addressing the challenges and the return on investment for ...€¦ · project objectives •review...
TRANSCRIPT
Richard Duval
Jag MallelaSeptember 16, 2015
Addressing the Challenges and the Return
on Investment for Paperless Project
Delivery (e-Construction)
Project Objectives
• Review e-Construction practices nationwide
▫ Document successes, challenges, and opportunities
• From project advertisement to final project acceptance
▫ Includes central office, field offices and jobsite processes
• Product: Implementation guidance for e-Construction
▫ Identify common barriers and strategies to address them
▫ Document return on investment
2
Project Approach
3
4
Findings - Summary
Active national interest
Some agencies are holding off
5
Benefits/Cost avoidance
anticipated between $1M and
$22M
Dependent on scope
Key Findings (1 of 6)
• Project Delivery Steps▫ Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E)
▫ Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award
▫ Project Collaboration and Management
▫ Project Acceptance and Close-Out
• Return On Investment (ROI) Findings
• Planned Initiatives
• Implementation Challenges
• Lessons Learned
6
Key Findings (2 of 6)
Plans, Specifications and Estimates
• Plans commonly PDFs and 2D CAD files
• Electronic (e.g. Vtrans) or paper-markup (e.g. Michigan DOT) followed by scans
• Several agencies exploring the use of 3D models
• Others (e.g. Oregon DOT) using it for a long time
7
Key Findings (3 of 6)
Bidding and Contractor Selection/Contract Award• Most “paperless” of all processes
• Most common software: Bid Express and Expedite
8
Bid Express, 17
AASHTOWare Expedite, 6
Other, 1
Key Findings (4 of 6)
Project Collaboration and Management
• Major e-construction initiative
• Mobile devices, project management and collaboration software
• Driving forces:
• Easier access to real-time information
• More accurate data collection
9
Key Findings (5 of 6)
Project Collaboration and Management
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
AASHTOWare SiteManager
In-House DevelopedSystems/Databases
ProjectWise SharePoint Primavera 6
# o
f A
ge
nc
ies
Summary of Commonly Used Tools for Project Collaboration and Management
Key Findings (6 of 6)
Project Acceptance and Close-Out
• PDFs or CAD files
• 3D as-built models not in use at any agency surveyed
• System success example: VTrans
• Construction Contract Finals system
• Handles project close out activities/workflow
11
12
Return on Investment Summary
• Most agencies have not yet quantified Return On Investment (ROI); strong interest in using a standardized method
• Agencies that have quantified benefits/savings are looking for a more structured framework
• Notable agencies:*▫ Caltrans▫ North Carolina DOT▫ Oregon DOT▫ Texas DOT▫ Michigan DOT▫ Florida DOT
13
* Agencies for which we have obtained information through literature review and/or case studies
California
$11.25 billion program (0.04%)
Estimated cost avoidance of $5
million
Avoid illegibility problems/errors as well as physical bid submittal
Better management of
low-bid contractor selection
Caltrans feasibility report on highway construction bidding system
Estimated through internal
process
Monitor savings on pilot projects utilizing mobile technologies
Ongoing study, scheduled for completion in 2016
Next steps
14
North Carolina
$1.5 billion program (0.07%)
Estimated savings of $1
million
Less paper transmittal, no printed manuals, trips avoidance
iPad pilot project
Paper savings
Time savings
Estimated anticipated cost savings based on iPad pilot program
Estimated through pilot
program
Currently updating initial estimate to include additional savings (e.g. field personnel time, contract turnaround)
Next steps
15
Oregon
In process of measuring savings
Estimated categories of
savings
16
Reduced paper, printing, postage,
envelopes, etc.
Reduced building storage
space
Reduced travel to ship or transfer
documents
Reduced overnight
delivery, FedEx, UPS, etc.
