In Chapter 2, numerous articles and reports were reviewed to understand mobile device practices. This literature review focused on mobile devices in the construction industry and their usage across DOTs, their benefits, and their perceived challenges. The synthesis objective was addressed in the survey results presented in Chapter 3 and the six DOT case examples described in Chapter 4.

The following sections revisit the primary findings of this synthesis. These findings are aggregated from the responses of 43 different DOTs and provide an overview of the current state of the practice of mobile devices as a tool for digitized project documentation and inspection. The findings also cover 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. Unless otherwise noted, the basis for the percentages specified is 43 responses.

5.1 Overview of Mobile Device Uses

Ninety-one percent (39) of respondents indicated that, within their agency, mobile devices are issued to in-house inspectors and 88% (38) of respondents indicated mobile devices are issued to engineers; 81% (35 respondents) indicated that their agency issues mobile devices to the division director and upper executive management; and 53% (23 respondents) noted that mobile devices are issued to superintendents within their agency. Moreover, 49% (21 respondents) reported that mobile devices are issued to CEI consultants (Figure 3-3).

Among the respondents who indicated that mobile devices are issued to in-house inspectors, 72% (28 respondents) indicated that 75% to 100% of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work. Additionally, 15% (six respondents) of the agencies noted that 50% to 75% of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work; 5% (two respondents) said that 25% to 50% of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work; and 8% (three respondents) reported that 0% to 25% of their agency’s in-house inspectors use mobile devices to perform their work (Figure 3-4).

Among respondents who indicated that their agency issues mobile devices to CEI consultants, 90% (19 of 21 respondents) indicated that 75% to 100% of their CEI consultants use mobile devices to perform their work. Ten percent (two of 21 respondents) mentioned that 25% to 50% of their CEI consultants use mobile devices to perform their work (Figure 3-5).

Among the 37 responding DOTs who indicated that their in-house inspectors use mobile devices, on average, 84% (31 respondents) of their in-house inspectors are issued business mobile devices, and 16% (six respondents) of their in-house inspectors use their personal mobile devices (Figure 3-6).

Among the 20 responding DOTs who indicated that their CEI consultants use mobile devices, on average, 75% (15 respondents) of their CEI consultants are issued business mobile devices, and 21% (four respondents) of their CEI consultants use their personal mobile devices (Figure 3-7).

Among the respondents who indicated that mobile devices are issued to in-house inspectors or CEI consultants, 91% (39 respondents) stated that mobile devices are provided by the agency to inspectors; 23% (10 respondents) indicated mobile devices are provided by the contractor to inspectors; and 12% (5 respondents) discussed other means by which devices are provided ( Figure 3-8).

Among respondents who indicated that mobile devices are provided to inspectors by contractors, most (80%, four of five respondents) indicated that mobile devices provided by the contractor are administered and updated in-house by agency or contractor, and 40% (two of five respondents) reported that mobile devices provided by the contractor are administered and updated through a third-party calibration laboratory (Figure 3-9).

5.2 Where Mobile Devices Are Used

When respondents were asked to indicate the level of reliance on mobile devices to perform work during the planning, construction, and maintenance areas, DOTs most frequently indicated that they have a low reliance on mobile devices during the planning phase (31%, 13 of 42 respondents) (Figure 3-10). Additionally, DOTs most frequently indicated that they have a very high reliance on mobile devices during the construction phase (50%, 21 of 42 respondents) (Figure 3-11). Finally, DOTs most frequently indicate that they have a moderate reliance on mobile devices during the maintenance phase (29%, 12 of 42 respondents) (Figure 3-12).

5.3 How Mobile Devices Are Used

Out of the 21 inspection functions, DOTs more frequently reported that mobile device use was not applicable for only five inspection functions, including measuring material strength and temperature, measuring pavement thickness, tracking finished materials and inventory, sending reminders of material testing requirements based on recorded pavement quantities, and developing 3D as-built models (Figure 3-13).

