Moving Forward

Project-management technology helps deliver transportation programs without a hitch.

Whether it’s by plane, by train, or by automobile, people will always need sufficient ways to commute. Perhaps that is why, even though other sectors of the construction market continue to lag, transportation remains one of the few to show some promising potential.

Led by work on airport and rail projects, transportation construction in 2010 is expected to recover from flat levels and even show some signs of growth moving forward. Figures from FMI, www.fminet.com, Raleigh, N.C., demonstrate $35.3 million of construction was put into place on transportation projects in the first quarter this year. This is up from the $33.9 million that was aggregated during the same period a year earlier. While this 4% year-to-year increase may seem small at first glance, when compared with the 32% decrease in commercial during the same timeframe, these results look much more favorable. In fact, aside from public safety (10%) and manufacturing (22%), transportation is the only segment of construction to have grown during this period.

Of course, stimulus funding has played a major role in providing work to this segment of the market. Original figures from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) earmarked roughly $49.3 billion in funds for transportation—and from the looks of it the best is yet to come for these projects.

Onvia, www.onvia.com, Seattle, Wash., is a primary source for tracking government procurement data. Of the more than 35,000 infrastructure projects it tracked in 2009, only 27% (9,500) had been awarded to contractors by the end of last year. That means more than 25,000 projects (either fully funded or partially funded by recovery dollars) remain in the pipeline and should be set to begin in 2010. The value of these remaining projects stands at a whopping $90.4 billion.

Naturally these projects require a detailed level of reporting and cost control, among other factors, for owners. This presents a fit for project-management technology, as these solutions help owner organizations develop and execute best practices; help to roll-up actionable key performance indicators; and create automated workflows and procedures that provide consistency and accountability to the project portfolio. 

But independent of ARRA-funded jobs, demand for project-management technology seems to remain strong. A slew of owner organizations, ranging from airports to transit authorities, have been making effective use of the technology for years. The only thing that is new lately is just how savvy these owners have become at exploiting new capabilities of these systems. And there are no plans in sight for slowing them down.

Up in the Air
With approximately 154,000 daily passengers, the Dallas/Fort Worth Intl. Airport (DFW), www.dfwairport.com, ranks among the top 10 in the world in terms of passenger volume and sheer physical size. From the outside looking in, the process of managing capital projects across the more than 29.8 square miles owned and operated by DFW without disrupting travel operations could seem like a tall task. But DFW is considered a technology-progressive owner, meaning it has the right tools in place to ensure each project has a smooth landing.

DFW embraced project-management technology before it was considered mainstream by owners. DFW decided to use the technology on its capital development program in 2000, which included the new Intl. Terminal D and the Skylink people mover. This led it to use a technology system that was better suited for a general contractor which, at that time, was considered best of breed for owners.

But DFW had kept itself informed of technology advances and, when it became clear that a new capital development program was likely, it was ready to raise the bar again. In particular, it was interested in Web-based, hosted systems that would allow DFW to reduce the cost and maintenance of housing the technology internally.

Portfolio project-management software from Skire, www.skire.com, Menlo Park, Calif., was selected by DFW after a rigorous procurement process.

The system from Skire will support DFW’s capital program management business processes that define action, policy, and measurement from project inception through completion.

According to Skire, this technology helps organizations such as DFW create and change workflow processes without the need for complicated custom programming. In the case of DFW, this will help in efforts to retrieve and aggregate data, provide roll-up and drilldown capabilities from multiple sources, and present a common set of results in a consistent and structured manner that is based on specific defined rules and parameters set forth by the airport.

In addition to its standard ongoing annual capital improvement programs, DFW is also moving forward with a new TDP (terminal development program). For the TDP, DFW will be remodeling Terminals A, B, C, and E, which are approximately 36 years old and primarily consist of original structures and building systems. The underlying goals of the program are to improve efficiency, passenger processing, and aesthetic appearance for all four terminals. It is a program where the new technology will certainly be able to show off its capabilities. 

Under “Pressure”
While airport projects are coming on board with technology fast and furious these days, transit projects aren’t missing any stops on this fast-moving trend either. TriMet, www.trimet.org, Portland, Ore., provides bus, light rail, and commuter rail services in three counties within the Portland metro area. The organization has standardized its project management using Prolog from Meridian Systems, www.meridiansystems.com, Folsom, Calif., for more than a decade. After trying for years to track construction costs and funding accountability in multiple software systems—including some homegrown applications—TriMet decided back in 2000 to make the switch to Prolog. Cost and contract management is a priority for TriMet due to the fact its funding is split between the Federal Transportation Admin., and local sources. Therefore a system that can accurately track costs in unique ways becomes of unique value.

In the coming years, however, this ability to accurately report and track for multiple sources might just become a necessity for TriMet, given the fact it is eligible to receive more than $53 million in federal stimulus funds from the ARRA. This includes more than $44 million in ARRA transit formula funds, plus $8.5 million in funds provided by the Oregon Dept. of Transportation, metro, and regional partners. The 29 stimulus-funded projects from TriMet are projected to fund more than 1,800 jobs, both direct and indirect.

However, one of TriMet’s most comprehensive projects isn’t ARRA funded. A 7.3-mile light rail project that connects Portland State University in downtown Portland, inner Southeast Portland, Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County is projected to carry up to an average of 27,400 riders during a given week. Scheduled for completion in 2015, preliminary engineering on the project was recently fulfilled by TriMet in March 2010, during which time the design of the total project was brought to 30%. Helping to streamline this process was the ability to successfully track “pressures” using technology.

Linda Tribbett, business systems analyst, TriMet, explains “pressures” as any factor that could impact the cost of a project, yet has not reached the point where it is considered a legitimate issue. In other words, it is a factor that may or may not come about during the course of a project, but is critical enough that the possibility bears active monitoring by the team. Examples include unforeseen conditions in underground work or the allowance for spare parts pending operation’s final inventory.

