any issues prior to issuing the progress estimate. The integration of all aspects of recording and reporting within SiteManager is an advantage over the traditional paper method. Office and project engineers do not have to track down their materials inspectors to verify that materials testing is up to date. In SiteManager a material discrepancy will appear if any tests are lacking. Currently online approval by the project engineer and project manager is standard. NR Construction has learned that online approval by the contractor is possible as well and is exploring this option. Online payment processing by Project Control is possible as well, speeding up the payment process. If employed, future estimates may no longer require any paper to be processed at all.

Change Orders

Initial reports from project staff, prior to entering any change orders, was that entering change orders into SiteManager seemed slightly overwhelming. Once staff had entered their first change order, they reported that the process was much easier than they had initially thought and that the program essentially walked them through the process. The speed with which change orders can be processed in this method, once negotiations are complete, is fast since the project manager can log in and instantly be able to approve the change order. NR Construction is considering using the internal securities within SiteManager to allow contractors to authorize change orders and progress estimates instantaneously through SiteManager as well. If this is possible, processing of estimates and change orders can be a matter of days instead of weeks as postal delivery will no longer be relied on.

Materials Management

While the Construction Management implementation of SiteManager progressed smoothly, the Materials Management component presented some unique challenges. The Materials Management component of SiteManager is quite complex. A list of materials is created by Department staff, then these materials are associated to every pay item the material is a component of (some only have one material while others may have twenty). Next, each material is linked to all sample types and tests at the correct testing frequency. This complexity required a massive coordinated effort from Northern Region staff to implement Materials Management.

Some decisions made during the implementation sessions (prior to actually using Materials Management on a construction contract) were quickly determined to need some modification.

Page | 8

Sample Types were simplified to include only materials that required submittals and/or tests. Once this was modified and an additional customization to the Sample Information window was instituted, Materials Management became a much smoother process. The outlook on this component, once LIMS has been implemented winter of 2011‐2012, is excellent. The level of detail, organization, and connectivity Materials Management brings is remarkable. The capability of having all materials tests in a minable format within a database is a feature that will be very useful in the future to Alaska Department of Transportation statewide.

Overall Performance and Response

Attached to this report (Appendix B) are overall analyses of SiteManager by project staff from most of the contracts this experimental feature was used on. The results show that project staff is generally in favor of the use of this program, excited about the prospects of customization in the future, and optimistic about being able to negotiate any challenges that come with this transition.

Several interim reviews have been performed by our Quality Assurance section on SiteManager contracts. Final review has begun on both construction administration and materials management. The concurrent review engineers report that SiteManager has assisted in the review process by providing a clear audit trail, with an Item Work Report that lists every DWR with its associated quantities and locations for every pay item. Additionally, interim reviews can be performed from the main office, without the requirement of a lengthy visit to the field office to complete. Another basic advantage of SiteManager is that a project’s materials rover can check SiteManager to verify the status of the projects’ materials testing. They can check to see if material discrepancies indicating an insufficient number of tests exist and if they have been resolved. Materials rovers have been able to use SiteManager in closeout with the Sampling Checklist report as a tool to check project materials testing. Quality Assurance has been able to use SiteManager to their advantage since the permanent recording abilities intrinsic to the program allow the Quality Assurance reviewers (construction administration and materials) to track the progress of the contracts and verify that reporting requirements are being met.

As previously noted, Central Region Construction performed a site visit in August to see a demonstration of SiteManager and to visit the Steese Highway MP 62‐81 Surface Treatment project. The visit provided an opportunity for the Central Region representatives to view SiteManager on an informal basis and to interview staff at the project level on their experiences with the program. Attached in Appendix C are the comments from their visit as well as their report. Most of their “con” comments seem to be attributed to misunderstandings, and the rest appear to be issues Northern Region has recognized and plans to implement changes to rectify.

Page | 9

The communications within SiteManager can be done in two ways: through Citrix or with a full client/server program installed on the user’s computer. When accessing SiteManager via Citrix, the user is not running the program on their computer, but on the server in Juneau. This allows the program’s processes to run faster between screens as the amount of data transferred from the remote user (on the project site) and the server (in Juneau) is more manageable. For this reason, Northern Region began encouraging users to use SiteManager through Citrix unless they had a valid reason to use the client/server installed on their computer. If users chose to use the “standalone” mode within SiteManager, which allows access to portions of the program when away from an internet connection, we allowed them to use the client/server option as it is not possible to use “standalone” with Citrix access.

Through the process of adopting SiteManager, Northern Region encountered a few challenges. Attached in Appendix E is an article from the Trns•Port newsletter detailing a few of the difficulties Northern Region Construction had to overcome to implement SiteManager. One of the biggest lessons we learned was that this program is much easier for employees with less traditional construction administration experience to grasp. Users with a lot of construction experience had difficulties adapting to an electronic management software instead of the traditional paper construction management processes we have had in place for years. Our training program will address these needs, with more intensive training for those who need it.

During this process, we have learned about and documented the areas we believe will need customization. Primarily, we plan to customize reports in house using our internal resources. We plan on creating customized progress estimate forms, change order forms, and materials summary reports. Having a customized reporting program will make the entire process easier for users to transition to the new system.

Customization Needs

As of the end of the 2011 construction season, NR Construction recognized the need to create a second phase to the implementation of SiteManager by turning on and implementing the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) component of SiteManager. This component is part of the SiteManager license, but had not been a focus of the implementation efforts prior to the 2011 season because it was undecided whether this feature would prove to be one we felt we needed. At this point, we believe it is necessary and that it will expand the benefits of SiteManager Materials. This system will allow greater control of approvals and management of material samples within SiteManager. The search functionality inherent in LIMS is more expansive than the functionality in the standard SiteManager application. The Phase II implementation process of LIMS is planned to begin in early 2012 and be completed prior to

Page | 10

the 2012 construction season. A Final Report on this Phase II will be completed analyzing the implementation and use of LIMS following the completion of the 2012 construction season.

