Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Oregon Transportation Investment Act III (OTIA III)
State Bridge Delivery Program
Information Technology Benefit-Cost
Evaluation Report
Document Control Information
Current Revision Information (Document Deliverable Originator)
Work Order Contract: 13 Task Number: 1.1.6
Date: March 8, 2011 Transmittal Number: 0200 01 13888
File Name OTIA III Information Technology Benefit-Cost Evaluation Report v02.pdf Revision: 2
Revision Description: Resubmitted to Address Comments Originator: Jim Hagar
Revision History
Revision Date Revision Description Originator
1 01/28/2011 Resubmitted to Address Comments Jim Hagar
Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ...4
1.1. Conclusions...5
2.0 Background ...7
3.0 Methodology ...8
3.1. BC Analysis Overview and General Considerations...8
3.2. IT Investments...10
3.3. Operation and Maintenance Costs ...10
3.4. Benefits ...11
3.5. Benefit-Cost Modeling ...13
4.0 Summary of System Evaluations...15
4.1. GIS Infrastructure ...15
4.1.1 Benefits of GIS Infrastructure...15
4.1.2 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis...16
4.1.3 GIS Infrastructure Conclusions ...16
4.2. Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBRO) ...16
4.2.1 Benefits of EBRO...17
4.2.2 EBRO Benefit-Cost Analysis...17
4.2.3 EBRO Conclusions ...18
4.3. EBR ArcPadTM...18
4.3.1 Benefits of EBR ArcPad ...18
4.3.2 EBR ArcPad Benefit-Cost Analysis...18
4.3.3 EBR ArcPad Conclusions ...19
4.4. Engineering Drawing System (EDS) ...19
4.4.1 Benefits of EDS...19
4.4.2 EDS Benefit-Cost Analysis...20
4.4.3 EDS Conclusions ...20
4.5. Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) ...20
4.5.1 Benefits of EDMS...21
4.5.2 EDMS Benefit-Cost Analysis...21
4.5.3 EDMS Conclusions ...21
4.6. Bridge Reporting System (BRS)...22
4.6.1 Benefits of BRS...22
4.6.2 BRS Benefit-Cost Analysis...22
4.6.3 BRS Conclusions ...23
4.7. Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool (CEI)...23
4.7.1 Benefits of CEI ...24
4.7.2 CEI Benefit-Cost Analysis ...24
4.7.3 CEI Conclusions ...25
4.8. Pre-Construction Assessment Application and Reporting Tool (PCA) ...25
4.8.1 Benefits of PCA...25
4.8.2 PCA Benefit-Cost Analysis...26
4.8.3 PCA Conclusions ...26
4.9. Work Zone Traffic Analysis System (WZTA) ...26
4.9.1 Benefits of WZTA...26
4.9.2 WZTA Benefit-Cost Analysis...27
4.9.3 WZTA Conclusions ...28
1.0 Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the benefits and costs of nine IT systems put in place by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP) in support of OTIA III State Bridge Program (Program). OBDP is a joint venture of Fluor Corporation and HDR Engineering which contracted with ODOT to manage this ten year $1.3 billion program. Among ODOT’s goals for management of OTIA III were efficiency, positive economic impact, environmental stewardship and transparency. To assist in meeting these objectives OBDP put nine IT systems online. These included:
z Geographic Information System Infrastructure (GISI), which went online in 2004 and
included the hardware and software to create and databases to support other IT activities, to generate maps in support of OTIA III and provide a research tool for environmental, design and programmatic issues.
z Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBRO), which went online in 2004 and provided
web access to the OTIA III environmental baseline report in a GIS format.
z Environmental Baseline Report ArcPadTM (ArcPad), which went online with EBRO and
made the ArcPad GPS tool available to the environmental and design staff for the purpose of updating EBRO.
z Engineering Drawing System (EDS), which went online in 2004 and created a repository
for engineering drawings and CAD files in Bentley ProjectWise.
z Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), which went online in its present form
in 2005, using FileNet P8 to manage and store most of OBDP’s files.
z Bridge Reporting System (BRS), which went online in its present form in 2006 and
provides a database of relevant Program and project information updated monthly.
z Construction Engineering/Inspection tool (CEI), which went online in 2007 and links web
based construction inspection and project management forms to a central repository and database.
z Pre-Construction Assessment Tool (PCA), which went online in 2007 and provides an
automated, database linked form for completion of Joint Permit Applications (JPAs) associated with the OTIA III programmatic environmental permit.
z Work Zone Traffic Analysis Tool (WZTA), which went online in its present form in 2009
and provides a GIS database and impact analysis tool for assessing traffic impacts in work zones.
A separate report on each system evaluates their economic benefits and costs and considers future options for their use after completion of OTIA III in 2014. This report is a summary of the
separate reports. Each of the separate reports is included in the appendix.
Each report describes the background and development of the tool, its operational logic, and the alternative system that would have been used had the tool not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and indirect users who benefit from the tool but do not necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in
of users and managers, interviews with other users and interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs).
In most of the reports developmental and operational costs were evaluated from inception through 2010. For the tools that went online after 2007, the evaluation period was extended to cover a 5 year period. A life cycle costs evaluation was also included in the separate studies.
Finally, a benefit-cost (BC) analysis was performed for each tool using risk analysis software (see page 9 for a description of how the risk-analysis model works). The BC analysis considered benefits and costs from the perspective of the OTIA III Program.
1.1. Conclusions
The nine IT tools evaluated had a combined benefit cost ratio of 2.1, indicating that for every $1.00 invested in these tools, they returned $2.10 in benefits to the OTIA Program. Figure 1 depicts the net benefit calculation of these combined tools graphically through 2010. Total benefits attributable to these systems grew through 2009, with the expansion of the OTIA III Program and with the introduction of new tools. The negative net benefit in 2005 resulted because the EDMS operating costs in the first year it was online were higher than estimated benefits in that year. After 2009 total benefits leveled off and will decline as the Program winds down through 2014.
Figure 1: Net Benefits of IT Investments
Figure 2 compares the present value of benefits to the present value of investments, all discounted to 2010. In this chart the benefits include all years and are discounted to 2010. The $7.3 million of benefits are compared to investment costs of $3.5 million for a BC ratio of 2.1. The overall net present value (NPV) is estimated at $3.8 million and the internal rate of return, 23%. (See the methodology section on page 7 for a summary of how NPV and IRR are calculated.)
Figure 2: IT Benefit-Cost Ratio = 2.1
Most of the measureable benefits of these IT systems were time savings of people working on the OTIA III Program. Table 1 summarizes the time savings elements of the benefits and costs of these systems and shows they saved an estimated 7.9 full time equivalent positions during of the time period of this analysis.
Table 1: Time Savings Impact of IT Tools
Gross hours saved 137,000
Less O&M hours 26,000
Less development hours 29,000
Net hours saved 82,000
Equivalent annual full time employees (FTE) 7.9
The BC ratios for each of the individual tools/systems are shown in Table 2. Five of the systems had ratios of greater than one, indicating a positive return on investment. Each of these five systems saved significant amounts of time for Program staff and subconsultants while meeting OTIA Program management objectives of efficiency, environmental stewardship and
transparency in management and reporting of Program results.
