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 Bridge Design-Rating Revenue

Design Li-

censes 27%

RatingLi-

censes 66%

Service Units 7%

FY2013 Bridge Design-Rating Revenue

Design Li-

censes 24%

RatingLi-

censes 69%

Service Units 7%

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

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 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

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 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.

2013 Bridge Design-RatingCustomer Satisfaction Survey

Results

Conducted June 25 – July 26, 2013

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

Thank You

Questions?Comments?