As mentioned previously, the greatest need for customization is reports. QA, project staff, and the contractors have all agreed that reports customized for Alaska would be beneficial. If we create our reports to be similar to our existing system, the transition to SiteManager for existing experienced construction staff will be simpler as well. Keeping familiar, statewide approved formats and forms will make the results standardized and acceptable. NR Construction plans to set up a customized reporting system though Microsoft Access, pulling information directly from the SiteManager database.

Customizations have already been made to expand the Daily Work Report remarks screen. The Sample Information screen has been modified to hide the fields that are not needed as part of Alaska’s practices. The feedback on this was positive as the Sample Information screen had overwhelmed many of the testers since several fields asked for information that is not part of the construction projects we administer. A proposed customization to the Diary screen is being reviewed by NR staff to determine if it should be implemented. This customization was created in Texas and the Texas staff offered to share their programming language with the other SiteManager licensees. SiteManager has been licensed to 26 other state agencies as well as a province in Canada. All of these agencies participate in an online environment and e‐mail list called Cloverleaf. Cloverleaf has been set up to provide a networking tool for all Trns•Port agencies. The kind of open sharing environment Cloverleaf provides contributes to the usefulness of licensing the SiteManager software.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Northern Region Construction has come to the conclusion that SiteManager should be implemented on all Northern Region highway and airport contracts. At this point, all new Northern Region highway contracts will be administered using SiteManager. Efforts to complete an airport highway master are already underway, and once that is complete, SiteManager will be used on all airport contracts as well. Due to the amount of work Northern Region has put into the setup of SiteManager, implementation in the other regions of Alaska would be relatively simple since basic practices are consistent across the regions.

NR Construction recommends SiteManager for adoption due to the following benefits this program brings:

Standardization across all construction contract records. All estimates, change orders, and filing systems would be organized in the same manner. Methods for approving samples would be standardized through LIMS.

Page | 11

Ease of training for new users. SiteManager gives a “big picture” view of construction administration, which is invaluable for staff new to the industry. Customized guides and manuals will walk staff through each step required of them in the program.

Electronic management of construction administration. Prior to SiteManager, all files were paper, creating as many as 10‐20 boxes of records per contract. Electronic management puts all of these records into a digital database, providing access to users no matter the user’s physical location.

A complete materials management system. Materials can be managed in SiteManager from creation of samples at the project level, test results in the regional lab, approval by appropriate authorities, and quality assurance review at close out.

Clear audit trails. SiteManager provides an audit trail, tracking payment of every pay item to the supporting DWR reporting the quantity to be paid on. Additionally, users can track payments of pay items by estimate, allowing a full picture of the audit trail from reporting to payment.

Simplicity of project close‐out at completion. The program finalizes payments as the project progresses, so close out is extremely simple once ready for finalization. Project staff does not have to spend weeks or months reviewing their records to check quantities.

Customizable ad‐hoc queries of the entire database. Perhaps the greatest benefit of SiteManager is the ability to create customized reports and queries. Any information recorded in the database is mineable, allowing the Department to track information in ways we have previously been unable to do: change orders by type, change orders by approval level, interim work authorization amounts, historical data materials test results, etc. In the paper method, all files are boxed up and put in a building; retrieval of data from archived projects involves digging up the files for every project involved and somehow compiling them into a useful form. SiteManager can be used to pull a customized “ad‐hoc” query of the database, automatically compiling information from multiple projects instantly.

Appendices

of 2 Appendix A

SiteManager Technological Overview for 2011 Travis Tynes‐Peissner

The summer 2011 rollout of SiteManager was a challenging but successful project. While we had the previous years’ experience as a general guide, there were still a lot of on‐the‐fly decisions to be made. Challenges included a new server setup, general user training, and troubleshooting application latencies. None of these was insurmountable though, and each provided valuable learning experiences.

The biggest initial hurdle for this season was the installation and configuration of a new production SiteManager server. Since this was to be the new production environment, we installed the latest SiteManager edition, 3.10, as well as migrated from a small Oracle Database server over to the full Oracle server farm. This task took a full day and had many small issues but nothing catastrophic.

The real challenge in the server setup was installing SiteManager in the Citrix farm. The SiteManager client by design is a stand‐alone application and expects for only one instance of the program to run at a time. Citrix by its very nature is multiple instances running concurrently, so this was a tricky challenge. Thankfully, we were able to communicate with some of the other SiteManager DOT users on the cloverleaf site, and they gladly shared the scripts they’d used for this same task. This helped immensely, as from there it was a matter of reverse engineering those tools and adapting them for our use.

Following the server setup, the next challenge was simply getting client users comfortable with the Citrix install of SiteManager. It was very strange for them to use a program “locally” but in reality it was being run on a server in Juneau. This also caused some unforeseen trickiness in day‐to‐day SiteManager use. For instance, if a user wished to perform attachments, they’d naturally try to access their “local” machine. However, the “local” machine was actually the server in Juneau. As a work around, I pushed an accessible FTP site in Citrix interface.

The last major issue was dealing with various latencies in SiteManager. There are still a number of the “Full Local Installs” floating around on machines and while client users could still run the application, it was really just too slow for use in the field. On the other hand, running in Citrix isn’t perfect either since it’s very much internet bandwidth dependent. The current State of Alaska system only allows access to SiteManager through VPN, so in remote locations their already limited bandwidth can be further restricted.

Beyond the server‐side/backend issues, SiteManager has also had an impact on client computer needs. From our own testing with typical day‐to‐day use, a minimum of a hyperthreaded and/or dual core Atom processor is required, with a dual core Core2Duo Pentium being ideal. This baseline assumes you’re running the Microsoft Office 2007 suite with full antivirus protection. Prior to SiteManager, many of our seasonal employees could get by on the older single‐core Pentium and Pentium M machines crunching basic excel spreadsheets; these machines are now being retired. Northern Region

of 2 Appendix A

Construction has definitely had to move to a more aggressive computer replacement plan, at least in the short term, to meet SiteManager’s needs.

The additional requirements for SiteManager go beyond the client computers themselves. SiteManager needs a solid, low latency connection to the internet in order to run well. Because Alaska is such a large and sprawled out state, having a fast and local internet provider may not be an option. This forces the use of satellite connections which tend to be expensive and have latency issues. At least right now, there’s no real way to work around it.