Table 2: Benefit-Cost Ratios of IT Tools
Tool B/C Ratio
GIS Infrastructure GISI 3.0
Environmental Baseline Report Online EBRO 0.6
Environmental Baseline Report ArcPadTM ArcPad 0.7
Engineering Drawing System EDS -0.3
Electronic Document Management System EDMS 6.1
Bridge Reporting System BRS 1.5
Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool CEI 1.6
Pre-Construction Assessment Tool PCA 7.7
Three of the systems did not have a positive return. EBRO and ArcPad were not used as much as expected, largely because they were more appropriate to earlier phases of the Program, before the tools became available. EDS was not able to meet objectives for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it was based on software that proved more difficult than expected for design subcontractors to use.
WZTA shows two different results. This tool was an unqualified success from the user point of view and has already been adopted by ODOT. The tool was based on creative approaches to calculation of construction traffic impacts developed by ODOT and OBDP. The precursors to WZTA had significant positive impacts on the Program. By bringing the tool online it allowed users to easily access databases and significantly shortened the time required to evaluate construction sites. In terms of overall use both inside and outside of the OTIA Program it has a BC ratio of 3.6. However, it was not introduced in its present form until 2009 when most of the design and traffic management strategy for OTIA III bridges had already been completed. As a result, impact on the OTIA III Program itself did not fully cover investment in the system. In terms of future use of these tools, two have already be adopted by ODOT. WZTA is already being used to evaluate traffic management strategies throughout ODOT. Also, BRS is being used to not only track and report on OTIA III bridges, but has also been used to track Oregon’s
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocations, 2009 Oregon Jobs legislation and is currently being used to track progress on the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network
(OWIN).
The future of other systems is still being considered. One of the most significant findings of this analysis is that the benefits of many of these systems depend on the legal relationships,
management styles and work processes of the organization using the tool. For instance, CEI earned a positive return as used by OBDP but may not be successful for ODOT in its present form. This is due in large part to differences in management practices and legal accountability requirements of OBDP as a contractor. On the other hand, EBRO, which was not successful, might well be successful if used by ODOT as a central document management tool for all environmental assessments or if it had been put online earlier.
2.0 Background
The OTIA III State Bridge Program has five goals that encompass economic stimulus, cost-efficiency, freight mobility, environmental and community sensitivity, and taking advantage of funding opportunities. Early in the Program it was determined that investments in information technology (IT) would be valuable in achieving these other Program goals and to provide documentation and reporting that maintained transparency with the public and the legislature. Such systems could improve work flow, reduce cost, help coordinate various aspects of the Program and make timely, accurate information available for both internal and public use. Ultimately, the nine systems described in the introduction were brought online. As the Program reached its peak in 2009 and 2010, ODOT and OBDP decided to document experience with the tools in order to evaluate the impact of these investments and to determine future direction for use of these tools after the OTIA III Bridge Program is completed in 2014.
In mid 2009, the OBDP Economic Stimulus Group (ESG) began to evaluate the development and operating costs of these nine systems. In July, this effort was expanded to consider the benefits of the system and to calculate the benefit-cost (BC) ratios for the various tools. Each system was
first evaluated separately. This report pulls together the individual BC evaluations and attempts to draw conclusions for overall IT investments connected with the OTIA III Bridge Program.
3.0 Methodology
Evaluation of the IT tools was carried out in the form of a benefit-cost analysis. The fundamental methodology is to measure annual gross benefits and subtract operation and maintenance costs to identify net benefits. Net benefits are discounted and summed into a single “present value” for comparison with investment costs. Dividing the present value of benefits by the present value of investments yields the benefit-cost ratio. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates benefits are greater than costs. In addition to the BC ratio, this analysis also calculated net present value (NPV), which is the amount by which benefits exceed costs and the internal rate of return (IRR), which is the return expressed as an interest rate.
3.1. BC Analysis Overview and General Considerations
The logic used in this analysis is shown in Figure 3. The diagram shows that the BC ratio is based on total discounted benefits and total discounted development costs. Often in BC analysis it is not necessary to discount development costs, since they are assumed to take place in the same year. However, in this analysis development costs of different systems took place in different years. As a result all costs were discounted to 2010 for convenience and consistency.The chart shows that most of the gross benefits were the result of time savings, which were valued at applicable billing rates for OBDP staff and other consultants and at loaded rates for ODOT staff. Other tangible benefits were very limited. Annual operation and maintenance costs were made up predominantly of software licenses, staff time and data storage and back up.
Developmental costs on the investment side of the analysis were made up of hardware, software, software licenses and internal development by ODOT and OBDP staff. There was also one software development contract and one case in which data migration was required.
Figure 3: BC Analysis Logic Flow for IT Systems
There are four methodological considerations that must be addressed in any BC analysis:
1. Perspective: The point of view from which benefits and costs are viewed can be
significant. In this case all benefits and costs were viewed from the perspective of the OTIA III Bridge Program. All costs were financed by that Program and for this analysis if benefits did not accrue to the OTIA Program they were not counted. For instance, as already pointed out, the Work Zone Traffic Analysis system would have had a positive return based on its benefit throughout ODOT. However, its return the OTIA III Bridge Program itself was more limited. Since the WZTA was funded by OTIA III this did not show a positive return.
2. Time Frame: In most cases projects were evaluated from the time they went online until
2010. In cases in which projects did not go online until 2007 or later, future years were estimated to provide a five year time horizon for evaluation. By comparison, highway projects are typically evaluated over a 20 year period. However, IT projects are expected to have a much shorter life span due to rapidly changing technology and must generate benefits more quickly to be cost effective.
3. Discount Rate: This is an interest rate that is used to adjust each year of the analysis to
the “present value.” It should represent a time preference for investment resources that reflects the other opportunities for use of the funds over time. In this case the rate used was the average rate for OTIA III bonds of 3.74%. The rate reflects the cost of borrowing to make an investment earlier or the interest saved by delaying investments.
4. Risk and Uncertainty: All BC analysis contains elements of uncertainty which leads to the risk of over or under valuing the investment. In this case special software was used which allows entry of ranges of values when the expected return is within a range rather than an exact value or when the exact value is unknown. Where inputs are less certain, wider ranges are generated. Palisades @RiskTM was used to calculate results based on a “Monte Carlo” simulation. By using this technique, in addition to a single point estimate, a range of values is provided indicating the risk that the result is lower or higher. One of the benefits of this approach is the ability to quickly identify which factors have the most significant impacts on the outcome and should therefore receive additional attention in planning future systems or future evaluations.
3.2. IT Investments
A summary of investments in the nine OTIA III IT systems is shown in Table 3. The majority of the cost of bringing these systems online was internal development by both ODOT and OBDP staff. These costs were estimated through focus groups conducted with staff that had been involved in their development. Other costs, including hardware, software and development contracts were obtained through OBDP IT staff.