Elimination of fax machines
Reduced number of copiers and
toner
Reduced labor Reduced carbon
footprint
A new multi-modal element
– digital highway
Remote FHWA reviews
Reduced paper/analysis
preparation
Lower risk of data loss
Ability to isolate sensitive files
Elimination of FTP site for file
transfer
Texas
$13.3 billion program (0.08%)
Estimated savings of $11
million
Less paperwork, faster and accurate reviews
Mobile inspection technology
A mobile pilot program was conducted as part of the Project Inspection using Mobile Technology research project in collaboration with MnDOTand WSDOT
Estimated through
research project
In process of further quantifying paper savings
Next steps17
Michigan
$1 billion program (1.2%)
Preliminary estimated savings
of $12 million
Plan to include efficiency savings in the future
Includes paper, printing and
mailing savings
$300,000 actual savings
Correlated from the Latson Road
pilot program
More structured feasibility analysis, building upon FHWA project guidance
Next Steps
18
Florida
$41.8 billion program (0.53%)
Estimated savings of $22
million
Less paper transmittal, less travel through use of online meeting tools (e.g. GoToMeeting)
Paper printing and job site
travel savings
Applied Michigan DOT’s method for calculating saving to its own work program
Estimated through peer
practice
Refine estimate to include savings from use of mobile devices, field personnel time, faster contract turnaround, etc.
Next steps
19
Preliminary ROI Framework (1 of 3)
Benefits (Qualitative)
• Streamlining of key processes (e.g., digital review, approvals, contractor payments, etc.) to reduce overall project and program schedule
• Reduced data entry
• More consistent and better quality data
• Increased transparency and reduced claims with audit trails
• More complete and competitive bid documents
• Standardized reporting
• Easier/better reporting on performance data
• Self-service options for contractors, reducing manual data entry
20
Preliminary ROI Framework (2 of 3)
21
Benefits (Quantitative)
• Reduced use of paper, printing, and mailing
• Collaborationo Increased collaboration through digital review processo Increased communication and issue resolution
• Productivity and process efficiencieso Reduced trips between the jobsite, field office, and central officeo Increased utilization of existing staffo Faster document access, distribution, submission, review, and approval
Preliminary ROI Framework (3 of 3)
22
Costs
• Pre-implementation consultant
• COTS Software Licenses:o Electronic As-Builtso Electronic Biddingo Project Collaboration Tools
o Project Construction Managemento Document Managemento Digital Signatureso Mobile Devices
• COTS Software Maintenance
• Systems Integration Services
• Managed Services Support
• Hardware and Other Technical Infrastructure
• Hardware and Infrastructure Maintenance
• Hardware Refresh
• Agency Staff Cost (During Project and to Support System Ongoing)
• Systems Integration Services for Upgrade
• Contractor Compliance
• Training
Planned Initiatives
CaliforniaPilot project for mobile devices
Connecticut , Michigan, West Virginia
GPS and digital modeling
MichiganElectronic contract award process
OhioPaperless inspection
North CarolinaDigital signature implementation
Oregon, VirginiaDocument management
systems/collaboration tools
MassachusettsEvaluation of options for full e-Construction implementation 24
Implementation Challenges
• Staff time for planning and implementation
• Buy-in from agency staff and upper management
• Determining how business processes could be translated to a paperless environment
• Statutory regulations surrounding digital signatures
• Security concerns for mobile devices and contractor access
25
Lessons Learned
• Training for staff ▫ Pre-implementation and ongoing
26
• Process review and improvements key for successful implementation/benefits realization
• Need buy-in from all levels of organization
• Peer exchange is a powerful tool▫ Avoid repeating mistakes
▫ FHWA projects/research can help avoid mistakes
• Phased implementation/start with manageable scope
Next Steps
• Identify benefits and prepare guidance on how to quantify them
• Prepare guidance for agencies to use template and update based on their unique requirements/situation
27
Thank you!
• Questions/Comments? Please contact:
28
Richard Duval
FHWA COTR
Jag Mallela
Principal in Charge
Keyur Shah
Project Manager
Doris Lee
Lead Analyst