Going forward, the next task is to get SiteManager approved and accessible through the State of Alaska’s web portal. Since the current setup requires you have a VPN to access SiteManager from outside network, this adds a lot of needless overhead to the connection. Removing the VPN requirement will reduce latency, the complexity of the setup, and improve the overall use of the program. To do this, we are going to coordinate with the State Security office to get the application approved.

STEESE HIGHWAY MP 62‐81 SURFACE TREATMENT SITE MANAGER REVIEW

John Pfeffer, Project Engineer

AKDOT & PF

Page 1 of 7 Appendix B

SiteManager contract administration software was evaluated on the Steese Highway MP 62 – 81 Surface Treatment project during the 2011 construction season. The work on this project included placing an asphalt treated base and a top lift of asphalt concrete, guardrail, signing and drainage improvements. The total cost of this project is approximately $21,000,000.00. This project was bid to be completed in one season and was very aggressively scheduled to meet this goal.

We were provided with an “off the shelf” version of SiteManager that did not include any customizing to our business rules. During the construction season the system administrator worked with the project staff to provide some customizing so we could work more efficiently. The software was fairly user friendly for the inspectors and the documentation entered by the inspectors seemed to be more accurate and complete. The software made the inspector’s more accountable for their work. As the season progressed the project staff became more comfortable with this new system, the inspectors used to working in a digital environment seemed to learn more quickly. The Office Engineering position carries the largest work load with SiteManager. Duties included maintaining the paperless filing system in SiteManager and generating progress estimates. On a project of this size I would suggest the Office Engineer have at least one or two office techs to assist the Office Engineer in their duties.

This project had a day and night shift working and a total of 12 to 14 staff members for the Department, we found that it still takes quite a bit of coordination by the inspection team to make sure all work is documented and care is taken not to “double up” on SiteManager item entries. We also had to remind the inspectors that if they have a paper with quantity calculations for payment, the sheets need to be checked and signed off as checked before scanning and attaching, this would be the only time they will be checked before payment.

The SiteManager software relies strongly on internet service and the Steese Highway project was in a remote location where internet access was provided through a satellite dish. Staff members were provided a VPN # that would enable access to the server in Juneau, which is behind the State of Alaska Firewall. During the first month of work on the project any additional staff members had to apply for a VPN # and it took 3 to 4 weeks to get the VPN #. The VPN # is required for access to SiteManager behind the Firewall. This was a significant delay because the additional staff members were inspecting the work but another staff member with a VPN # had to enter the information into SiteManager. By the end of the season this VPN # delay had been reduced to 1 or 2 weeks. The satellite internet system had very good upload and download speeds until we plugged in our VPN #, the speed slowed down considerably. This caused delays in viewing SiteManager DWR data, reports and in attaching scanned documents. We also found that you couldn’t print or access local network scans while using your VPN #. If SiteManager could be moved out from behind the Firewall remote projects could be administered as efficiently as a project in town with a DSL hard‐line.

The first few estimates were issued in both SiteManager and on the old paper estimate form. This was done because the Contractor was familiar with the old form and it had a recap and signature page. We discontinued providing them with the old form because SiteManager was the software we will

of 7 Appendix B

be using from here forward and it was taking too much time to produce two estimates that are reconciled to each other. The Contractors two main complaints about the SiteManager estimate is that it only shows the items that were paid on during the estimate period and there isn’t a stockpile breakdown sheet that shows the stockpiled material breakdown, SiteManager only shows a dollar amount, plus or minus, on the SiteManager recap sheet.

Writing change orders in SiteManager was pretty straight forward; a paper copy using the old form had to be completed first with signatures because there isn’t a signature page in SiteManager or a place for the Designer of Record to stamp. Entering the change order explanation was done easily by copying and pasting the text from the old change order form. There seems to be an issue with some characters when copying and pasting, it seems that SiteManager changes some characters during this type of operation. We also had an issue when deleting an item by change order in SiteManager, to delete an item change the quantity to zero; this would still allow the inspectors to charge work to this item unless you also checked the “Final Quantity” box. By checking the “Final Quantity” box it will lock down that item and it can’t be charged to. Because some of our main item descriptions are the same but with different line item numbers the supplemental description becomes very important, this importance should be reinforced in the quick start guides that are being compiled.

We began the 2011 season with the inspector’s computers set up with a “stand alone” module so they could be working in the field on SiteManager then “pipeline” the data to the server at the end of the shift. We found that it was just as efficient to take notes and at the end if the shifts connect with the server and complete the DWR for the day. We found that with the satellite internet coupled with the issues stemming from the use of the VPN system made it slower to “pipeline” data especially if there are multiple users on SiteManager.

In summarizing the projects experience with SiteManager, I would recommend utilizing this software in the future for all Highway projects. There will be a learning curve as the software gets customized to our way of doing business. I believe a big advantage to using SiteManager is that once the field work is completed the closeout process will be shorter because the project is basically closing items of work out during the construction season because any discrepancies that appear will be reconciled prior to processing the estimate. Another advantage is that the project records are available to all that have viewing rights making staff members accountable for the documentation in their DWR’s. The viewing of authorized DWR’s at a project level is an excellent way to communicate what work is being done to the office staff, Project Engineer and other inspectors. The materials module was utilized on this project and worked well. The materials part of SiteManager also needs some customizing but the project materials staff working with the system administrator didn’t have much of a problem making it work.

As my Office Engineer informed me, “SiteManager is never wrong, if there is a mistake it’s always operator error.” Unfortunately she was right every time

DALTON HIGHWAY 274‐289 REHABILITATION SITE MANAGER REVIEW

Dan Adamczak, P.E., Project Engineer

AKDOT & PF


Site manager is a tool that, in my opinion, has helped record keeping and document tracking immensely. In my experience with tracking paper documents, notably the pieces of paper that are to be regarded as source documents I found there to be a lot of room for human error. This error could be from recording the wrong data, compiling the data wrong, recording the data in various places, and/or any combination of these.