Table 3: Investments in IT Systems ($ thousands)
Tool Hardware Software Development
Contracts Internal Development Data Migration Total GISI $41 $69 $225 $334 EBRO $8 $8 $122 $150 $288 ArcPad $8 $14 $22 EDS $11 $116 $63 $190 EDMS $27 $104 $86 $217 BRS $1,440 $1,440 CEI $413 $102 $515 PCA $16 $85 $101 WZTA $370 $370 TOTAL $111 $297 $413 $2,507 $150 $3,477
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
3.3. Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are summarized in Figure 4. These costs were obtained from a variety of sources including the focus groups which also estimated internal development costs for the IT tools.
More than three-quarters of annual O&M costs are IT staff who support the systems. It must be noted that as the OTIA III Program has started to wind down the number of staff supporting these tools will steadily decline with the result that O&M costs will fall.
Figure 4: Average Annual O&M Costs ($ thousands)
3.4. Benefits
The starting point for identification of benefits associated with the nine IT systems was to map each system from the user perspective. How does the user get into the system? What information and tools are available there? How is the system maintained and updated? The system under review is then compared to the most likely alternative if the system being evaluated were not available. By comparing the two systems it was possible to identify areas where inputs and outputs would be different and where efficiencies might be achieved in use of the tool. Table 4 shows the primary alternatives that would have been used in the absence of each tool.
Table 4: System Comparisons for Benefit Cost Analysis
Tool Comparative System
GISI OTIA III Program without GIS at OBDP
EBRO EBR without online GIS database
ArcPad No submission of EBR updates / updates using surveys
EDS Submission of plans in hard copy or through EDMS
EDMS Paper filing system
BRS Previous “Bridge List” (BID)
CEI OBDP paper system
PCA One-off Joint Permit Applications and Preconstruction Assessments for each bridge. No PCA database
Information for comparison of the systems and for identifying impacts and benefits came from a variety of sources:
• Review of system documentation: Each system had documentation prepared by OBDP IT staff.
• Examination of usage statistics: Usage statistics in various forms were available for each system.
• User logs: In two cases, user logs provided useful information on the how the systems were being used.
• Surveys: Four different surveys of system users were conducted to find out how they used the systems and what benefits they gained from them.
• Focus groups: Three focus groups were conducted with users of two of the systems.
• Special studies of alternatives: In two cases, special studies were conducted to quantify the cost of the alternative approach.
• Interviews: Extensive interviews were conducted.
Interviews were particularly significant and included several different types of individuals connected with each system:
• “Owners” of the systems provided insights into purpose and operation and were particularly valuable in mapping each system.
• Subject matter experts (SME) included key users of system outputs from OBDP and ODOT as well as IT staff. They helped identify both benefits and problems with the systems being evaluated and the alternatives that would be used in their absence.
• Internal users from ODOT and OBDP were interviewed to gain an understanding of how the systems were actually used and what benefits and/or problems they experienced.
• External users, including subcontractors and other agency officials, often provided important information about how the systems were used outside of OBDP and how the outputs were perceived by external users.
• In two cases, outside experts with no specific connection to OTIA III bridges were contacted regarding their experience with similar tools.
Most of the tangible benefits identified were the result of time savings. There were three major aspects of the IT tools that generated time savings:
• More efficient work flows reduced costs of data input or calculations.
• Databases which stored data in easily retrievable form and made data immediately available for calculations or creation of reports, maps or drawings.
• Web interfaces which made the information available from remote as well as central locations. These types of benefits could accrue to the immediate users of the systems – those who logged on and uploaded or downloaded information – or indirect users who obtained data through web interfaces or reports generated by the tools.
In addition to tangible benefits there were three types of intangible benefits identified, which could not be measured. First, systems like BRS, PCA and GISI generate accurate, consistent and timely information that is used for responding to inquiries and reporting on the OTIA III Program. This has increased the credibility of both ODOT and the OTIA III Program in the eyes of the
Second, some of these tools, WZTA and GISI in particular, have resulted in more frequent analysis of traffic, environmental, design and construction processes. As a result, construction costs are likely reduced, environmental concerns are addressed more consistently and the traveling public is likely experiencing fewer delays.
Third, the systems improved the efficiency of Program oversight by improving information flow and accountability between ODOT and OBDP. Unfortunately, the calculation of those benefits was not possible within the scope of this study.
3.5. Benefit-Cost Modeling
The BC model used for this study was an Excel spreadsheet augmented with Palisades @Risk software. Spreadsheets were populated with annual base data, investment costs and formulas for benefits and O&M costs derived from research described in the previous sections. The
spreadsheets were designed to calculate the BC ratio, net present values (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) which were identified as output variables.
Use of @Risk allows inputs in appropriate ranges rather than only as point values. This can be significant in three cases. First, some input data is naturally in ranges. For instance, an input used in one of the tools is the time required to draw a particular type of map on a computer aided drafting (CAD) system. This time will vary based on specifics of each map.
Second, in some cases the actual point values are unknown and must be estimated. In these cases the estimated range of potential values can be used instead and the potential variation will be taken into account in calculating the BC value. Third, even in cases where a specific value is known there may be a risk that the value will change over the time period of the analysis. Using this software, this risk can be incorporated into the calculations.
Figure 5 shows an example of input values for estimated time to revise a particular type of map using the CAD system. The graph shows it would most likely take an hour to make the revision and 80% of the time the revision can be accomplished between one-half hour and two hours. In no case would it take less than 6 minutes (0.1 hours) to make the revision and it could take up to 2 hours 40 minutes.
Figure 5: @Risk Input Example 10.0% 80.0% 10.0% 0.513 2.002 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Hrs per map to revise / (March)
Trigen (0.5,1,2,10,90,RiskTruncate (0.1,)) Minimum 0.1000 Maximum 2.6715 Mean ≈1.2218 Std Dev ≈0.5505
The @Risk software uses a Monte Carlo simulation to calculate results. In making the
calculations the model is run multiple times (in this case 10,000) with the input values allowed to vary within the specified ranges according to probability curves like that of the input example. The result is a statistical weighted distribution of output values indicating both the most likely result and the potential variance from the most likely value.
Table 5 provides an example of the BC output measures taken from the EDMS evaluation. In this case the most likely BC ratio is 6.1 and there is a 10% chance it could be as low as 5.1 and a 90% probability that it is less than 24.3.
Table 5: BC Output Example Showing Ranges Benefit-Cost Analysis
Discount Rate 3.74%
Most Likely Low (10%) High (90%)
B/C Ratio 6.1 5.1 24.3
Net Present Value $ 1,331,996 $ 1,070,000 $ 6,030,000
IRR 30% 25% 94%
Output Ranges
A number of tools for better understanding the variance and risk are provided by @Risk. An example drawn from the same EDMS model run is shown in Figure 6, which is referred to as a tornado diagram because of its appearance. The chart shows that the most important variable affecting variance in the BC ratio is “Cabinets per staff” which is a measure of the number of staff that would be required to support a paper filing system of the size and complexity of EDMS.
