Bridge Design-Rating 2013 Administrative Overview

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

2. Bridge Rating Licensees – FY2013

3. Bridge Design Licensees – FY2013

4. FY2012 Bridge Design-Rating Revenue

5. FY2013 Bridge Design-Rating Revenue

6. FY2012 Expenditures

7. FY2013Expenditures

8. AASHTO Administrative Overhead • 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

9. Why Use AASHTOWare? • 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

10. AASHTOWare Program Management

12. AASHTOWare Branding and TradeMark Guidelines

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

17. AASHTOWare Service Units A Brief Overview

18. AASHTOWare Service Units • Agencies can gain convenient access to services provided by the AASHTOWare contractorvia 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.

19. 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.

20. Service Unit – Example Activities • 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

21. 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

22. Use of Service Units • 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.

23. Fee for 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.

24. Service Units Use

25. 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.

27. 2013 Bridge Design-RatingCustomer Satisfaction Survey Results Conducted June 25 – July 26, 2013

28. 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

29. Software Used

30. Respondent Role Designated End User? Active User of the Software?

31. Operation (Speed, Reliability)

32. Reports (Quality/Completeness)

33. Program Features/Capabilities

34. Analysis Provided

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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.

38. Member Agency use of support from the contractor - 65%

39. 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

40. 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

41. Documentation Used

42. Documentation Usability

43. Documentation Completeness

44. 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 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?

45. Documentation Comments (cont) • Example Bridges AASHTOWareBrDR 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

46. Member Agency contact with Bridge Task Force

47. Responsiveness of Bridge Task Force

48. 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

49. Communication Between User Group and Bridge Task Force

50. 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