Site manager is a great help but it has its limitations, it still requires the user to enter information and automatically assumes the information is correct. As with paper files recording the data incorrectly into a DWR can still be a problem. The advantage I see with the Site Manager program is that as soon as it is entered anyone with an association to that project is able to see the data entered and review it for accuracy and completeness. With paper data, although possible, it was not practicable for instance to have the office engineer, project engineer or another technician track down and review the culvert book daily or be able to always compile real time data. The ability for site manger DWRs to be able to be reviewed and compiled on a daily basis by anyone with access to an account meant that if data was entered incorrectly or an apparent issue was arising it was easy to identify and the office was able to check data for errors much easier.

Even if the data had been documented correctly in the paper filing system it was usually then up to a person on the project to compile and tabulate totals for a particular item. “Comp” sheets were frequently used to compile data from source documents to give a total for pay estimate purposes. This method of accounting allowed for errors as the data was transferred to a ”comp” sheet or excel file due to misreading because of poor handwriting, or just lapses in focus. The compiled data then left open the possibility for incorrectly summing the data via typing mistakes into a calculator or other causes. The Site Manger program eliminates either of these two common missteps by compiling the data automatically from information on a person’s (approved) DWR. The calculation and compiling is no longer a task that could introduce error in to the system.

With paper file systems, in an effort to make sure that source documents were kept up to date and complete we generated multiple places to recorded multiple items, i.e. culvert books, IDR, sign books, and computation sheets. This assortment of different source documents meant that for each estimate all source documents need to be gathered, checked, compiled, checked, and then entered. Site manager allows for these steps to largely be eliminated. The items can be checked on a daily basis very easily and DWR’s are the sole source documents which eliminates trying to hunt down culvert books that have been lost under an inspectors truck seat or given to night shift never to be seen again.

The greatest benefits I saw to site manger was the direct ability for field inspectors to communicate what was being done in the field to the office engineer on a daily basis and for all parties involved to be able to see where different parts of the project were at. The transparency in information allows for better oversight and quicker more thorough record review without the logistical problems of moving actual files and records back and forth from the field to the field office or even to offices in town.

DALTON HIGHWAY 274‐289 REHABILITATION SITE MANAGER REVIEW

Ethan Graetz, Office Engineer

AKDOT & PF


Using SiteManager on the Dalton Highway MP274‐289 Rehabilitation project has proven relatively easy and helpful in performing office engineering functions. Having little experience in the traditional paper filing method it has been fairly easy to conform the old paper filing system, as I understood it, to the new paperless SiteManager method because I am not accustomed to placing a paper file into a particular folder or binder. Once a person sees how the paper versions translate over to the electronic filing system the transition is made simpler. For instance hand written Inspector Daily Reports (IDRs) are the same as Daily Work Reports (DWRs). I did find it useful to know the old paper filing system because it is something tangible and I could see the filing structure but once I knew how the paper system was setup I was able to find the SiteManager counterpart.

While generating pay estimates I found the material discrepancies helpful in keeping track of what had been performed, what had not, and what had been received but not appropriately documented. SiteManager in contrast to the traditional filing method required someone to sort through material binders for what tests have and have not been performed whereas SiteManager can generate a process list in a short amount of time that summarizes the project material and document components. There are changes that need to occur to make the materials summary data generated by the ‘process list’ more user friendly but it is there and can be utilized in its current form.

Line item adjustments are easy to make, however, it would be handy to be able to save an iteration of adjustments made for a pay estimate to be able to apply the same adjustments to future pay estimates. Change orders are also easy to create within SiteManager and seem to only need formatting of reports to make them conform to DOT Northern Region standards.

The feeling by our inspectors on SiteManager are at first it felt overwhelming but within a short amount of time (approximately one week) all were proficient with its use and function. Inspectors are mostly limited to using DWRs or material sample creating and record keeping. Learning these functions for our project was not needed all at the same time so there was focused effort on one at a time as it was needed. There is an increase in time spent documenting the day’s activities but that is far outweighed by how quickly cost estimates can be generated by not having to track down source documents from inspectors because the DWR is a source document now. As the office engineer, I was able to generate a few pay estimates the day after the end of the pay period thereby getting it to the contractor in an expeditious manner.

Upon arriving back at the office there has been little follow‐up work to do for SiteManager. While generating the pay estimates discrepancy reports generated by the program helps keep everything in line so long as the office engineer, inspectors and project engineer are diligent with their respective data entries..

NR BRIDGE REHAB‐NENANA RIVER AT REX & NORTH FORK 12 MILE CREEK SITE MANAGER REVIEW

Andrew Schultz, Project Engineer

AKDOT & PF


The intent of this report is to document the experiences using AASHTO Site Manager Software on the Northern Region Bridge Rehabilitation – Nenana River at Rex and North Fork Twelve Mile Creek Project (Project No. BH‐000S(739)/63739).

Overall, the use of Site Manager improved the efficiency of project documentation efforts. The ability to type narratives, filing electronic documents, and run scripts to calculate payments reduced the time spent on these tasks which increased time for other activities. The areas that still need improvement are mainly technical: templates for DWRs, network equipment and access, and output formats.

The ability to type and electronically edit narratives greatly increases the quantity of information recorded and can be edited without strikethroughs and other editing marks on the final product. We generally typed the narratives in a word processor prior to pasting into the narrative fields in Site Manager. This reduced the amount of data sent over the network and increased responsiveness of the system. Editing and spell checking functions of a word processor are also much more advanced that the embedded functions in Site Manager.

The ability to handle electronic documents was also an improvement over the current paper documentations. Our field office was in a remote area, and transmitting paper documents through physical mail was time consuming and costly. A member of the crew would have to drive for several hours to collect the mail to check for time sensitive submittals. With the use of Site Manager and electronic documents, submittals were transmitted electronically, and available wherever an internet connection could be established.

This was quite handy for the full size shop drawings (22” X 34”) and bridge plans. The field office did not have the capability to print such large formats. By maintaining an electronic version of these we could reference them at any time, transmit them to Bridge Design, and return reviewed documents to the Contractor in a very short time frame. We recommend pursuing developing Department wide electronic submittal transmission and archiving policy to further complement these capabilities.