Figure 6: Variance Evaluation Example Tornado Diagram
4.0 Summary of System Evaluations
4.1. GIS Infrastructure
GIS Infrastructure (GISI) refers to the collection of hardware, software and databases maintained for the support of products, services and other IT applications making use of geographically located information. GISI is a framework that supports numerous other processes and other IT tools, as well as providing direct services in the form of mapping and data management. It provides a core of hardware and software that facilitates the functioning of EBRO, WZTA and other tools using GISI databases as well as producing maps and analytical products.
4.1.1 Benefits of GIS Infrastructure
GISI creates several benefits for the OTIA III Bridge Program. First, it saves time in generation of maps and special studies. Using GIS software and databases maps can be created or updated quickly. The spatial database allows special studies such as the location of environmental or community features in minutes rather than hours.
The second benefit of GISI is the quality, consistency, accuracy and timeliness it brings to mapping and special studies. Public involvement maps, for instance can be presented in a high quality format with confidence they contain the latest information.
Third, several other tools including WZTA, EBRO, and to some extent BRS, PCA and the OBDP website rely on GISI software and databases to function. Without GISI those tools would either be reduced in scope or eliminated.
Finally, the availability of quality, spatially oriented databases has contributed to the ability of OBDP to centrally manage the OTIA III Bridge Program by taking advantage of mapping and database tools to assure timely accurate information.
4.1.2 GIS Infrastructure Benefit-Cost Analysis
Figures 7 and 8 show the results of the BC analysis graphically. For GIS Infrastructure this analysis found a BC ratio of 3.0 and NPV is estimated at approximately $837,000.
Figure 7: GISI Net Figure 8: GISI Total Benefits
Benefits and O&M by Year and Investment
4.1.3 GIS Infrastructure Conclusions
GIS Infrastructure appears to have been a valuable tool in delivery of the OTIA III Bridge
Program. It saved time and cost in mapping and site evaluations and supported other tools such as BRS, EBRO and WZTA that use GISI tools. In addition to quantifiable benefits there were other benefits that could not be quantified, including improved accuracy, consistency and timeliness in evaluations and reporting and improved accountability through the dashboard structure supported by GISI. If these intangibles could be added to the analysis it would have been even more
favorable.
The primary lesson learned from the experience with this system is that it is possible to have shared, integrated GIS systems between client and contractor. If ODOT were to contract a major program like OTIA III in the future, the cooperative development of such a system could have considerable benefits.
4.2. Environmental Baseline Report Online (EBRO)
EBRO provides access to the OTIA III environmental baseline report (EBR) in a web accessible GISI format. Prior to the OTIA III Program, ODOT engaged in an effort to collect comprehensive environmental data on over 400 bridge sites. The collection of “baseline” data against which impacts could be calculated and the frontloading of the environmental effort allowed the Program to obtain a programmatic permit for the OTIA III Bridge Program. This had significant beneficialscheduling and budgetary impacts for the OTIA III Program.* Early in the OTIA III process the EBR was put into a web accessible GISI database for use in site evaluations and project
development. At that time it was thought the database would be updated as new information became available. The EBRO database was expected to be a primary source of information for design and environmental reviews.
4.2.1 Benefits of EBRO
While it was not used as extensively as anticipated, several environmental and design firms reported that the tool was useful early in project development. On occasion it reduced the need for site visits. The baseline reports and associated environmental performance standards also allowed for better pricing in design contracts due to the reduction in project “unknowns” and guidance that these documents provided to the design teams.
In addition to being used by design and environmental consultants, OBDP staff used the site for a number of purposes that improved Program oversight and saved time.
4.2.2 EBRO Benefit-Cost Analysis
The benefit-cost analysis for EBROnline covered the six years from 2004 through October 2010. The analysis used the following sources of information:
• Development and operating cost obtained from OBDP IT staff.
• Interviews with direct users of EBROnline and ArcPad.
• EBROnline log in data.
• A survey of OBDP users of EBROnline.
Figures 9 and 10 graphically summarize the results of the analysis. For EBROnline the analysis found a BC ratio of only 0.6 and NPV was -$145,000 indicating benefits were less than
investment costs.
Figure 9: EBRO Net Benefits Figure 10: EBRO Total Benefits
and O&M by Year and Investment
*
See ODOT, OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program, Environmental Programmatic Permitting Benefit/Cost Analysis, October 2008.
Two factors contributed to the less that favorable BC ratio. First, the tool cost more than expected to bring online. In particular, if migration costs had not been so expensive the BC ratio would have been closer to 1.0. Second, the tool was not used as extensively as expected. Even those who used it regularly found that it was a convenience but rarely saved significant amounts of time.
4.2.3 EBRO Conclusions
EBRO would have been more useful if put online sooner and less costly if the original
environmental baseline work would have been better integrated with the GISI approach used to put the information online.
Based on these findings, ODOT should consider augmenting its own GISI databases with the type of information contained in EBROnline and make it available both internally and to consultants for planning, baseline and conceptual design work early in the project development process.
4.3. EBR ArcPad
TMArcPad™ is an ESRI™ mobile GIS application that uses a global positioning system (GPS) to establish the location of environmental and infrastructure features within the layers of
EBROnline. The tool was intended to be used to continuously update the EBRO database in the correct format and to provide a record of infrastructure and environmental changes as projects were carried out. This would provide an invaluable resource for Agency operations even after the conclusion of OTIA III.
4.3.1 Benefits of EBR ArcPad
This tool was used on only 25 bridge sites out of more than 400 in the EBR database. Consultants who used it found it useful for delineating environmental features, such as wetland boundaries, without need of survey; and data gathered in this way proved easy to upload to a GISI database. However, most engineering and environmental firms found it was redundant because surveys had to be carried out anyway. Some firms that did not use ArcPad thought it could be useful if applied during planning, environmental baseline process and preliminary design phases where
engineering precision was not an issue.
4.3.2 EBR ArcPad Benefit-Cost Analysis
The analysis found a BC ratio of 0.7 for EBR ArcPad and a NPV of -$8,109. The tool was used for only a short time and did not generate sufficient benefits to cover initial investment costs. Figures 11 and 12 graphically show the results of the BC analysis.
Figure 11: ArcPad Net Benefits Figure 12: ArcPad Total Benefits
and O&M by Year and Investment
4.3.3 EBR ArcPad Conclusions
While the ArcPad tool did not live up to expectations for the OTIA III Bridge Program, it demonstrated the potential for use of such tools early in project development, especially during development of environmental baseline reports. A similar tool could be valuable for any situation in which there is a desire to delineate features of a landscape and where a survey is not required for other reasons.
