Bridge Design-Rating 2013 Administrative Overview Bridge Design-Rating User Group Meeting Virginia...
-
Upload
alexander-lee -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
4
Transcript of Bridge Design-Rating 2013 Administrative Overview Bridge Design-Rating User Group Meeting Virginia...
Bridge Design-Rating 2013
Administrative Overview
Bridge Design-Rating User Group Meeting
Virginia Beach, VA
Bridge Rating Licensees – FY2013
Manitoba, CanadaCountry
City/County/TerritoryPhoenix, AZ
Washington, D.C.Puerto Rico
Agency Licenses = 33 Licensee
Map KeyConsultant Licensees = 460 Non- Licensee
Bridge Design Licensees – FY2013
Agency Licenses = 21 Licensee
Map KeyConsultant Licensees = 20 Non- Licensee
Manitoba, CanadaCountry
FY2012 Expenditures
Task Force Meetings2%
VO BUG2%
AASHTO
Ad-min/Over-head8%
Maintenance, Support & Enhan-
cements75%
Ser-vice Unit Ser-vices1%
Pro-fes-
sional Ser-vices1%
Capi-taliza-tion5%
Wyoming BRASS License
6%
FY2013 Expenditures
Task Force Meetings3% VO BUG
2.5%
AASHTO
Ad-min/Over-head7.5%
Maintenance, Support & Enhan-
cements 79%
Ser-vice Unit Ser-vices1%
Professional Services2%
Capitalization5%
AASHTO Administration & Overhead◦ Staff salaries, benefits, and overhead◦ Contracted Project Manager◦ Proportional share of SCOJD, T&AA and
indirect costs◦ Legal Services
Technical and Applications Architecture Task Force◦ Technical resource for SCOJD and product
task forces◦ Develop and maintain software standards
and perform QA Reviews
AASHTO Administrative Overhead
Incorporates “best practices”
Users share solutions and costs
License fees cover overall expenses ensure software products are kept current with technology and functional requirements
Each product is self-supporting
Non-profit operation
Management and oversight by agency (DOT) personnel
AASHTO staff project management/assistance
Why Use AASHTOWare?
AASHTOWare Program Management
AASHTOBoard of Directors
Executive Committee
Special Committeeon
Joint Development
Technical and Applications Architecture Task Force
ProjectTask Forces
ProductTask Forces
TRTs and TAGs
Executive DirectorandStaff
TRTs, TAGsand
User Groups
Brand Identity
AASHTOWare Branding and Trademark Guidelines have been established to ensure the strength of our brand is maintained
Internal Communication – ◦ Task Force Meeting discussion◦ Task Force / Licensee Emails◦ SharePoint workspace folders and files◦ Internal presentations at Task Force and
User Group Meetings◦ User Group websites, etc.
Brand Identity External Communication –
communication to groups outside the AASHTOWare community, including other AASHTO committees, AASHTO member agencies and the public
◦ Presentations◦ Advertisements◦ Product Brochures◦ Product Newsletters◦ AASHTOWare Website, etc.
Brand Identity - Naming Full Name (External)
◦ AASHTOWare Bridge Design & RatingTM
Abbreviated Name (Internal only)◦ BrDR
Strictly speaking, a trademark should always be used as an adjective, never as a noun or verb; however, if the product name is used repeatedly, the full name should be presented every time, but the name may be used as a noun
Agencies can gain convenient access to services provided by the AASHTOWare contractor via service units.
AASHTO serves as facilitator by accepting the commitment for contractor-provided services, invoicing and receiving payment from the agency and forwarding the order to the contractor for the appropriate number of service units.
AASHTO makes payment for services rendered to the contractor following agency approval of the invoice.
Service units remaining at the conclusion of a fiscal year are carried forward into the next fiscal year.
AASHTOWare Service Units
Service units are intended to provide consultation and support to incorporate functional enhancements or to assist the licensee in the implementation of AASHTOWare products.