The ability of Site Manager to calculate and produce pay estimates was an efficiency with great potential. Human error is reduced to the recording of quantities (i.e. if the quantity is recorded in the DWR correctly, then the rest of the process of turning that quantity into a payment is automated and generally without human error). Albeit the process of producing an estimate still requires diligent effort to check and verify quantities and other entries (item adjustments, etc.), the time and money is spent in a more meaningful way (i.e. we are not checking Excel formulas and filing paper, but rather verifying the actual human input is correct and letting Site Manager run calculations, check testing frequencies, etc.).

The current DWR template can be modified to require specific pieces of information that are pertinent to the work being performed. This triggers inspectors to make the necessary measurements/ observations to aid in proper documentation. Following this, using the templates to create reports that

of 7 Appendix B

mimic our current field books (i.e. culvert book, sign book, etc.) will put the information recorded in one place in an easy to read format to aid in verifying correct documentation and payment.

The Site Manager system of documentation relies heavily on the use of an internet connection to the central server. This connection can be slow at remote sites with a satellite internet connection. By specifying a faster/more robust satellite connection and moving the server outside the firewall will increase the connection speed, and therefore the efficiency of the whole system.

The formats of the reports from Site Manager this summer were in a “raw” form. This led to many questions and comments from the contractor we were working with. This also made understanding the reports we utilized internally a challenge. To make the reports more understandable, we would import them into Excel and format them with lines and shading and add additional information to aid in reading. This can be done automatically by adding scripts to the program, such that the output is formatted for reading by everyone from inspectors to contractors. We recommend continuing those efforts that have already begun to customize estimates and reports. The estimates need to show all items of work on the project even if they are not paid for on that particular estimate.

In summary, the Site Manager system exhibited enormous potential for use in documentation of project records and expedited contractor payment. The system as a whole seem a bit “raw”, but this is due to this being the first year of widespread use on projects. The following are some specific recommendations from our experience:

Speed of the network connection needs to improve

Faster connection specifications

Move the server outside of firewall

Templates

Add templates for data entry for items that have typically been recorded in a field book

Estimate format showing all items on the project

Reports that mimic completed field books to put information in one place

Pursue Department wide electronic submittal transmittal/review procedure

Emailing submittals saves time and money and does not require expensive printers and scanners at all project offices

Electronic signatures are an accepted method of certifying documents in many industries and within Site Manager

Archiving is more simple and effective with electronic documents

of 7 Appendix B

Backup can be stored off‐site in case of fire

Searching for recovery is faster/more accurate

Thank you for the opportunity to use the system, and make recommendations,

NR Bridge Rehab Team

From: Sweeney, James J (DOT)To: Elmes, Jaclyn S (DOT); Ganley, Francis (DOT)Subject: FW: Site Manager StatewideDate: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:06:10 PMAttachments: CR combined comments 2011.xlsx

FYI.

From: Stokes, Therese M (DOT) Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:12 PMTo: Sweeney, James J (DOT)Subject: FW: Site Manager Statewide Jim, Here are Central Region combined comments. Therese _________________________________________________________________Therese Stokes, PE | Quality Assurance Engineer | State of Alaska DOT/PF | Central Region Construction4111 Aviation Ave; Anchorage, AK 99502 | 907.269.0436 | 907.269.0435 | [email protected]

From: Stokes, Therese M (DOT) Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:20 PMTo: Campbell, Robert A (DOT); Rice, Kasandra K (DOT)Cc: Croghan, Tim (DOT); Dougherty, Thomas J (DOT); Desentis, Eric (DOT); Warrick, Ruth A (DOT); Holland, LaurieA (DOT)Subject: Site Manager Statewide

At the invitation of Northern Region and T2, Central Region Construction employeesrecently observed a demonstration of SiteManager, the construction administrationmodule of AASHTOWare Trns*port. Central Region observer comments are attached. Northern Region and T2 evaluated SiteManager as an experimental feature using a 180day free product evaluation copy, with Service Units purchased using projectconstruction engineering funds (with FHWA approval) for training and implementation.T2 provided loaner laptops and funding for travel for Southeast and Central Regionpersonnel for site visits in 2010 and 2011. SE did not attend the 2011 site visit. Subsequent to the free evaluation period, SiteManager has an annual licensing fee of$195,000. Northern Region used project construction engineering funds (with FHWAapproval) to obtain the annual license for use on two projects in the 2011 season. NR ispromoting adoption of SiteManager as a statewide standard, with the 3 regions sharingthe cost of the annual licensing. T2 has suggested that Central Region use SiteManageras an experimental feature on a Central Region project under the license purchased byNorthern Region.

jselmesTypewritten Text

jselmesTypewritten TextAppendix C

Trns*port SiteManager is one of 14 software modules designed for preconstruction andconstruction management. Currently 24 states and 1 Canadian province useSiteManager.

SoftwareType Modules Function

AnnualLicense Fee

Client/Server Trns port BAMS/DSS Data Warehouse & Decision Support System $65,000" Trns port CES Cost Estimation System $50,000" Trns port PES/LAS Proposal & Estimates System $50,000" / Letting & Award System " Trns port PES Worksheet Proposal & Estimates Worksheet $8,250" Trns port CAS Construction Admin System $50,000" Trns port Expedite Electronic Bidding System $16,500" Trns port SiteManager Construction Management System $195,000" Trns port SiteXchange Contractor Data Transfer $16,500

Web-Based Trns port Preconstruction Proposal, Estimates, Letting & Award System $40,000" Trns port CRLMS Civil Rights & Labor Management System $40,000

Trns port Site License Includes all of the above modules $400,000Source: AASHTOWare FY 2012 Catalog

