One response was collected each from respondents who work in the “Geographic Information,” “Planning Directory,” “CADD/Support,” and “Surveying/Support” divisions.

3.1 Mobile Device Use

This section provides information on the use of mobile devices (Questions 5 through 14 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). It covers an overview of the use of mobile devices, the level of reliance on mobile devices within an agency, the usage of mobile devices for 21 inspection functions, and the availability of policies for the use of mobile devices.

3.1.1 Overview of Mobile Device Use

This section provides information on the overall use of mobile devices (Questions 5 through 9 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). It covers (1) the use of mobile devices within an agency, (2) the use of mobile devices among inspectors, (3) an overview of inspectors’ use of business and personal devices, (4) the means to provide mobile devices to inspectors, and (5) the methods to administer and update mobile devices provided by contractors.

3.1.1.1 Level of Mobile Device Use Within Agency

Respondents were asked to indicate all the levels within their DOT to which mobile devices are issued (Question 5 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The survey offered respondents options and allowed for multiple selections. The following results are shown in Figure 3-3:

• 91% (or 39 of 43 respondents) indicated mobile devices are issued to “In-House Inspectors” and “Engineer.”
• 84% (or 36 respondents) indicated their agency issues mobile devices to the “Manager or Equivalent.”
• 81% (or 35 of 43 respondents) indicated their agency issues mobile devices to the “Division Director” and “Upper Executive Management.”
• 53% (or 23 of 43 respondents) indicated mobile devices are issued to “Superintendent.”

• 49% (or 21 of 43 respondents) indicated mobile devices are issued to “Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) consultants.”
• 14% (or six of 43 respondents) reported “Other,” and the following responses were provided: “Project Engineers - Construction Resident Engineer,” “Central Office Construction Support,” and “All field assigned individuals, Maintenance Staff; Technologists.”

3.1.1.2 Level of Mobile Devices Used by Inspectors and CEI Consultants

Respondents who indicated that mobile devices are issued to in-house inspectors or CEI consultants were asked to indicate the percentage of their agency’s in-house inspectors and CEI consultants that use mobile devices to perform their work (Question 6a of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The following results are shown in Figure 3-4:

• 72% (or 28 of 39 respondents) indicated that “75–100%” of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work.
• 15% (or six of 39 respondents) noted that “50–75%” of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work.
• 5% (or two of 39 respondents) said that “25–50%” of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work.
• 8% (or three of 39 respondents) reported that “0–25%” of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work.

Respondents who indicated that their agency issues mobile devices to CEI consultants were asked to indicate the percentage of their agency’s CEI consultants that use mobile devices to perform their work (Question 6b of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). As noted in Figure 3-5, 90% (or 19 of 21 respondents) indicated that “75–100%” of their CEI consultants use mobile devices to perform their work. Ten percent (or two of 21 respondents) reported that “25–50%” of their CEI consultants use mobile devices to perform their work.

3.1.1.3 Type of Mobile Devices Used by Inspectors and CEI Consultants

Respondents who indicated that mobile devices are issued to in-house inspectors or CEI consultants were asked to indicate on a sliding scale (between 0% and 100%) the percentage of inspectors who use business mobile devices and the percentage of inspectors who use personal mobile devices to perform their work (Question 7 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A).

contractor are administered and updated “In-house by agency or contractor,” and two of five respondents reported that mobile devices provided by the contractor are administered and updated by a “Third-party calibration laboratory.” One of five respondents stated that they have other methods for administration or updating of mobile devices, but no elaboration was provided.

