Digital Model–Based Project Development and Delivery: A Guide for Quality Management (2025)
Chapter: 6 Agency Considerations for Implementing This Guide
CHAPTER 6
Agency Considerations for Implementing This Guide
6.1 Introduction
This chapter provides suggestions for implementing this guide and addressing gaps in the design quality–management process created by the introduction of 3D model–based design. These guidelines are organized using the people-process-technology framework.
This framework balances competing needs and gaps against how guidelines fit within an element, summarized as follows:
- People: change management and workforce development. Guidelines for establishing roles and responsibilities and defining competencies necessary for model-based design reviews. Guidelines for setting up committees, working groups, and collaborations with peer agencies are also people oriented.
- Process: planning changes to the quality management process. Guidelines for reviewing and updating current quality management policies and procedures as well as implementing agency-specific standards, job aids, and quality artifacts.
- Technology: current functionality and ongoing developments. Guidelines for evaluating technology relevant to the quality management of 3D models and partnering with software vendors to develop short- and long-term strategies for successful implementation.
6.2 People: Change Management and Workforce Development
Transitioning from a 2D plan–based to a 3D model–based review environment highlights the ideas about quality management mechanisms for performing reviews long held by agencies.
While the roles and responsibilities of design team members are not changing dramatically, the required competencies and methods used to perform and document reviews in a model-based environment are in flux. Thus, it is important for agencies to review current job descriptions to identify gaps in required and preferred qualifications. Based on this analysis, agencies can develop and deploy an education and training plan to upskill their workforce using short- and long-term activities suggested in this section.
6.2.1 Advice for Agencies
This section provides suggestions on the core components required to establish appropriate resources, identifies key positions and job responsibilities affected by digital design, and proposes a change management strategy to methodically and efficiently reskill agency staff and their stakeholders.
Multiple agencies have found it extremely valuable to establish an organizational structure or technical working groups guided by a steering committee when transitioning to digital project development and delivery. Dedicated staff with specialized expertise were tasked with creating and deploying action plans for establishing or updating standards and procedures, evaluating and setting up new technology, defining new roles and responsibilities or updating them (as described in Chapter 4), identifying skill set gaps, and creating education and training programs to fill those gaps. Deploying model-based quality management is only one of many aspects of digital project development and delivery that need to be coordinated and overseen by someone with the appropriate expertise and availability.
The research team suggests the following:
- Establish a dedicated position to coordinate all efforts related to implementation. This new position may start as a temporary assignment or permanent position, depending on available resources. A digital transformation of this magnitude cannot be completed successfully by assigning additional duties to personnel who are already overcommitted. A digital delivery manager or lead can work with agency staff to identify which stakeholders should be included when planning updates to the quality management process and resources.
- Identify which job categories are typically affected by changes to the quality management process. Update job descriptions and minimum qualifications for affected positions. The agency may also need to define new roles and responsibilities, as appropriate.
- Determine core competencies for different review types that agencies can use to revise job descriptions and training materials. (See Appendix D for a list of core competencies in three major categories: CADD, CDE, and design.)
- Identify risks, assess their impacts, and establish mitigation strategies to prioritize initial investments when revising the agency’s approach to quality management for 3D model–based design and deliverables.
- Develop a communication plan to disseminate information and educate stakeholders about changes in the review process as well as opportunities for training and technical support. Being proactive with communication will break negative feedback loops and mitigate fears about the changing system. Communication plans should include a mix of in-person and virtual engagements, easily accessible documents (possibly on a website), and outreach to cover engagement gaps.
- Establish a technical support and training group that will
- – Coordinate and collaborate with agency IT personnel to determine or update programmatic process control for evaluation of CADD and model-based review software. This group will need to work with IT personnel to identify current roadblocks in the procurement of new software and create solutions for overcoming them.
- – Engage with software developers routinely to configure and deploy appropriate software for different roles and responsibilities, develop training, provide technical support, and develop automation tools, where appropriate.
Stakeholders typically involved in recommended activities include
- BIM/CADD or digital delivery group,
- Quality managers,
- Designers,
- Discipline reviewers, and
- Methods development or standards engineer.
6.2.2 Coordination, Collaboration, and Partnerships
Digital project development and delivery are becoming more widespread, so agencies and industry (e.g., consultants and contractors) need to collaborate with each other and educational
institutions. Agencies and industry can work with trade schools, colleges, and universities to integrate digital delivery technologies and methods into their curricula as part of a long-term vision and partnership to prepare the future workforce. However, this will not fulfill immediate training needs for new quality management processes and workflows among the existing workforce. This section provides suggested short- and long-term strategies for sharing knowledge, creating trainings to fill competency gaps, and advancing the functionality of technology.