4.4. Engineering Drawing System (EDS)
The Engineering Drawing System (EDS) was intended to provide a central point of access to all Architectural and Engineering (A&E) content which is needed to properly manage the Program. A&E content consists of technical drawings, three-dimensional models, maps, relational data and other information. The information is typically created, used, and shared by a large number of individuals from many different organizations throughout the lifecycle of the OTIA III Program. The system uses Bentley ProjectWise.
4.4.1 Benefits of EDS
Most of the benefits of the EDS tool would have come from the ability of design, contracting and construction to see the same files and use the same database to transmit comments, requested changes, revisions and supplemental information. The final documents could have been viewed online by contracting and construction as well as designers. In fact, most of these benefits were captured by storing the design documents in EDMS.
Unfortunately several obstacles made it impractical for continued use. First, contractors found that the time required to upload drawings and related files into the system was excessive. Second, they were already loading design drawings and related documents in to EDMS which was easier to use. Third, the OBDP/ODOT contract required drawings to be developed in Micro Station, which was only available to limited OBDP staff and therefore not useful for reviews. Finally, one of the assumed benefits of EDS was the ability to use Axiom SpecChecker to speed review of design drawings; however, SpeckChecker could be used without the EDS tool. As a result of these limitations, costs were higher than expected and some of the practical benefits of the collaborative work space were lost.
As a result of these limitations, in 2006 a decision was made to discontinue its use. In order to meet future ODOT needs and contract obligations, OBDP staff have uploaded drawings to the
EDS system and will turn the entire system over to ODOT at the conclusion of the OTIA III Bridge Program.
4.4.2 EDS Benefit-Cost Analysis
The results of the BC analysis are summarized in Figures 13 and 14. The BC Ratio was -0.3. NPV was -$292,000 indicating a loss for this tool. Due to the lack of benefits to EDS, O&M costs resulted in a negative net value exactly equal to the costs as shown in Figure 14. Cost continued after 2006 because of the need to maintain the ProjectWise license. Costs rose in 2009 and 2010 as a result of OBDP’s work to put drawings and design documents into ProjectWise for ODOT’s future use.
Figure 13: EDS Net Benefits Figure 14: EDS Total Benefits
and O&M by Year and Investment
=
4.4.3 EDS Conclusions
The outcome does not mean future use of EDS, based on ProjectWise or similar document management software, would not be valuable to ODOT. Other state DOTs and engineering organizations have found this type of system to be valuable. However, there are three lessons learned:
1. For a system like EDS to be successful, it must be easily accessible at a reasonable cost to all parties involved in design, design review and contracting.
2. If more than one system is used to process documents it will be seen as redundant by the users.
3. The system would be easier to “sell” to the potential users if they saw an immediate benefit to their own work.
4.5. Electronic Document Management System (EDMS)
The purpose of the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) is to provide a central repository for all documents associated with the OTIA III Bridge Program managed by OBDP under contract with ODOT.The EDMS system in use by OBDP is IBM’s FileNet P8 system. The FileNet version of EDMS went online in September 2005 and initially contained 12,460 documents transferred from a previous temporary EDMS system. Since 2005 the number of documents stored in FileNet has increased to 210,000.
Under its contract with ODOT, many OBDP documents must still be delivered in paper form as well as electronic. However, since most working documents are not on paper and the existing paper documents do not have to be managed as an active paper filing system, the benefits of EDMS are not significantly reduced.
4.5.1 Benefits of EDMS
Most of the quantified benefits of EDMS are savings in time and personnel by comparison to a paper filing system.
Other benefits that could not be quantified include: 1) control of documents, including version management, which assures users have obtained the correct version of documents; (2) document sharing which improves coordination by making new documents or new versions of documents immediately available to those needing to view them; and (3) improved security based on protocols that make documents available only to approved users.
4.5.2 EDMS Benefit-Cost Analysis
Calculation of benefits included a special study of the costs of an alternative paper system, a survey of users and a focus group to understand how engineering and project design documents were handled. The results are summarized in Figures 15 and 16. Figure 15 shows O&M costs and net benefits. During the first two years of operating the FileNet version of EDMS it generated fewer benefits than its operating cost. During Program start-up a paper system might have been operated at less expense. However, as the number of documents and users grew, the benefits of EDMS increased substantially.
Figure 16 shows total net benefits and investment costs. Benefits have exceeded initial investment costs by more than six to one, yielding a BC ratio of 6.1. NPV is estimated at $1.3 million. One reason for the high BC ratio was the modest cost of bringing the system online. At the same time the system has substantial operating costs that create a risk of low returns if not heavily used.
Figure 15: EDMS Net Benefits Figure 16: EDMS Total Benefits
and O&M by Year and Investment
4.5.3 EDMS Conclusions
EDMS is an effective tool for storing, retrieving and sharing documents.
Two areas were identified as holding potential for improving the use of EDMS in the future. First, the records retention feature of EDMS was not used during OTIA III. The result is that there are likely unnecessary documents in the system. Second, during this study a number of people described EDMS to be cumbersome because of search engines, file naming conventions and
document templates. This finding highlights the importance of designing such systems with the user in mind and ongoing training and user assistance.
There are numerous issues involved in deciding the future of EDMS after OTIA III. The most significant factor will likely be ODOT’s decision about how to use electronic document
management systems for its ongoing programs. Among the options for using EDMS after 2014 are: (1) migrate required documents as required by administrative rule or statute to other systems and close down EDMS; (2) migrate some or all of the files to a new ODOT system; or (3) retain a license for FileNet 3.0 to keep OTIA III files accessible and only migrate files to other systems as specific needs arise.
4.6. Bridge Reporting System (BRS)
The Bridge Reporting System (BRS) is a centralized database containing both Program data and historical background material for each bridge and project bundle in the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program. BRS provides a single source of validated information, including budgets, schedules and status of bridges and bundles.
BRS is reviewed and updated monthly to ensure necessary information is up-to-date and complete. Updates are timed to correspond with Monthly Progress Reports (MPR), but include more data than what is contained in that report.
BRS was completed June 30, 2006. It replaced the previous Bridge Information Database (BID) (which was not a true database) consisting of information stored on spreadsheets and in MicroSoft Access files.
4.6.1 Benefits of BRS
BRS improves accountability and reliability by making timely and accurate reports available to document progress in delivering the Program. The MPR and website dashboards tracking
progress and performance for projects and the CS3 Program depend explicitly on BRS data. Other routine and ad-hoc reports coming from the BRS go to internal OBDP staff, ODOT, legislators and interested parties on a regular basis. Several reports generated by BRS are featured on the OBDP and ODOT web sites.
Compared to the BID, or other methods of compiling required data, BRS increases the number of things that can be reported.
BRS also generates considerable time savings which is the primary source of measurable benefits. A survey of system users found three types of time savings. First, BRS takes less time to upload or retrieve data and reports compared to the previous BID or “Bridge List.” Second, the
immediate availability of validated information saved time for many OBDP employees in carrying out day-to-day activities. Third, when reports must be prepared previously validated information is often available in BRS.