Northern Region is transitioning to SiteManager from preparing pay estimates usingExcel spreadsheets, so it is a big improvement for them. Central Region uses stand-alone, Windows compatible, project records management software that is the CentralRegion standard. It is available for use in the other Regions, at no charge. Essentially,SiteManager addresses a problem that doesn’t currently exist in Central Region. Central Region Construction recognizes that SiteManager is a good program, and a goodapplication for Northern Region. SiteManager has potential as a statewide centraldatabase for project information, although it is not currently compatible with the State’smanagement reporting system (MRS) which would result in some redundant data entry. SiteManager would not decrease the time required to process a change order. The timeconsuming preparation of the backup documentation would still be required. There ispotential to speed up interim and final reviews, and the materials certification portion ofthe closeout process. SiteManager is scheduled to become a web-based program within the next few years,and currently their development funds are going toward this goal. (This also meanslimited customer service for upgrades to the current version, per the AASHTOWareTrns*port catalog.) Using the current client/server software, upload speed to the serverwas an issue for Northern Region. They reported increased speed using Citrix for remote


access application, but updates were still slower than desirable on remote projects.With current connectivity limitations on some projects, a web-based application mightprovide better performance in Alaska. The annual licensing fees for the web-basedapplications are anticipated be the same as those for the client/server applications. If SiteManager is adopted statewide, it should be funded out of ICAP, as are CAD licensesfor Design. Without additional funding, it would not be possible for Central Region toconvert to SiteManager. Central Region does not have existing ICAP funds for the costof the annual software licensing fee; the necessary computer upgrades required to runthe program; or personal services funding for staff training. While SiteManager provides an effective solution for Northern Region, Central Regioncannot participate in the cost for a statewide license at this time. That said, CentralRegion is open to using SiteManager on an experimental project if technical support andfunding for the license, training, and hardware were provided. Therese _________________________________________________________________Therese Stokes, PE | Quality Assurance Engineer | State of Alaska DOT/PF | Central Region Construction4111 Aviation Ave; Anchorage, AK 99502 | 907.269.0436 | 907.269.0435 | [email protected]


TOPIC PRO/CON COMMENT POSITION1 1 Civil Rts/Payroll PRO

A lot of potential for the Civil Rights and Payroll module that is being developed. GROUP CHIEF2 2 Data Entry PRO Regarding "training" field inspectors and materials techs to be more accountable for quantifying items and such: I don't think it impossible;

however it would be a BIG change for them. I also think that it would put the Engineer in a more accountable position since he would be authorizing and more closely overseeing the entire program and all items therein. In my opinion that would be a good and helpful thing, but depending on the person, I'm not so sure they would agree. OFFICE ENGR

3 3 Data Mining PRO The data‐mining benefits could, in years to come, satisfy some of the statistical recording required by our Construction Managers and Statewide and Regional Materials Engineers for proper long‐term infra‐structure planning. MATLS ROVER

4 4 Data Mining PRO I am all for change if it improves efficiency. But, the biggest plus I see is the data mining feature. OFFICE ENGR5 5 Data Mining PRO It makes a lot of sense to have a database management system that all projects are using. There is a lot of info that could be tracked and mined if it was all

kept in a system that made it retrievable. GROUP CHIEF6 6 IDR/DWR PRO I can see the benefit as far as the daily reports being “better”. It is easy to either make a mistake or leave out specific information in a hand‐written or even a

typed report. This system would help reduce those things since it requires that most of the information be included and be correct before it will accept the report. PROJECT ENGR

7 7 Materials PRO Real‐time monitoring of paperwork being produced in field labs could be of use to the Materials Rovers in staying current with testing frequencies andmonitoring proper completion of materials forms and submittals. MATLS ROVER

8 8 NR Break‐in PRO Northern Region has done a lot to get things going and we would benefit a lot from that, both from the system setup standpoint and from the support we couldget from them if/when needed. We could also coordinate training and modifications to the program. Some modifications would have to be region‐specific, but others could be statewide, so nothing too new compared to what we do now. PROJECT ENGR

9 9 Overall PRO The SiteManager program offers possible efficiencies and benefits over our current record keeping system. MATLS ROVER10 10 Overall PRO I realize that there should be some adjustments to the programs to suit our needs but in general, not SiteManager in particular, we are heading a right

direction. PROJECT ENGR11 11 Overall PRO I like the overall idea and concept. This is something I have been encouraging for years. We actually started asking about a program like this back when we

were working on the Soldotna Urban, Kenai River Bridge project. PROJECT ENGR12 12 Overall PRO

I was much more impressed with this presentation than the one we saw here in Anchorage last year. The improvements made to weed out “additional” information and capabilities that are not applicable at this time in Alaska made it easier to see the potential benefits to the program. PROJECT MGR

13 13 Overall PRO It looks like a good tool for gathering and organizing information for Project & Office Engineers, potentially Materials (with the new module), and most beneficial for QA Review. I would be willing to give Site Manager a try. PROJECT MGR

14 14 PE/OE Roles PRO One larger benefit I could see would be that the project engineer could do both the PE and Office Engineer jobs for smaller projects since the program handles alot of the tedious records upkeep tasks. Larger jobs would still require an office engineer to make sure everything is plugged in properly and the general office upkeep, but it would simplify that as well. PROJECT ENGR

15 15 QA PRO Both interim reviews and closeouts could benefit from the record centralization and linking aspects of the system. MATLS ROVER16 16 Volunteer PRO Overall, I would love to give it a try for a smaller scale project. PROJECT ENGR17 17 Volunteer PRO Overall, I think this is a good program and am glad we are looking at it for the future. If the Department is interested in a “test case”, I would be willing to be a

guinea pig and would volunteer Chong to be another. I think we both have enough computer knowledge to be able to work with a new system like this. I think we need to decide if we are going to go full on with this or wait it out. PROJECT ENGR

18 1 Combined PJs CON

According to Jaclyn and Jim, none of the projects in NR using Site Manager are funded with multiple sources (including RSA) nor are they “Combined” Contracts – where two or more projects are combined into a single contract and maintain separate aksas numbers. Not all of these kind of projects lend themselves to a percentage calculation and a change order could really complicate input/output of information. Maybe it’s possible with the program, but difficult to envision. PROJECT MGR

19 2 Compatibility CON Since it doesn’t appear to link to funding and budget tools we currently use, I would have to ask the same question Tom posed of “How is it going to make myjob easier?” PROJECT MGR

20 3 Compatibility CON It would be better if MRS and SiteManager were interlinked. GROUP CHIEF21 4 Customization CON Not yet tailored to our needs PROJECT ENGR22 5 Customization CON Utilizing Special inspection/reports and forms such as Paving Inspectors Daily, FA work, Accident Reports… etc PROJECT ENGR