The research team suggests the following:
- Coordinate and collaborate with other state DOTs and national groups through peer exchanges and hands-on workshops to implement the products of this study. Examples include
- – Piloting products from this study and making recommendations for improvements.
- – Comparing Appendix B to the Model Element Breakdown Structure from AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Electronic Engineering Standards and making recommendations for improvements and adoption of a national standard.
- – Developing national modeling standards based on the concepts of LOD and LOIN following ISO 7817-1—Building Information Modeling: Level of Information Need. Part 1: Concepts and Principles.
- – Coordinating with NCHRP Project 08-174, “Development of a Surveying and Mapping Guide for Transportation Projects,” regarding standard practices for geospatial positional accuracies and best practices for documenting workflows and procedures for data collection, validation of datasets, and production of digital deliverables for design.
- – Reviewing the information from Appendices D, E, and F and updating with lessons learned from pilot implementation.
- – Reviewing and modifying the sample quality artifacts to develop standard templates.
- Consider adopting international standards, such as ISO 9000, ISO 19650, and buildingSMART’s openBIM.
- Partner with software vendors to develop standardized trainings, and solicit technical support for their model-based design and review products.
- Partner with software vendors to advance the development of automated review tools.
- Partner with industry leaders to investigate the potential adoption of open data standards.
- Partner with colleges and technical schools to explore opportunities for incorporating modern methods and technologies for digital project development and delivery in their curricula and apprenticeship programs.
6.2.3 Training Content and Delivery
A program that combines short how-to videos and hands-on workshops has become the preferred style for technology training. This is due to the rapid advancement of technology, causing traditional training materials to quickly become outdated. Creating a training program for agency staff and stakeholders on model review processes and development standards is highly encouraged. Deploying training in small groups provides people with a support network to return to when troubleshooting issues. Just-in-time and on-demand trainings provide answers about specific topics when a reviewer most needs them.
Suggestions for creating training content are as follows:
- Sample datasets: A sample dataset from a model-based project can provide a realistic experience to help users learn new quality management procedures, documentation, and software functionality. The sample dataset should be representative of a specific milestone review.
- Procedures: The review procedures provided in Appendix E can be used as a starting point for creating trainings. These procedures are software agnostic; thus, the person preparing training material for an agency could use them as a framework to create software-specific
- content. Use the procedures in Appendix E to create simple, one-page cheat sheets that complement short videos demonstrating review software functionality.
- Documentation: The model elements taxonomy in Appendix B, review documentation property set in Appendix C, and sample quality artifacts in Appendix F can be used as starting points for creating agency-specific documentation for quality management reviews. Each agency will need to resolve issues, such as how to link quality artifacts with the models being reviewed, as well as how to maintain those connections for the proper document retention period. Some agencies might want to keep all quality artifacts, while others may prefer to archive a project following closeout, only preserving the record of quality certification.
Suggestions for delivering training:
- In-person workshops: Full- or half-day workshops in person can provide coaching to reviewers while building a support network after the workshop is over. These workshops should be tailored to specific audiences and focus on the procedures and technology appropriate for the review type.
- Online workshops: Not everyone can make it to in-person workshops, especially reviewers in regions far removed from the training location. Thus, content created for in-person workshops should be segmented into short modules that can be deployed through a learning management system. Modules can be set up for either independent study or sessions with a live instructor. Either way, modules should incorporate short but frequent engagements with the same datasets used for in-person training, which lets users have the same training experience as those who attend in person.
- On-demand videos and documents: Agency personnel should work with software vendors to create a list of topics for each type of review and develop short modules by grouping similar topics. Videos should be no more than three to five minutes long; training documentation should not exceed two pages. Technology evolves rapidly, and training videos and documentation will quickly become outdated. Therefore, agencies may want to develop training content that can be updated easily. Once a training has been created, an agency can plan an active campaign to show staff where to find these resources and who to contact for scheduling just-in-time training to optimize its effectiveness. It is important that reviewers request training when they have an active project to work on so they can apply concepts learned as soon as possible. Having detailed, easy-to-access, on-demand content is essential for reviewers working through models on a tight review deadline. On-demand materials must be easy to search and provide detailed, step-by-step information.