“In the olden days that would be referred to as the shoe box underneath the desk of our engineers,” laughs Tribbett, describing pressures. “The FTA has said we know your engineers are aware of impacts to the project that would not be technically considered potential changes, but if they were to come to fruition it could cause major cost and schedule impacts, and we would like to see those; we don’t care how you do it, we just want to be warned.

“Our engineers have always managed (pressures) very well, but as far as capturing that information electronically and being able to store it for reporting so that others can keep track as well, that is what the FTA was requesting.”

The ability to track “pressures” has been built into Prolog. “We assign each pressure a probability depending on how likely that pressure (could actually impact a project). And if that probability is 90% or over, we know that it will touch our cost-to-complete possible expenditures,” says Tribbett.

During the preliminary engineering for the Portland-to-Milwaukie job, TriMet engineers are doing what is called configuration management, tracking everything that might impact the LPA (locally preferred alternative) cost, schedule, or design. While pressures, according to Tribbett, relate to the construction phase of a project, this is an example on how this protective measure is helping during the design/engineering phase.

While TriMet is taking precautionary methods with “pressures,” it also has plans to streamline the process of when potential changes become actual change orders.

Currently, engineers and administrators are entering all the field and contract management and supervisory data in one module within the Prolog database. Additionally, everything associated with cost is entered in another project within the same database. “The process of manually re-entering the change orders and associated PCs into the cost module was time-consuming and included a greater margin for error,” says Tribbett.

She says the plan is to implement Encompass from Dimension 5 Solutions, www.d5solutions.com, Roseville, Calif., built on a Microsoft .NET platform. 

“This will allow us to take potential changes that become (actual) change orders and electronically populate them into cost side of our database,” says Tribbett. “Because we have to do cost-to-complete forecasting, in the past what we had to do to create those monthly cost-to-complete reports was to have an admin look at every (potential change) and change order and everything that is in all of our engineers’ major contracts. They would go in and have to decide which ones to pull out and put into the cost module. They would do that differently than we do in the engineer’s module, so it would populate reports to show our cost to complete—what our forecasting and variances might be.”

With Encompass those pressures and potential changes that have not become actual change orders would also populate the fields in the database to help with cost-to-complete. Engineers will now simply trigger items to show the cost-to-complete forecasting and then someone in corporate management will be able to produce cost-to-completes with the press of a button. Tribbett anticipates this will save TriMet a little under two weeks on the job.

An Automated World
AECOM, www.aecom.com, Los Angeles, Calif., is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation. The company is responsible for the development of engineering documents and providing support services for project management and project controls functions for a variety of clients. 

Projects are often split up into several bid packages, and a core group of design professionals must support each of these contracts. A field staff will typically include a construction manager/resident engineer and inspection professionals assigned to each contract. There is a need to centrally manage project documentation and work processes and tightly track and report on project budgets at both the project level and the program level. An owner needs to know how his or her project is tracking against the budget; identifying any commitments or change orders/cost events that are looming; which change orders have been executed; and how it all ties together and impacts the program budget.

“Projects are often split into several contracts and spread geographically. There is a need to quickly disseminate information, like RFIs (requests for information) and submittals, to all participants. My past experience shows that a Web-based system is the best approach,” says Patrick Watz, project manager, AECOM.

Still in the implementation phase with technology from e-Builder, www.e-builder.net, Plantation, Fla., Watz is satisfied with the user-friendliness of the system already. Says Watz, “It supports much of the project work processes, and is flexible in development of custom forms and processes. To be able to kickoff a work process, have that go to one individual, and once it is completed it is sent to next person is great. The visibility into where things are in the work process is a powerful tool.”

Such a system allows an automated workflow to be scripted in place of a manual process where documents would need to be hand delivered or emailed to people. By condensing all data into one location where it is readily accessible to everyone, the technology streamlines processes for resolving issues or processing paperwork during construction.

Watz says, “Many projects operate in an electronic world, with folder structures on the network and electronic forms developed. Much of the work processes happen manually or through email. What happens if that email gets lost in the system or if a document sits on someone’s desk for days?” And that is perhaps where the greatest value of project-management technology lies: no layovers when it comes to the flow of critical information. 

Your Technology Checklist

With the proper due diligence, finding the right project-management solution for your organization can be simple. Constructech outlined three key requirements to the evaluation and selection process and spoke with John Leet, marketing director, Skire, www.skire.com, Menlo Park, Calif., for some added insight on each point.

1) Identify the purpose of putting the system in place, both now and into the future:

Leet: “Flexibility is a key consideration, not only with regards to the initial implementation for how the technology is applied in helping you execute projects and programs, but also as an ongoing method for lowering your total cost of ownership in that application. What we find is that no matter how much work goes into mapping and adapting the technology to your initial implementation, there will always be changes over time.”

2) Generate a list of targeted products and establish key benefits:

Leet: “The ability to easily configure is key, but you don’t want to be tied to the vendor to maintain and update the configurations. From a broader technology perspective, having this all delivered in a SaaS (software-as-a-solution) model is key, as is the ability for the solution to support the entire lifecycle of the project, from capital project execution through the operations and real estate management side of things. In reality, not many software applications can provide full lifecycle support.”

3) Make selection based on research, testing, and evaluations, involving key members of your organization:

Leet: “It is very important to have strong executive sponsorship from the business side of your organization. Naturally, IT needs to be involved to ensure the system is a fit within your IT infrastructure, but you need to do the same from a capabilities standpoint. Typically, the best model is to let the capital construction side drive the requirements definition, evaluations, and selection. They are the true customers.
 —Mike Carrozzo