4.6.2 BRS Benefit-Cost Analysis
A benefit-cost analysis was conducted for the six-year period 2005 through 2010. The analysis found a BC ratio of 1.5 and NPV estimated at approximately $1.0 million. The analysis is
summarized in Figures 17 and 18. One of the features of BRS that appears in Figure 17 is its relatively small O&M cost. Figure 17 also shows a steady decline in benefits since 2008 as the number of employees and the amount of activity in the Bridge Program is declining. Due to the small O&M cost it is expected to earn a positive return through the end of the OTIA III Program in 2014.
Figure 17: BRS Net Benefits Figure 18: BRS Total Benefits
and O&M by Year and Investment
4.6.3 BRS Conclusions
BRS adds substantial value to the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program because of time
savings found in retrieving data and the efficiency and reliability of the data sources. The Program improves credibility of ODOT, OBDP and OTIA III and because of the accuracy and reliability of MPR, dashboards and change management process. One of the lessons learned from the
evaluation of BRS is tools can be constructed that increase accountability and transparency while also improving efficiency.
BRS was developed to track all variables necessary to manage a project through the entire project delivery process from development through design, construction and closeout. Due to its
structure, BRS has been used as the basis for the development of tools to track ARRA funds, the Oregon Jobs Initiative and the OWIN program.
4.7. Construction Engineering/Inspection Tool (CEI)
The Construction Engineering/Inspection (CEI) tool consists of 33 fillable forms which can be accessed through the web or from a mobile client version of the tool. Information is stored within a database that can be used to develop summaries and reports. The system is used by inspectors, project managers and assistant managers, contract managers, environmental technicians, quality control specialists and ODOT construction managers.CEI went online in May of 2007. Previously, the daily progress reports (DPR), surveillance reports, non-compliance reports and other project forms were completed on paper and uploaded into EDMS. An Excel log was kept of surveillance and non-compliance reports, but no other data base was compiled from these reports. When the CEI tool went into use the surveillance and non-compliance reports were migrated into the new tool.
The system has three important purposes:
1. Automate the forms that must be submitted for on-site inspection and engineering in order to speed submission, review and retrieval of this information.
2. Improve consistency of documentation.
3. Improve communication by making reports immediately available to anyone involved in a project, whether in the field or central office.
4.7.1 Benefits of CEI
The most important benefits of the CEI are time savings in communication and coordination resulting from having DPRs and other project information web accessible. This was particularly important to OBDP because of its centralized management structure and its need for a high-level of documentation.† In addition, the fact that information, such as, employees and on-site
equipment, were stored in a database also saved time when responding to claims. For certain activities CEI did not generate time savings. For instance, the DPR actually took longer to complete in CEI compared to using paper. One of the reasons for this was that most inspectors found it impractical to fill out the form in the field using a laptop and typically returned to the construction office at the end of the day to complete them. The effectiveness of the tool would likely be enhanced by the use of note-pad type computers that could be carried as clipboards rather than laptops.
4.7.2 CEI Benefit-Cost Analysis
BC calculations were based on the five year and eight month period from May 2007, when the system went online through 2012. The analysis found a BC ratio of 1.6 and NPV of $317,000. As shown in Figure 19 benefits peaked in 2009 at the height of the OTIA III Bridge Program.
Figure 19: CEI Net Benefits Figure 20: CEI Total Benefits
and O&M by Year and Investment
†
In estimating benefits, only those projects managed by OBDP were considered. ODOT Region managed projects were not included because in many cases they chose not to use the CEI tool. In instance in which they did use the tool, the ODOT management structure and work processes differed from those of OBDP and it was concluded that some of the findings used to estimate benefits to OBDP managed projects were not relevant to ODOT.
4.7.3 CEI Conclusions
While the CEI tool shows a positive BC ratio in regard to projects managed by OBDP, it may not have been as successful with ODOT managed projects. A similar tool could be designed with ODOT’s specific needs in mind.
In the course of evaluating this tool a number of opportunities for improvement were identified. Any future system should provide for regular updates of the system as problems or new
opportunities to enhance efficiency are identified.
4.8. Pre-Construction Assessment Application and
Reporting Tool (PCA)
The PCA was originally conceived as a way to consolidate reporting and application processes under the OTIA III programmatic environmental permit. The purpose of the online version was to create a single database to be used in preparing permit applications and in tracking and reporting compliance with programmatic agreements. The tool stores environmental information necessary for bridge construction permits and uses this information to prepare a consolidated permit
application for up to ten agencies and meet the requirements of all permits included within the OTIA III programmatic permit. The permit created by the tool is based on the joint permit application of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands.
A condition of the programmatic permit under which the Program operates is that the PCA must be filed for every project even if a finding of No Affect under the Endangered Species Act would have otherwise been filed for a particular project. The A&E firms preparing environmental and design work enter data into the PCA database as work is performed. The PCA tool also reduces the cost of annual reports required as a condition of the programmatic permit. Since all necessary material for preparation of the reports is stored in associated files it can be compiled automatically to address each requirement of the annual report.
4.8.1 Benefits of PCA
The primary benefit of the PCA tool is time savings and consistency in completing consolidated environmental permits and annual reports required by the Program’s programmatic permit. While the PCA tool generated significant benefits, it had a steep learning curve. The first time an individual or team prepared a consolidated permit using the PCA tool it usually took longer than it would have to prepare separate applications without the tool. However, after a team is familiar with the tool it can save significant time.
Some users also expressed concern that an entire application had to be completed for every bridge in the Program, even if a project would have had a finding of No Affect were it not for the
programmatic permit. This analysis did not completely resolve that issue which should be addressed if this or a similar tool is used in the future.
The time savings preparing annual reports associated with the programmatic permit is more significant. The PCA database collects all the information in each JPA and makes it available for development of project and Program summaries and the annual report can be completed in weeks
rather than months. Data which would otherwise have to be collected from individual files is already compiled in the PCA database.
4.8.2 PCA Benefit-Cost Analysis
A benefit-cost analysis was conducted for a five-year period following the introduction of PCA in December of 2006. The BC ratio for PCA was calculated at 7.7 and the NPV at $785,000. Part of the reason for the very favorable outcome of this analysis is O&M cost and initial investment in the PCA tool are relatively small.
Figure 21: PCA Net Benefits Figure 22: PCA Total Benefits
and O&M by Year and Investment
4.8.3 PCA Conclusions
The PCA tool generated significant benefits for the OTIA III Bridge Program. The database created by the PCA tool will continue to be valuable in documenting compliance with
environmental conditions and permits into the future after OTIA III is complete. A similar tool may be valuable for other future programmatic permits.
4.9. Work Zone Traffic Analysis System (WZTA)
The Work Zone Traffic Analysis system (WZTA) provides a reporting and analysis repository for information related to roadway traffic and potential delays. The system combines information from several sources into a single consistent location. OBDP, in cooperation with ODOT, developed the online WZTA application to provide users greater access to mobility-related data throughout the state. The WZTA web application allows users to view roadway and roadway traffic data to determine the effects of lane closures related to construction and roadwork on mobility.