Appendix C

23 6 Customization CON Site‐Manager is very similar to Estimax which also generates estimates with ease and gives a very clear audit trail. One thing Estimax does that Site Manager doesn't is print out an all encompassing estimate verses only the items that have had work in that pay period. With Estimax changing and editing is a much easier process, and a big apprehension to me would be regarding the significant figure issue. In Site‐Manager, if all the inspectors input quantities and do not have the significant figure comped and paid correctly, then one has to go through the multi‐level process of reauthorizing and editing existing info to correct that item. I imagine that would be more often than not as it is not an easy concept to grasp and is ever‐changing depending on the item. OFFICE ENGR

24 7 Customization CON I can see where there might be the need for a Statewide User Group to make consistent decisions on Customizations. We will be wanting a lot of customizations and therefore we should not let everyone do their own thing. This however makes customizations take forever and they will be only as good as the compromise that is reached. GROUP CHIEF

25 8 Data Entry CON Because of the kinks, they were throwing around the idea of having a central person at their District office in the position of uploading all data for all field projects but thought the error in that would be that the person designated for that job might not be proficient in all the various items and would therefore not be usueful for catching errors, double payment, etc. OFFICE ENGR

26 9 IDR/DWR CON It still irks me that the daily report had to be called a Daily Work Report (conforms to Tr*nsport ways) instead of being presented to the ADOT as the Inspector’s Daily Report. Where is the client service? Since Alaska is potentially getting in SiteManager so late – I worry about how much client support will be forthcoming from Gainesville. GROUP CHIEF

27 10 Implementation CON As far as the Estimate, I say if "it ain't broke, don't fix it". Although, I do think that we would benefit all around if we had some sort of standardization regarding estimate methods and perhaps we should have everyone using the same program. The materials section of Site‐Manager might be a benefit but cost of all new equipment, etc. and redundancy of input seems laborious. OFFICE ENGR

28 11 IT Support CON I have concern about all project records being kept on a computer; either locally or in Juneau. It seems much easier to accidentally lose or destroy a computer’ssoftware or hardware and potentially lose large amounts of data. MATLS ROVER

29 12 IT Support CON In order to take full advantage of this program without increasing the workload for our field inspectors and technicians, a large commitment to portable computing devices and laboratory equipment capable of directly reporting to SiteManager would eventually need to be made. MATLS ROVER

30 13 IT Support CON One tough aspect of the whole thing will be the IT support and hardware. We currently do not have nearly the IT support necessary to handle something likethis. The group we have are good, but they are busy just doing the general system upkeep. As far as hardware, I think it is clear that everyone needs a computer of some kind, and it would be most beneficial if they were all laptops or tablets (assuming the program becomes “tablet friendly”). This will take a significant capital investment. PROJECT ENGR

31 14 IT Support CON CR would need IT help GROUP CHIEF32 15 IT Support CON CR would need IT help GROUP CHIEF33 16 IT Support CON CR would need IT help GROUP CHIEF34 17 IT Support CON CR would need IT help GROUP CHIEF35 18 IT Support CON CR would need IT help GROUP CHIEF36 19 IT Support CON CR would need IT help GROUP CHIEF37 20 IT Support CON CR would need IT help GROUP CHIEF38 21 Materials CON The program still seems unproven in it’s materials testing, recording and sorting aspects. Several ‘work‐arounds’ were described to me by NR personnel

currently using this software, and it seems to me that we wouldn’t want to spend a large quantity of time and money adopting a system that wasn’t more better suited to our needs. MATLS ROVER

39 22 Mat'ls Data CON

The data he (Materials Tech) was inputting was the information from the already hand‐done field worksheet, which seems redundant, a waste of time (other than data gathering) and leaves room for error. He did tell us that it works better to have the field guys do the "offline" mode and then bring their info to the office later and leave it uploading overnight ‐‐ which is the system the inspectors have adopted. OFFICE ENGR

40 23 Overall CON

My opinion is the current form of SiteManager has about played out and it would be prudent to wait for the Web Based version that is coming in the future. GROUP CHIEF41 24 Pay Estimates CON I use the Pay Estimate (that includes all Contract Items in every Estimate, active or not) as a tool to quickly review where we’re at as far as under‐runs/over‐

runs. Though a Pay Estimate that only includes active Items will get the bill paid, as an overview I see every two weeks for projects, it wouldn’t be useful for much else. I believe John mentioned that it was (at least initially) a concern of the contractor, also. It seems there should be a way to include all contract items on the Estimate. PROJECT MGR

42 25 Resources CON He also elabaorated on the possibility of customizing the different branches of programs to improve the usefulness for the department. He was told that it would take more money and programmers. Also that there has been some grumbling about the program but the general response was that, "well we spent the money and we have it so we are going to work it out." OFFICE ENGR

43 26 Speed CON Extra hours needed to fill out and upload to the central system PROJECT ENGRAppendix C

44 27 Speed CON

They definitely need to find a way to access this without a VPN account. I know from experience that any lag with imputing daily reports after a long shift in thefield will really be a mental drain on inspectors. We have a hard enough time getting people to turn in reports daily instead of waiting for a slack time later in the week, we don’t need issues with slow internet connections or having to break people into “shifts” of when they can do their reports adding to it. PROJECT ENGR

45 28 Speed CON Upon talking to the field guys, the materials guy in particular, we heard more about the kinks that need to be worked out. A big issue was the slowness of the system because it had to go through the VPN technology. We were told that it improved "somewhat" since they went to that CITRIX server. However, upon demonstration, he basically told us that he does a lot of sitting and waiting while trying to input data ‐‐ 25 minutes at a time in in between documents. OFFICE ENGR

46 29 Training CON

Training was described as taking anywhere between 1 to 6 weeks by the manufacturer and Northern Region users. Initial training will be difficult, due to the fact that most Central Region personnel that would be using this program get called back to work for their season as their projects become active. MATLS ROVER