3.1.2 Where Mobile Devices Are Used

Respondents were asked to indicate the level of reliance on mobile devices to perform work in planning, construction, and maintenance phases (Question 9 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The following results are shown in Figure 3-10:

• 5% (or two of 42) of the respondents reported a “Very High” level of reliance on mobile devices during the planning phase.
• 2% (or one of 42) of the respondents indicated a “High” level of reliance on mobile devices.
• 24% (or 10 of 42) of the respondents indicated a “Moderate” level of reliance on mobile devices.
• 31% (or 13 of 42) of the respondents reported a “Low” level of reliance on mobile devices.
• 19% (or eight of 42) of the respondents said that their agency has a “Very Low” level of reliance on mobile devices.
• 19% (or eight of 42) of the respondents reported that they are “Uncertain” about the level of reliance of their agency on mobile devices.

• 12% (or five) of the respondents reported a “Low” level of reliance on mobile devices.
• 5% (or two) of the respondents said that their agency has a “Very Low” level of reliance on mobile devices.
• 24% (or 10) of the respondents responded “Uncertain” about the level of reliance of their agency on mobile devices.

3.1.3 How Mobile Devices Are Used

This section provides information on how mobile devices are used for 21 inspection functions (Questions 10 through 12 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). It covers the mobile device applications used for the 21 inspection functions, the type of mobile device used, the mobile device capabilities to support the inspection functions and their mobile applications, the systems with which each of the 21 inspection functions and their mobile applications integrate, the technology they utilize, and the level of IT support needed to use the applications.

3.1.3.1 Applicability of Mobile Application/Software for Inspection Functions

Respondents were asked, for each of the 21 inspection functions supported through mobile devices, to indicate which mobile application/software is used and to select the mobile device capabilities supported by the application (Question 10 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The heatmap in Figure 3-13 shows the responses of the responding DOTs per inspection function.

3.1.3.2 Mobile Device Applications and Capabilities Across Inspection Functions

Respondents were asked to indicate, for each of the 21 inspection functions, which mobile application/software is used on mobile devices (Question 10 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). Table 3-1 shows the mobile device applications used for inspection functions. The applications identified by the survey respondents for most inspection functions were mentioned only once (frequency 1); therefore, they are listed in alphabetical order in the table. However, applications for “Tracking: Tracking the position of bulk materials,” “Tracking: Tracking material delivery,” and “Access: Retrieving project documents” were mentioned more than once; therefore, these applications are reported in the order of their frequency rather than in alphabetical order.

3.1.3.3 Mobile Devices Used for Applications and Capabilities and Across Inspection Functions

Respondents were asked to indicate, for each of the 21 inspection functions supported through mobile devices, which mobile device is used (Question 10 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The results are shown in Figure 3-14, which features a heatmap of the mobile devices used for inspection functions. The survey offered respondents a list of devices and allowed for multiple selections. The heatmap shows that, for all inspection functions, DOTs indicated that they primarily use either an “iOS Smart-phone” or an “iOS Tablet.” DOTs reported that “Android Smart-phone” and “Android Tablet” are used less frequently for inspections; “Rovers” are rarely used for inspection functions.

3.1.3.4 Mobile Device Capabilities to Support Inspection Function and Mobile Application

Respondents were asked to indicate, for each of the 21 inspection functions supported through mobile devices, their “Capabilities to Support the Inspection Function and its Mobile Application” (Question 10 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). Respondents were asked to select all options that apply. The results are provided in Figure 3-15, which features a heatmap of the capabilities to support the inspection function and its mobile application for 21 inspections.

The survey offered respondents a list of capabilities and allowed for multiple selections. The heatmap shows that for most inspections, DOTs reported that “Wi-Fi Connectivity to other systems” and “Camera” are primarily used. “Online field data entry platform accessibility,” and “Offline field data entry platform accessibility” are also used more frequently; “Sound Recording” and “Handwriting recording and recognition” are rarely used.