4.9.1 Benefits of WZTA
The WZTA system has three important benefits:
1. Consistent data on roads and traffic that can be obtained quickly by users, reducing traffic analysis costs.
2. The reduced time necessary for analysis of work zone traffic flow allows analysis at several stages of project development, design and construction; resulting in better traffic management during construction.
3. Improved traffic management reduces disruption and delay experienced by road users during construction.
4.9.2 WZTA Benefit-Cost Analysis
Benefits and costs of WZTA were calculated for the five-year period following development of the system. The system was developed in 2008 and calculations of benefits were made for 2009 through 2013. All benefits related to time savings using the WZTA web site and traffic analysis tool are compared to obtaining traffic and roadway data from other sources and making work zone traffic calculations using other tools. Many of the savings factors were determined based on a user survey conducted in August 2010.
The results of the BC analysis were mixed. Total benefits in terms of time savings for all
authorized users of the WZTA web site were substantial and result in a BC ratio of 3.6. However, when only the benefits to OTIA III are considered the ratio drops to 0.7. Figures 23, 24 and 25 illustrate these results. Figure 23 shows net benefits including OTIA III and non-OTIA users, compared to the relatively modest operation and maintenance costs. Figure 24 shows the majority of benefits have been to non-OTIA users, for analysis of other projects and maintenance activities on the state highway system. Use for OTIA III has fallen off rapidly because the tool is used primarily during the design phase, which is now complete. The tool will continue to be used on a limited basis during remaining construction activities.
Figure 23: WZTA Net Benefit Figure 24: WZTA Benefits
and O&M by Year Divided between OTIA
and Non-OTIA Users
Figure 25 summarizes the results, showing total benefits and OTIA-only benefits compared to investment in the website and analysis tool.
Figure 25: WZTA Total Benefits and Investment
4.9.3 WZTA Conclusions
WZTA has demonstrated the ability to connect a GIS database with a modeling tool to produce an efficient analytical system. The system has significantly improved the calculation of traffic
impacts of construction and maintenance activities. It is widely used within ODOT and is expected to be transferred to ODOT at the end of the OTIA III Bridge Program in 2014.
F
F
IINNAALLR
R
EEPPOORRTTO
O
RREEGGOONNB
B
RRIIDDGGEED
D
EELLIIVVEERRYYP
P
AARRTTNNEERRSSI
I
NNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONNT
T
EECCHHNNOOLLOOGGYYB
B
EENNEEFFIITTC
C
OOSSTTA
A
NNAALLYYSSIISSG
G
I
I
S
S
I
I
NNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREEThe purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of Geographic Information System Infrastructure (GISI) put online for the OTIA III Bridge Program. This report is part of a series of reports that also includes Bridge Reporting System (BRS),
Construction Engineering/ Inspection tool (CEI), Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), Engineering Drawing System (EDS), Pre-Construction Assessment tool (PCA), Environmental Baseline Report Online with EBR ArcPad, and Work Zone Traffic Analysis tool (WZTA).
Each of these reports describes the background and development of the tool, its operational logic and the alternative system that would have been used if the tool had not been available. The various categories of users are described including both direct users of the technology and
indirect users who benefit from the tool but do not necessarily have direct access to it. Benefits are evaluated in terms of time savings and other benefits.
The term “GIS Infrastructure” refers to the collection of hardware, software and databases maintained for the support of products, services and other IT applications making use of data organized by geographic location (also referred to as “geospatial” organization). GISI is a diffuse framework that supports numerous other systems like WZTA and EBROnline (also referred to as Trans-GIS) as well as providing direct services in the form of mapping and data management.
A benefit-cost (BC) analysis was performed using risk analysis software. Benefits of GISI fall into three categories: (1) direct benefits through cartography (mapping), data management and distribution, and special studies; (2) indirect benefits through other systems supported by GISI; and (3) benefits resulting from improved accuracy, consistency and speed of analysis made possible by GISI. In conducting a benefit-cost analysis only the first group of benefits could be measured.
Developmental and operational costs are evaluated from inception through 2010 and life cycle costs are evaluated based on the assumption that GISI will end with the Program in 2014. Conclusions
The analysis concluded that GISI is an integral part of the Program and of OBDP’s operation. Much of the communication, collaboration and accountability that have become hallmarks of the Program are based on quick access to maps and data provided by the tool. In addition, other systems like EBROnline, BRS and WZTA depend in whole or part on GISI. A BC ratio of 3.0 was calculated for this tool, meaning for every $1.00 invested in the GIS Infrastructure it is earning a return of $3.00.
Evaluation of the tool shows the cost and time savings in terms of mapping, data requests and benefits of other tools supported by GIS Infrastructure justifies the cost of the system. In addition to these quantifiable benefits other benefits could not be quantified and these included improved accuracy, consistency and timeliness in evaluations and improved accountability through
Page 2 of 25 reporting structures like the Monthly Progress Reports (MPR) and dashboards that provide regular assessments of progress and performance through predetermined performance measures. If these intangibles could be added to the analysis the BC ratio would have been higher.
1.0
B
ACKGROUNDThe primary purpose of the GIS Infrastructure is to analyze, visualize and interpret data in ways that reveal patterns and trends related, primarily, to their relationship to one another in space and time. The location itself is the organizing principle of the data and promotes and facilitates widespread sharing of geospatial data among contractors, stakeholders and agencies involved in the Program. More specifically, the goal is to simplify the sharing of accurate and reliable geospatial data (that is, data organized by geographic location) so users can utilize and understand project data as effortlessly as possible.
GISI products and services include maps and special studies. Information systems (IS) applications supported by, or consuming, GIS include the Bridge Reporting system (BRS), Preconstruction Assessment Tool (PCA), EBR Online, EBR ArcPad and Work Zone Traffic Analysis tool (WZTA). These relationships are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: GIS Infrastructure Relationships
As depicted in Figure 2, the GIS links together data sets, using common location data (such as bridge numbers) to allow OBDP to relate internal data sets to external sources. By creating a shared database, one department can benefit from the work of another. The organization wide applications, known as “enterprise systems”, are central to the organization and ensure
Data Queries OBDP Web Site & Tools Mapping Services Special Studies WZTA BRS EBR ArcPad EBR Online GIS Infra-structure
information can be shared across all functional levels and across business applications. Data can be collected once and then be easily shared and used many times.
To better integrate with ODOT’s existing GIS, the application was built on ESRI™ GIS. The company’s GIS is ubiquitous throughout government and is employed by ODOT GIS. The ESRI ArcGIS™ architecture allows the development of flexible, scalable systems that are compatible with ODOT systems.
Figure 2: GIS Infrastructure and Data Integration
The planning that went into the GISI was successful for both OBDP and ODOT in that they are able to readily share information on the latest systems and how they should be used. OBDP was able to complete, incorporate and build on an internet mapping system that was originally started by another vendor for ODOT. With the common platform and standards, OBDP was able to build on the initial vendor’s work and make it more usable for ODOT and the OTIA III
Program. After assuming control, OBDP developed it in conjunction with the ODOT GIS staff to ensure compatibility with Agency needs.