47 30 Training CON Need basic database and Access training. PROJECT ENGR48 31 Training CON There is a lot of up‐front costs and time commitments that are necessary for this for training and setup. PROJECT ENGR49 1 Close Outs NEUTRAL Tom mentioned that his goal would be "show me where it would help me get my jobs closed‐out faster." Through my experience of closing out

jobs, I would say, let the Office Engineer and/or Engineer that do a project, close it out. Seems to be that when you KNOW that other people will finish your work, the ones that lean toward lackadaisical record keeping have no incentive to improve. OFFICE ENGR

50 2 Close Outs NEUTRAL I am not sure that T2 and NR started with the Question of – How will this help me to accomplish my mission? As a Group Chief I don’t yet see how it will get projects closed out sooner. GROUP CHIEF

51 3 Comparison NEUTRAL It seems to me that the Northern region really likes Site‐Manager for the ease of its estimate generating feature. The people I spoke with in the District office and out in the field greatly elaborated on how much easier it was than the old excel estimate type program. However, none of those people had ever used Estimax. OFFICE ENGR

52 4 Data Entry NEUTRAL I would, if I am using the program, limit the raw input of the inspectors. PROJECT ENGR53 5 Data Entry NEUTRAL Each pay units should still be entered, after calculations and quantities are checked, by the office engineers for the payments PROJECT ENGR54 6 Data Mining NEUTRAL Listening to the presentation on Site‐Manager, the program sounds like it will give us the "data mining" feature which I agree with you as being a

great asset. However, at the District office I think things run a bit smoother than in the field. OFFICE ENGR55 7 FHWA NEUTRAL I am surprised about the push I received from FHWA folks on using SiteManager GROUP CHIEF56 8 IDR/DWR NEUTRAL

I don’t subscribe to the feeling that SiteManager DWR (IDR’s) are better than hand written ones. I will concede that they probably look better. Most forms that are filled by cut and paste and pull down menus will probably start looking very repetitious. This is a human problem and not a system problem. GROUP CHIEF

57 9 Implementation NEUTRAL SiteManager would be most beneficial if all projects were managed with it and not a small population or just one Region. It should be used no matter what thefunding source is. GROUP CHIEF

58 10 Implementation NEUTRAL I would like a better feeling of support from HQ on this issue. Right now it appears that there is a big wait and see what CR thinks. We are probably doing the same thing with them. GROUP CHIEF

59 11 Implementation NEUTRAL This is definitely and all or nothing system. I don’t think there is a lot of value if we only step in half‐way. One of the big advantages of a system like this is thedata mining and that is useless if you don’t have all the data included. I don’t think that we necessarily want to jump in with every project right away, but don’t want to wait too long to make the switch if we decide to go. PROJECT ENGR

60 12 Materials NEUTRAL

Is the system customizable and secure enough for use by multiple levels of technicians working on multiple large projects out of the same lab? That is a large part of what we do in the CR, and I don’t know that the NR necessarily has had a chance to test this application in the way that the CR would use it. MATLS ROVER

61 13 Materials NEUTRAL SiteManager without the Materials Module makes no sense. GROUP CHIEF62 14 NR Break‐in NEUTRAL

I think letting them work on the prototype for another year or so, the kinks might be more worked out, and THEN we might give it a try! OFFICE ENGR63 15 NR Break‐in NEUTRAL I applaud NR for taking on this endeavor with the aid of T2. GROUP CHIEF64 16 Overall NEUTRAL The moving to SiteManager appears to be an expensive proposition that will not help the Contractors, or the project people to accomplish their mission. It has

a potential to be helpful to Project Managers, Group Chiefs and potentially the QA section. GROUP CHIEF65 17 Preconstruction NEUTRAL It would make even more sense to have preconstruction using the same system for project development, documentation and contract assembling. But, I can’t

see how it would help them accomplish their mission. GROUP CHIEF66 18 SWPPP/Edocs NEUTRAL No mention of linking the system to our SWPPP PROJECT ENGR67 19 Training NEUTRAL

I don’t think the training for construction personnel would be too intensive. The training for the dedicated Site Manager Coordinator would be. GROUP CHIEFAppendix C

Appendix D

November 9, 2011

Mr. Frank Ganley, Alaska DOT&PF Construction Manager, Northern Region 2301 Peger Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709-5334

Re: Alaska Northern Region Implementation of AASHTO SiteManager

Dear Mr. Ganley:

The SiteManager Implementation Project began with a number of constraints. Foremost of these was that it would be an implementation for only one region of DOT&PF. Also, the Construction data population would focus on a limited number of contracts. Additionally, the Materials data would be limited to the item materials in those contracts. Due to time constraints, the work would be restricted to 5 five-day workshops to accomplish the work and analysis. This would limit each topic, Construction or Materials, to two and a half days each. It was an audacious schedule and tasks projected for a time compressed period. The complete implementation would have to be accomplished by the beginning of the construction season in April 2011.

Due primarily to the leadership provided by the North Region’s management – Steve Titus, Lon Krol, and Frank Ganley, the project was able to over achieve its goals. Their example and leadership, Mr. Ganley literally participating in every workshop, encouraged and motivated the work ethic and empowerment of the workshop participants. Consequently, the Construction participants completed their tasks in less than 3 workshops. This allowed additional time to be dedicated to the data population intensive Materials component. This permitted the Materials participants to tackle data population and definition for more than the original constraint of just the Item Materials for the production contracts – a more complete and thorough scope of work was accomplished. Consequently, SiteManager was used on more contracts than originally planned. This was also due in no small measure to the energy and commitment of the workshop participants in the Northern Region of DOT&PF from the software system administrator to the Project Engineers, Inspectors, and Testers

Appendix D

Even with the constraints, it was an ambitious and aggressive implementation that came in ahead of schedule and under budget. With SiteManager in place within the Northern Region the next logical step would be to implement it in the Southeast and Central Regions.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Stan Silva Western Region Manager, Info Tech Inc.

13

Fall 2011

Trns•port SiteManager® software use in ‘The Last Frontier’by John Lee, Info Tech, Inc.

The Northern Region of the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) bega

Phase I Report for FHWA - Alaska...

Documents

Transcript of Phase I Report for FHWA - Alaska...