AASHTOWare Service Units
Service Unit work by the contractor may include the following types of activities:◦Adding new agency-specific features
to the system ◦Developing custom reports ◦Providing specialized training in the
use of AASHTOWare products◦Updating prior releases of product
databases
Service Unit – Example Activities
◦Supporting common software enhancements unfunded through product licensing fees that will become part of the code base and will be supported by Maintenance, Support and Enhancement (MSE) costs
◦Incorporating analytical or specification engines into AASHTOWare products
◦Funding software development projects / solicitations
Service Unit – Example Activities
The example activities outlined previously may require more than one Service Unit each, depending on the specific agency requirements.
Service Units may not be used to provide reimbursement for travel expenses by agency personnel.
Service Units should not be used for work involving major new software development by member agencies.
Service Units may be converted to provide additional enhancement funding under the guidance of the Task Force.
Use of Service Units
Service Units can be ordered in unit increments of $11,600 (this fee includes AASHTO administrative costs).
Service Units must be paid upon receipt of the invoice.
Each service unit provides $10,000 in routine contractor services.
Fee for Service Units
Service Units Use
86.2 the percentage of the Bridge Products Service Unit fee directly allocated to the software service provider
8.8 the percentage of the Bridge Products Service Unit fee used to offset AASHTO internal administrative costs staff salaries, benefits, and overhead contracted project manager proportional share of SCOJD, T&AA and indirect
costs legal services
5.0 the percentage of the Bridge Products Service Unit fee dedicated to support the Cooperative Development Capitalization Fund as required by governing policy approved by the Board of Directors covers risks associate with software
development provides seed money for new projects funds expenses associated with patenting and
third-party testing supports product branding / marketing initiatives
Service Unit ProcessPartnership between requesting
agency, Task Force and contractor.Task Force approval to ensure
contractor resources are available.Analyze opportunities for
collaboration between agencies and Task Force product work plans.
Survey ParticipationTwo survey instruments were published
◦AASHTO Member Agencies (State Agencies, Counties, Cities)
◦Consultants64 responses (48 in 2012)
◦41 member agencies - state (33 in 2012)◦ 2 member agencies - county◦ 1 member agencies - city◦20 consultants (15 in 2012)
6 agency sponsored license 13 special consultant option license 1 single workstation license
Software Used
Bridge Design
Bridge Rating
Both
Member Agency
0 22 23
Consultant 0 7 3
6.4 6.3 6.2
Member Agency
36 6 3
Consultant 19 0 1
Respondent Role
Yes No Not Sure
Member Agency
32 5 7
Consultant 17 0 3
Designated End User?
Active User of the Software?
Yes No
Member Agency
39 6
Consultant 18 2
Operation (Speed, Reliability)
9.4%
62.5%
15.6%
9.4%
3.1%Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately SatisfiedNeither satis-fied nor dis-satisfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Reports (Quality/Completeness)
6.3%
46.9%
28.1%
10.9%
7.8%Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Program Features/Capabilities
14.1%
64.1%
20.3%
1.6%
Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Analysis Provided
28.1%
56.3%
7.8%
4.7%1.6%Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Software Use Comments –Output / Reports
More customizable reports – ability to build a custom report for LRFR analysis
Additional output options and detailOutput in the format produced by the BRASS
engine – BRASS excelled at packaging the data into an easily accessible file
LRD Overall Summary Analysis Report page breaks to print all information for a particular member on the same page
Inclusion of figures/definitions in reportsDefault report that includes table of
contents to detailed information contained within
Software Use Comments (cont)
Improve speed of analysis - time measured in days and hours instead of minutesSignificant resources are required to rate some bridges – non-standard gauge trucks on continuous multi-span structure would not run (even with accuracy reduced to minimum)
Develop a module in BrR to support permitting
Ensure consistency of results between versions – inconsistent rating factors are encountered from version to version
Software Use Comments (cont)
‘Bridge Workspace’ is cumbersome to navigate and difficult to understand
A large amount of meaningless, trivial and/or minor ‘warnings’ are displayed during the save and analysis processes
Limited graphics (typical section, girder profile, etc.)
Recommend a complete redesign of the user interface, development of quality documentation and separation of the analysis program from the database.
