Bridge Design-Rating 2013 Administrative Overview Bridge Design-Rating User Group Meeting Virginia Beach, VA

Bridge Rating Licensees – FY2013

Bridge Design Licensees – FY2013

FY2012 Bridge Design-Rating Revenue

FY2013 Bridge Design-Rating Revenue

FY2012 Expenditures

FY2013 Expenditures

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

5% of Revenues ◦ Governed and controlled by AASHTO Executive Committee ◦ Covers risks associate with software development ◦ Seed money for new projects ◦ Legal expenses associated with patenting and third- party testing ◦ National Transportation Marketing Campaign (Federal Transportation Bill) ◦ AASHTOWare Rebranding Effort AASHTOWare Capitalization

AASHTOWare Branding and TradeMark Guidelines

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 s ◦ 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 & Rating TM 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

AASHTOWare Service Units A Brief Overview

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 Process Partnership 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.

2013 Bridge Design-Rating Customer Satisfaction Survey Results Conducted June 25 – July 26, 2013

Survey Participation Two survey instruments were published ◦ AASHTO Member Agencies (State Agencies, Counties, Cities) ◦ Consultants 64 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 DesignBridge RatingBoth Member Agency02223 Consultant Member Agency3663 Consultant1901

Respondent Role YesNoNot Sure Member Agency3257 Consultant1703 Designated End User? Active User of the Software? YesNo Member Agency396 Consultant182

Operation (Speed, Reliability)

Reports (Quality/Completeness)

Program Features/Capabilities

Analysis Provided

Software Use Comments – Output / Reports More customizable reports – ability to build a custom report for LRFR analysis Additional output options and detail Output 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 reports Default 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 minutes Significant 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 dissatisfied 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 & 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% 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 when a problem is resolved or additional information is requested Include option for telephone support, in addition to 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

Documentation Usability

Documentation Completeness

Documentation Comments The examples on the website are helpful Additional installation documentation is needed Manual is not user friendly Internal help documents have missing items Have not received a user manual since version – 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

Responsiveness of Bridge Task Force

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 newsletter Set 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

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 support Yearly 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

Follow-up Actions AASHTOWare Bridge Task Force Meetings (August 8 and November 5-6, 2013) ◦ Review the detailed results of the survey ◦ Discuss opportunities for improvement ◦ Assign action items to implement changes ◦ Incorporate changes into FY15 work plan as appropriate Special Committee on Joint Development (January 23-24, 2014) ◦ Bridge Design-Rating survey results presented/discussed

Thank You Questions? Comments?