3.1.3.5 Mobile Device Data Integration with Other Systems

Respondents were asked to indicate, for each of the 21 inspection functions and their mobile applications, the systems with which they integrate (Question 11 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The results are outlined in Figure 3-16, which features a heatmap of the systems with which mobile device data is integrated. The heatmap shows that for most cases, DOTs reported that they use “Management Systems (e.g., Procore, Oracle, AASHTOWare Project, ProjectWise)” to integrate their data. They also use a “Cloud-based file sharing platform (e.g., Dropbox, SharePoint).” State DOTs rarely use “Transportation Asset Management” or “Building Information Modeling for Infrastructure” for data integration. Some DOTs also selected “Other” and various software (i.e., Pix4D, GPS, Mobile Documentation, HaulHub, and Trimble® Business Center software) for data integration.

3.1.3.6 Mobile Device Technologies Integration

Respondents were asked to indicate, for each of the 21 inspection functions and their mobile applications, which technologies they utilize (Question 11 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The results are outlined in Figure 3-17, which features a heatmap of the technologies with which mobile device data is utilized. The heatmap shows that for most cases, DOTs reported that they use “Cellular Cameras” to obtain their data. For most of the inspection functions, DOTs do not use any technology. Some DOTs also selected “Other” and mentioned “HiCAMS,” “PSPP software application to analyze sampled data,” “ArcGIS,” “macOS enterprise app,” and “OnBase for document management,” which they utilize for inspection functions.

3.1.3.7 Level of IT Support Needed

Respondents were asked to estimate, for each of the 21 inspection functions and their mobile applications, the level of IT support needed to use the application (Question 12 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). In the survey, “No-Code development” is defined as a technology enabling a non-technical user with no coding experience to build and use applications.

“Low-code development” is defined as a technology enabling people with no advanced computing or coding skills to develop custom-made applications and digital solutions to address specific operational needs. In Figure 3-18, the heatmap indicates that, for all 21 inspection functions, most of the respondents reported “No support needed, i.e., the mobile device application is no-code and the user can manage on their own”; the exception is “As-builts: developing 3D as-built models,” for which more respondents indicated that “Major IT support is needed, i.e., the application requires IT action before it can be used.” “Some IT support is needed, i.e., the application is low-code and requires limited IT action before it can be used” was less frequently selected than “No support needed.” Finally, a few responding DOTs reported “Major IT support is needed, i.e., the application requires IT action before it can be used” as the level of IT support they needed to use the mobile application.

3.1.4 Policies in Place

This section provides information on the policies DOTs have in place for the use of mobile devices (Questions 13 and 14 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). It covers the availability of policies/standard operating procedures developed for the use of personal or DOT-issued mobile devices and the existence of strategies developed for use of these mobile devices.

3.1.4.1 Mobile Device Policies and Standard Operating Procedures

Respondents were asked to indicate whether their agency has any policies/standard operating procedures developed for the use of personal or DOT-issued mobile devices (Question 13 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). As shown in Figure 3-19, 26% (or 10) of the 39 respondents reported that they are “Unsure” about the availability of policies/standard operating procedures developed for the use of personal or DOT-issued mobile devices; 64% (or 25) of the respondents said that their agency has mobile device policies/standard operating procedures; and the remaining 10% (or four) of the respondents indicated that their agency does not have any mobile device policies/standard operating procedures developed. Policies and standard operating procedures shared by the respondents are available in Appendix D.

3.1.4.2 Mobile Device Strategies

Respondents were asked to indicate whether their agency has any strategies (i.e., documentation on the “how,” “when,” “where,” “who,” and “what”) developed for use of personal or DOT-issued mobile devices (Question 14 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). As shown in Figure 3-20, 49% (or 19) of the 39 respondents reported that they are “Unsure” about the availability of mobile device strategies; 31% (or 12) of the respondents indicated that their agency has a mobile device strategy; and the remaining 21% (or eight) of the respondents said that their agency does not have any mobile device strategies. Strategies on the use of mobile devices shared by the respondents are available in Appendix D.

3.2 Mobile Device Data Storage

This section provides information on the storage of mobile device data (Questions 15 and 16 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). It covers the data storage methods, the systems with which data is integrated, and the methods in which data is integrated.