During the planning of GISI, staff met with ODOT GIS personnel to ensure that the OBDP system met the needs of the Program, was aligned with Agency goals and was designed with the best industry standards.
The design goals of the OBDP GISI were to have:
• Organization-wide data availability – any authorized user who would benefit from geospatial data should have easy access to it.
External Data Sources OBDP Generated Data ODOT Mapping & Data OBDP GIS Infra-structure
Page 4 of 25 • Alignment of GIS standards – OBDP would develop and maintain their own database,
but look for means of leveraging existing ODOT efforts. Extra effort was put into the coordination of activities between the Program and the Agency to ensure advances on one side were communicated and transferred to the other. The intent is to facilitate transfer at the end of the Program.
• Mission critical systems – include GIS in Program systems that are critical to the achievement of mission objectives.
• Enterprise architecture – requires an architecture and associated infrastructure to support data sharing and organization-wide, multipurpose operations.
• Flexibility – acknowledging that there would be changes in the business operations over the course of the Program, the GIS was designed with a framework that could adjust to many needs. Additionally, the Program would have a wide-range of technical and non-technical users through a robust set of GIS systems ranging from lightweight browsers to expert-level analytical, modeling and development programs. The expectation was OBDP GIS would purchase third party software as well as engage in system development. • Organization-wide GIS standards and governance processes – software, data and
infrastructure standards must be centrally established and governed across the enterprise. • Data delivery – the ability of Program staff to originate, review and update spatial data
without being expert GIS users, which would come through a variety of modes including web-delivery and mobile systems and staff oversight.
Each of these objectives was accomplished and GISI has been fully operational on the Program since March 11, 2005.
2.0
S
YSTEML
OGICD
IAGRAMS ANDI
NFORMATIONF
LOW2.1 OBDP’s GIS Infrastructure System
The logical model of OBDP’s GIS Infrastructure is shown in Figure 3. The diagram shows the user’s perspective and leaves out some of the details important to IT professionals. A more detailed diagram of the hardware and software elements is contained in Appendix A.
Authorized users may access GISI directly to view geographic data and compile, download or print maps. Indirect users rely on GISI when they access systems supported by GIS. Each of the supported systems uses GISI to update information and maps. Some of the systems, BRS and ArcPad, also provide information to the GIS database.
The GIS system itself has two parts. One element maps and updates programs, providing information to the various programs supported by GISI. The other element is the GISI database itself, which provides the source of information used by the mapping and data processing programs. The GISI database is regularly updated from original sources, which include ODOT databases. For instance, as ODOT updates road features or traffic volumes the information is regularly used to update OBDP’s GISI databases.
OBDP’s GIS analysts have direct access to the databases. The analysts perform three important functions:
• Data management – The Analysts maintain spatial database and relevant tabular information (e.g., from BRS or PCA programs).
• Special Studies – The data are combined in mathematical “overlays” to conduct special studies related to the Program (e.g. calculating the potential flood regime and associated impacts of a bridge site caused by the addition of pilings to a river).
• Visual communication – Create maps that communicate the data in both hardcopy and online.
Figure 3: GIS Infrastructure Logic
Direct User Web Access Administrator Access OBDP GIS Infrastructure/ Database Mappin g/ Dat aba se Updat es Direct GIS Access BRS EBR Online ArcPad WZTA Indirect Users OBDP Web Site
Page 6 of 25
2.2 Alternative System
In the case of GIS Infrastructure, the alternative system is not a single different way of doing business but a series of alternatives for each direct product and service and each of the systems supported by GISI. The alternatives are described in Table 1. Four major impacts would occur if GISI were not available:
1. Maps would have to be created by purchasing base maps (hardcopy and/or electronic) and adding features manually.
2. Special studies, that rely on GIS, would have to be contracted or carried out using more expensive methods.
3. Three of the independent systems supported by GISI would not be possible; EBR Online, Arch Pad and WZTA.
4. Two of the independent systems would lose some of their functionality; BRS and the OBDP web site.
Table 1: GIS Infrastructure Alternatives
Product/Service/System Alternative Approach
Mapping
Routine Maps Base maps purchased from mapping company. Manual updates by
graphics employees.
Special Request Maps Simple requests could be done by in-house graphics. Any significant requests would be purchased from a vendor.
Public Involvement Maps Would be produced in-house or purchased by PI consultants from other vendors.
Special Studies Some studies could be done in-house at higher expense and longer
time, others would be contracted.
Data Queries Data would not be spatially located nor coordinated by location. As a
result, queries would take longer.
BRS Support Bundle maps would be created from routine maps by graphics
employees. Updates would be limited. BRS information would be manually added to routine maps.
EBR OnlineSupport Not possible without GISI. Design and environmental consultants
would work from hardcopy EBR only.
ArcPad Data Collection Not needed without GIS. In theory, higher cost and lower quality in
environmental field data collection. However, ArcPad was not widely used.
WZTA Support The geospatial interface that makes data retrieval efficient would be
lost and the analytic tool would revert to the spreadsheet program used prior to WZTA.
OBDP Web Site Loss of functionality would result because drill down mapping would
The most important aspect of handling these activities without GISI would be the loss of data integration and loss of timeliness in compilation of maps and data.
3.0
S
YSTEM USERSDirect system users are those who have direct access to the GISI database. These are limited to OBDP GIS analysts who manage and update databases and produce maps and special studies. All Program staff and disciplines have access to the GIS services through the analysts for special projects and mapping requests.
Indirect users include users of BRS, EBROnline, ArcPad, WZTA and the OBDP website which depend on GISI. Indirect users are extensive and include anyone who accesses the tools supported by GISI, including the OBDP website. Indirect users also include those who use maps produced by GISI, the MPR and other information that depends on the GIS database. As noted in Table 2, these users include OBDP, ODOT, the Legislature, regulatory agencies and the general public.
Table 2: GIS Infrastructure Users
Direct Users Indirect Users
Analysts Direct Users Users of BRS,
EBRO, ArcPad, WZTA and OBDP
website
Other Indirect Users
4 OBDP IT staff OBDP staff OBDP
Sub-consultants ODOT Other users Regulatory agencies General public OBDP ODOT Legislature All users of OBDP produced maps
4.0
S
YSTEMB
ENEFITSThe GIS systems used by OBDP created three distinct benefits:
1. Reduced time and cost to collect data, prepare and distribute maps and reports.
2. Impacts of other programs like EBR Online and WZTA that rely on GIS Infrastructure to function.
Page 8 of 25
4.1 Time and Cost Saving in Mapping and Data Functions
Evaluation of time and cost savings begins by identifying the cost of fulfilling each of the alternative functions described in Table 1, without GIS. Several major sources of time and cost savings were identified.
4.1.1 Routine Maps
The routine maps used in the Bridge Program would have to be generated in a much more time consuming manner. Regularly reproduced maps include:
• 85