Information was gathered from a literature review, a survey of DOTs, and follow-up case examples with selected state DOTs. Numerous articles and reports were reviewed to understand the use of mobile devices in construction and inspection. The literature review focused on synthesizing the use of mobile devices in the construction industry, their use within DOTs, and benefits and challenges associated with using mobile devices. A survey was created and distributed to the voting members of the AASHTO Committee on Construction (COC). AASHTO COC constitutes members from each of the 50 U.S. state DOTs as well as the District of Columbia DOT. A total of 43 responses were received, yielding an 84% response rate. Subsequent case example interviews were conducted with six state DOTs to gather additional details: four state DOTs—Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia—have experience using mobile devices for inspection; and two state DOTs—Missouri and Montana—are making progress with their use of mobile devices for inspection.

Results of this synthesis indicate that most of the responding DOTs issue mobile devices to their in-house inspectors, engineers, managers, and upper executive management. Approximately half of the responding DOTs issue mobile devices to construction engineering and inspection (CEI) consultants. Respondents indicating that their agency issues mobile devices to their in-house inspectors or CEI consultants noted that these devices are provided to 75% to 100% of their in-house inspectors and CEI consultants. For most responding DOTs, their in-house inspectors and CEI consultants use business mobile devices provided by the agency. Few responding DOTs indicated that mobile devices are provided by the contractor. The mobile devices are, for the most part, administered in-house by the agency or by the contractor. Respondents were asked to indicate the level of reliance on mobile devices in each of the planning, construction, and maintenance areas. On average, planning had a low level of reliance, construction had a high level of reliance, and maintenance had a moderate level of reliance.

To better understand how mobile devices are used for inspection, respondents were provided with the 21 inspection functions described previously and were asked to select all functions for which mobile devices are used. The inspection functions selected most were (1) “Quality management: tracking site photos and videos” and (2) “Access: retrieving project documentation.” DOTs more frequently reported that mobile device use was not applicable in five of the 21 inspection functions—(1) “Measuring: measuring pavement thickness,” (2) “As-builts: developing 3D as-builts models,” (3) “Quality management: sending reminders of material testing requirements based on recorded payment quantities,” (4) “Measuring: measuring material strength and temperature,” and (5) “Assisted inspection: locating underground utilities and underground assets.” According to respondents, “iOS smart-phones” and “iOS tablets” were selected as the most commonly used types of mobile devices for most of the 21 inspection functions. When asked about the mobile device capabilities used to support each inspection function, “online data field entry platforms accessibility,” “Camera,” “Wi-Fi Connectivity to other systems” and “offline field data entry platforms accessibility” were the most commonly selected responses across the 21 inspection functions. “Sound recording” and “handwriting recording recognition” were selected as the least used capabilities.

Respondents were asked to select the systems that integrate each of the 21 inspection functions and their mobile applications. “Management Systems (e.g., Procore, Oracle, AASHTOWare Project?, ProjectWise)” and “Cloud-based file sharing platform (e.g., Dropbox, SharePoint)” were the most selected systems. When asked about mobile device technology integration, most respondents selected “cellular camera” as the one technology that integrates with most of the 21 inspection functions. Respondents also indicated that “Material Delivery Management System (MDMS)” primarily integrates with two inspection functions: (1) “tracking material

delivery” and (2) “tracking the position of bulk materials.” Respondents also reported that “digital display of 3D graphical models” integrates the most with “conducting earthwork inspection and quantities.”

For most of the 21 inspection functions, most respondents selected “no IT support is needed,” indicating that the particular mobile device application is “no-code” (i.e., a technology enabling a non-technical user to build and use applications with no coding experience) and that users can manage on their own. Some respondents selected “some IT support is needed” for some of the inspection functions, indicating that the mobile device application is “low-code” (i.e., a technology enabling people with no advanced computing or coding skills to develop custom-made applications and digital solutions to address specific operational needs) and thus requires limited IT action before the application can be used.

Results indicate that more than half the respondents reported that their agency has policies or standard operating procedures developed for the use of personal or DOT-issued mobile devices. However, few respondents indicated that their agency has strategies (i.e., documentation on “the how, when, where, who, and what”) developed for use of personal or DOT-issued mobile devices.

“DOT-managed local repository” was selected by most respondents as the most used data storage method for all 21 inspection functions. “Third Party and Cloud tested solutions” was the second most selected data storage method.

For all 21 inspection functions, most respondents indicated that the mobile device data is either “sent to a system of official records” or is integrated with “project administration for payment purposes.” Respondents also indicated that mobile device data is integrated using “handover through a cloud-based platform” and through “downloading from a server, i.e., manual extraction and integration.”

When asked about the availability of data retention schedules for mobile device data, respondents’ answers varied among “unsure,” “yes,” and “no.” Additional information was collected on data retention schedules during the interviews with selected DOTs.

The greatest cost implications associated with using mobile devices for inspection functions that respondents selected are (1) “operational costs,” (2) “capital replacement,” (3) “software licenses,” and (4) “cost of protective cases.” When asked about the challenges associated with using mobile devices for construction inspection within their agency, the most commonly selected issue was related to “connectivity, specifically Internet connectivity issues in rural areas.”

The findings presented in this synthesis are aggregated from 43 responses from 43 DOTs and provide an overview of the current state of the practice of using mobile devices to support digitized project documentation and inspection. This synthesis identified the following gaps in knowledge that could be addressed through future research as DOTs continue to invest in mobile devices for inspectors:

• Guidelines and strategies for DOTs to overcome connectivity issues
• Guidelines for device selection
• Guidelines for software evaluation to select the appropriate solutions to address needs of DOTs
• Guidelines for data management and privacy and security concerns
• Guidelines for selecting champions to advance technology implementation and adoption