Several mobile device applications were reported by DOTs to be frequently used across many of the inspection functions. Those applications include AASHTOWare Project Site Manager, CAMMS (Computer Aided Maintenance Management System), Mobile Inspector, HaulHub, Advanced Work Packaging, ArcGIS Survey 123, Trimble, PlanGrid, Field Manager, Oracle Primavera Unifier, Excel, Word, and Adobe.

For all 21 inspection functions, DOTs more frequently reported that they use iOS devices instead of Android devices. iOS smartphones and IOS tablets were reported to be used roughly equally by DOTs for all 21 inspection functions. Sixty-seven percent (29 respondents) report that mobile devices, specifically iOS smartphones, were most frequently used for taking site photos and videos (Figure 3-14).

Regarding mobile device capabilities for different inspection functions, DOTs reported that, for 20 of the 21 inspection functions, Wi-Fi connectivity to other systems capabilities is more frequently reported compared to Bluetooth connectivity to other systems; the only exception was measuring material strength and temperature. State DOTs indicated camera capabilities were frequently supported on mobile devices. Online field data entry platform accessibility capabilities were more frequently reported than offline field data entry platform accessibility capabilities for all inspection functions. Sound recording and handwriting recording and recognition capabilities are rarely supported (Figure 3-15).

Regarding data integration with other systems, DOTs reported that, for all inspection functions, data is integrated with management systems (e.g., Procore, Oracle, AASHTOWare Project, ProjectWise) and cloud-based file sharing platforms (e.g., Dropbox, SharePoint). For only five inspection functions—locating underground utilities and underground assets, taking site photos and videos, collecting as-built information, developing 3D as-built models, and retrieving project documents—DOTs more frequently reported that data is integrated with cloud-based file sharing

platforms instead of management systems. DOTs rarely use transportation asset management and building information modeling for infrastructure for data integration (Figure 3-16).

Regarding mobile device technology integration, for 20 out of the 21 inspection functions, cellular cameras were the most frequently utilized technology. States frequently reported that material delivery management systems were utilized for tracking the position of bulk materials (eight of 12 respondents) and tracking material delivery (nine of 15 respondents). Finally, DOTS frequently reported that digital display of 3D graphical models was utilized for conducting earthwork inspection and quantities (six of 13 respondents) (Figure 3-17).

Regarding the level of IT support needed to use applications, for 20 out of the 21 inspection functions, DOTs most frequently reported that no support is needed, except for developing 3D as-built models, for which more respondents indicated that major IT support is needed. The need for some IT support was less frequently noted than the need for no IT involvement. Few responding DOTs reported that major IT support is needed for all the inspection functions (Figure 3-18).

5.4 Policies in Place

Twenty-six percent (10 of 39) of 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% (25 of 35) of respondents said that their agency has mobile device policies/standard operating procedures; and the remaining 10% (four of 39) of respondents indicated that their agency does not have any mobile device policies/standard operating procedures developed (Figure 3-19).

Forty-nine percent (19 of 39) of respondents reported that they are unsure about the availability of mobile device strategies; 31% (12 of 39) of respondents indicated that their agency has a mobile device strategy; and the remaining 21% (eight of 39) of respondents said that their agency does not have any mobile device strategies (Figure 3-20).

5.5 Mobile Device Data Storage

This section provides a summary of the information on the storage of mobile device data. It covers the data storage methods, the systems with which data is integrated, and the methods in which data is integrated.

5.6 Mobile Device Data Storage Methods

For most of the inspection functions, most respondents reported that data is most frequently managed in a DOT local repository. Less frequently, data for inspection functions is managed by third-party and cloud-tested solutions. For only two inspection functions—locating underground utilities and underground assets and sending reminders of material testing requirements based on recorded pavement quantities—DOTs more frequently reported that data is managed by third-party and cloud-tested solutions (Figure 3-21).