3.2.1 Mobile Device Data Storage Methods

Respondents were asked to indicate the data storage method for each of the 21 inspection functions (Question 15 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The survey offered respondents options and allowed for multiple selections. The heatmap in Figure 3-21 shows that, for most

of the inspection functions, most respondents reported that data is most frequently managed in a “DOT-managed local repository.” Infrequently, data for inspection functions is managed by “Third Party and Cloud tested solutions.” Finally, two DOTs mentioned “other” but did not elaborate.

3.2.2 Mobile Device Data Integration (“What”)

Respondents were asked to indicate the systems used to integrate mobile device data for each of the 21 inspection functions (Question 15 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The survey offered respondents options and allowed for multiple selections. As shown in Figure 3-22, most respondents indicated that “Data Sent to a System of Official Records” and “Project Administration for Payment Purposes” are the two systems within which mobile device data is integrated. One respondent selected “Other” for “Collecting as-built information,” but no elaboration was provided.

3.2.3 Mobile Device Data Integration (“How”)

Respondents were asked to indicate how mobile data is integrated for each of the 21 inspection functions (Question 15 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The survey offered respondents options and allowed for multiple selections. As shown in the heatmap in Figure 3-23,

for 48% of (or 10) inspection functions, DOTs most frequently indicated that data is integrated using “handover through a cloud-based platform.” For 29% of (or six) inspection functions, DOTs most frequently indicated that data is integrated through “downloading from a server, i.e., manual extraction and integration.” Overall, the heatmap shows that data storage and integration methods vary across inspection functions and DOTs. “Other” was selected by several DOTs; they mentioned that “individual phones,” “Doc Express,” and “macOS Enterprise App” are used for mobile device data storage and integration for the inspection functions.

3.2.4 Mobile Device Data Retention Schedules

Respondents were asked to indicate whether their DOT has a retention schedule for mobile device data (Question 16 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). As shown in Figure 3-24, 42% (or 16) of the 38 respondents indicated that they are “Unsure” about the availability of a retention schedule for mobile device data; 26% (or 10) of the respondents selected “Yes,” indicating that their agency has a retention schedule for mobile device data; and the remaining 32% (or 12) of the respondents selected “No.” Documentation of retention schedules shared by the respondents is available in Appendix D.

3.3 Mobile Device Challenges and Implications

This section provides information about the challenges DOTs face when using mobile devices for inspection (Questions 17 and 18 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). It covers cost implications and the challenges associated with using mobile devices for inspection.

3.3.1 Mobile Device Cost Implications

Respondents were asked to indicate the cost implications of using mobile devices within their agency (Question 17 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The survey offered respondents a list of cost implications and allowed for multiple selections. Most DOTs indicated the existence of multiple cost. As shown in Figure 3-25, the selections of 38 respondents were as follows:

• 92% (or 35) reported that “operational costs” was the most common cost implication.
• 82% (or 31) selected “capital replacement.”
• 79% (or 30) selected “software licenses.”
• 66% (or 25) reported “IT support costs,” and “costs of protective cases” as cost implications.
• 50% (or 19) indicated “cost of connectivity” as a cost implication.
• 37% (or 14) indicated “cost of training.”
• 34% (or 13) indicated “cost of portable chargers” is a cost implication for using mobile devices within their agency.

3.3.2 Mobile Device Challenges

Respondents were asked to indicate the challenges associated with using mobile devices for construction inspection within their agency (Question 18 of the survey questionnaire in Appendix A). The survey offered respondents a list of potential challenges and allowed for multiple selections. The following results are shown in Figure 3-26:

• 78% (or 29) of the respondents faced issues related to “Connectivity.”
• 57% (or 21) of the respondents faced issues related to “Financial (cost of mobile devices across the agency).”
• 49% (or 18) of the respondents faced issues related to “Integration.”
• 46% (or 17) of the respondents had concerns about “Security and Privacy (data security).”