Member Agency use of support from the contractor - 65%
Extremely satisfied
Moderately
satisfied
Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfi
ed
Moderately
dissatisfied
Extremely
dissatisfied
a) quality of the support provided
31.3% 46.9% 12.5% 9.4% 0.0%
b) contractor communication and follow-up
31.3% 43.8% 18.8% 6.3% 0.0%
c) effectiveness of contractor telephone & e-mail support
31.0% 44.8% 20.7% 3.4% 0.0%
d) knowledge of the contractor help desk staff
38.7% 48.4% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0%
e) overall quality of contractor problem resolution
36.7% 43.3% 16.7% 3.3% 0.0%
Contractor Support Comments
Interactions with the contractor have generally been positive
General help desk support has been satisfactory
Do not always receive an email when a problem is resolved or additional information is requested
Include option for telephone support, in addition to email contact
Some frustration with incidents being marked as enhancements – sometimes incident status changes are not received
Contractor Support Comments (continued)
Contractor is very good at resolving problems during beta testing; however, they are less responsive after the software is released to production
[from a beta tester] In some cases there is little or no communication on reported incidents – a more formal process is needed to ensure beta testers know when to follow up on issues and when to wait for resolution
Documentation Used
Inte
rnal
Hel
p
BrDR R
elea
se N
otes
Bridg
e St
artu
p Gui
de
BrDR U
sers
Man
ual
0
10
20
30
40
50 46
2329
25Internal HelpBrDR Release NotesBridge Startup GuideBrDR Users Manual
Documentation Usability
12.5%
51.6%
28.1%
3.1%3.1% Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Documentation Completeness
6.3%
56.3%
25.0%
7.8%3.1% Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Documentation Comments
The examples on the website are helpfulAdditional installation documentation is
neededManual is not user friendlyInternal help documents have missing itemsHave not received a user manual since
version 5.5.1 – must reply solely on internal help
Need detailed documentation on NSG & 3-D features
Why is access to documentation and help materials password protected?
Documentation Comments (cont)
Example Bridges AASHTOWare BrDR Users Manual should reference the support website link for tutorials/training
Website tutorials/training should be updated with each new version of the software
User Group training materials on the website should be posted separately rather than as one large ZIP file
Internal help contains important information that the user is unaware of unless they specifically review – need an alert system
Member Agency contact with Bridge Task Force
25.0%
52.3%
22.7% Extremely Sat-
isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Responsiveness of Bridge Task Force
22.7%
50.0%
27.3%
Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Task Force Improvement Suggestions
Bridge Task Force member contact information should be prominently displayed on the main web page
Establish a centralized discussion site to help each other rather than taking time from contractor production
Circulate Bridge Task Force meeting summaries via a listserve
Develop a newsletterSet aside space in the annual work plan for
agency service unit work with agency commitment established at the time the work plan is developed
Communication Between User Group and Bridge Task Force
20.5%
40.9%
36.4%
Extremely Sat-isfiedModerately Sat-isfiedNeither satis-fied nor dissat-isfiedModerately dissatisfiedExtremely dissatisfied
Task Force / User Group Improvement Suggestions
Provide Bridge Task Force Meeting Summaries to the User Group members in a more timely manner
Bridge Task Force and User Group officers are doing a great job
General Comments
Better Communication on long term plans for software – underfunded enhancements would be good candidates for service unit pooled funds between agencies
LRFD analysis of trusses would be a great addition
Online webinars would be very useful to allow users to take training without travel
The FAQ on Virtis/Opis Technical Support web site does not work – some input is repetitive, other input should be locked out when not required
General Comments (continued)
Error – ignoring positive moment calculations in continuous prestressed concrete girder bridges
BrR does not give good results for culverts with more than two cells
Runtime Error Tracking – points to a subroutine, would like it to provide information that is meaningful to the end user
Culvert rating module – corner reinforcement location is backwards
More effective technical supportYearly licensing process is too lengthy
Specific Questions Asked
Problem with inputting a new bridge – drag & drop a span in Superstructure Definition – locks up when trying to save it unless he saves, gets out, and opens it again