5.7 Mobile Device Data Integration (“What”)

Regarding mobile device data integration, for most of the inspection functions, DOTs reported roughly evenly that data is sent to a system of official records and project administration for payment purposes (Figure 3-22).

5.8 Mobile Device Data Integration (“How”)

For 10 of the 21 inspection functions, DOTs most frequently indicated that data is integrated using handover through cloud-based platforms. For six of the inspection functions, DOTs most frequently indicated that data is integrated through downloading from a server (i.e., manual extraction and integration) (Figure 3-23).

5.9 Mobile Device Data Retention Schedules

Forty-two percent (16 of 38) of the respondents indicated that they are unsure about the availability of a retention schedule for mobile device data; 26% (10 of 38) of the respondents indicated that their agency has a retention schedule for mobile device data; and the remaining 32% (12 of 38) of respondents reported that their agency does not have a retention schedule for mobile device data (Figure 3-24).

5.10 Mobile Device Challenges and Implications

This section provides a summary of the information on challenges DOTs face when using mobile devices for inspection. It covers cost implications as well as the challenges associated with using mobile devices for inspection.

5.11 Mobile Device Cost Implications

Regarding the different cost implications challenging DOTs, 92% (35 of 38) of respondents indicated operational costs as the most common cost implication, followed by capital replacement (82% or 31 of 38 respondents), software licenses (79% or 30 of 38 respondents), IT support costs (66% or 25 of 38 respondents), costs of protective cases (66% or 25 of 38 respondents), costs of connectivity (50% or 19 of 38 respondents), costs of training (37% or 14 of 38 respondents), and cost of portable chargers (34%, or 13 of 38 respondents) (Figure 3-25).

5.12 Mobile Device Challenges

Regarding mobile device challenges DOTs face, 78% (29 of 37 respondents) faced issues related to connectivity, followed by 57% (21 of 37 respondents) with financial cost of mobile devices across the agency, and 49% (18 of 37 respondents) with integration. Also, 46% (17 of 37 respondents) had concerns about data security and privacy, while 38% (14 of 37 respondents) reported security and mobile device users’ privacy concerns. Moreover, 35% (13 of 37 respondents) faced buy-in challenges (resistance to change/technology), and 32% (12 of 37 respondents) had limited time to train inspectors on the use of mobile devices. In addition, 24% (nine of 37 respondents) had issues in setup (frequent involvement of IT to help with the devices) and maintenance (concerns with maintaining mobile devices in good condition). Additionally, 22% (n = 8) reported safety concerns with mobile devices becoming a safety hazard on the job site, and 16% (six of 37 respondents) expressed challenges in setup (time needed to set up mobile devices for use in the field). Finally, 19% (7 of 37 respondents) associated challenges with maintenance (concerns with downloading and updating mobile applications), safety (concerns with distracted workers on the jobsite), setup (concerns with software bugs in mobile device applications), and storage (not enough storage on mobile devices to access needed files and applications) (Figure 3-26).

5.13 Opportunities for Future Study

As DOTs continue to invest in using mobile devices for inspection, this synthesis identified the following information gaps that could be addressed through future research:

• Guidelines and strategies for DOTs to overcome connectivity issues: Address and communicate changes and strategies that DOTs can implement to overcome connectivity issues.
• Guidelines for device selection: Investigate the types of devices that are most appropriate for the workforce and can ensure an increase in performance and efficiency.
• Guidelines for software evaluation to select the appropriate solutions to address DOTs’ needs: Develop a process for DOTs to evaluate available software tools to address DOTs’ needs and support their digital transition.
• Guidelines for data management and privacy and security concerns: Understand liabilities associated with DOTs’ digital transition and identify mitigation strategies to minimize and eliminate risks associated with data privacy and security.
• Guidelines for selecting champions to advance technology implementation and adoption: Identify the technology champions within DOTs who can bridge the workforce technology gap and increase its acceptance and adoption rate.