- Technical support: Agencies may want to consider establishing a digital delivery group staffed with subject matter experts (SMEs) in specific software and procedures for various types of 3D reviews. Alternatively, agencies can contract out training services to software vendors or third-party consultants who specialize in methods and technologies for model-based design review. SMEs should be familiar with the scope of reviews, agency review standard references, quality management procedures, and software used to perform reviews. They also should be available to answer project-specific questions and deliver just-in-time training. Some agencies set aside time for progress meetings to connect with project teams. Regularly scheduled webinars are also effective for continuing education.
- Communities of practice: A community of practice is a social network where people with common interests, goals, or practices share information and knowledge while socializing. Such communities can function as a centralized, open-source repository of information to promote the use and implementation of standards. These communities can be formed in person or virtually. Some factors to consider include the nature and sources of information, expertise and experience of members, communication and collaboration tools, and community structure. Additional factors to consider for a virtual community include its knowledge platform, collaborative approach, open-source elements, and security.
6.3 Process: Planning Changes to the Quality Management Process
6.3.1 Updating the Quality Management Process
This guide’s suggestions for updating quality management processes are based on the five-step process, introduced in Chapter 2. The research team has identified three key areas where agencies may need to evaluate and make updates: QA documentation requirements, QC standards and procedures, and tools and job aids.
QA Documentation Requirements
Agencies need to review their current forms to identify whether they need to be updated and, if so, how to update them. If an agency does not have any QA documentation requirements, establishing those requirements is a necessary first step. However, even if an agency has well-defined QA documentation requirements, the forms may still need to be updated. Appendix C offers a review documentation property set that can be used during this evaluation. Agencies can also consider the guidance for management of digital records provided in Chapter 3.
QC Standards and Procedures
Agencies need to evaluate their current standards and published procedures to identify what needs to be updated. ISO 19650 provides recommendations for managing digital project files when using model-based design that should be consulted when establishing or revising standards and procedures related to the quality management of 3D models.
Items to consider during the evaluation include
- Updating the roles and responsibilities for executing the quality management process for model-based designs. For example, the roles of CADD/BIM manager, discipline model manager, and model authors may need to be created or updated to reflect the responsibilities listed in Section 4.4.1. Agencies may also consider the recommendations in ISO 19650 when defining responsibilities for managing project files through a CDE or reviewing and submitting milestone deliverables.
- Introducing new documents to the quality management process, such as a BEP and guidance documentation.
- Updating the standards or criteria that define what quality means for the organization and specific disciplines. The quality of a model is defined by its compliance with reference documents, such as manuals, standards, design codes, and project scope requirements, used during a specific type of review. Chapter 4 provides lists of reference documents needed for the various types of reviews, which can be used to determine which standards or policies need to be created or updated.
- Creating or updating CADD and model development standards. These standards provide criteria to check against when verifying (1) the fidelity of model contents for each discipline-specific model or a federated project model, and (2) compliance with completeness of content and geometric and surface accuracies. However, if an agency has not developed modeling standards or updated its CADD standards for 3D model development, a proper model integrity review cannot be completed. Agencies may use content presented in Chapter 5 to help them create model development standards.
Tools and Job Aids
Agencies need to evaluate their technology stack to determine whether they should acquire new software. Job aids, such as checklists, should be updated to incorporate model-based design concepts.
Items to consider during this evaluation include
- Assessing the functional requirements of an agency’s current CDE or acquiring a CDE to meet the needs of quality management policies. Specific functional requirements need to be established to procure a CDE solution that is appropriate for model-based workflows. Refer to Chapter 5 for general guidance. Agencies may want to review ISO 19650-1 when developing functional requirements for CDE procurement.
- Acquiring software for model-based design review to provide non-CADD users with a simpler way to engage with model-based files. This specialized, cloud-based software must enable users to review model files and other documents associated with a project and provide comments. (See Chapter 5 for more information.)
- Working with software vendors to set up and configure modeling software with optimized automation capabilities, such as the ability to generate reports that can serve as job aids for documenting checks on the design model. (Refer to Chapter 5 for guidance on software configuration.)
- Developing or updating checklists for specific review types. Sample checklists provided in Appendix F may be used as a starting point.
6.3.2 Implementing Information Modeling Standards
Some agencies have been using CADD standards for many years. When transitioning to a model-based design environment, it is important to reevaluate these standards since they were produced to control the appearance of points, lines, and text on a drawing sheet. While CADD standards are still a component of model-based design, they do not provide guidance on model creation. This is an important distinction because reviewing 3D model quality depends on the criteria set for how it should be created. Guidance for establishing modeling standards is summarized as follows:
- Update or create a survey manual to incorporate modern methods of data collection, positional accuracies, and point densities necessary for stakeless construction and managing risk for specific design elements.
- Establish a model element breakdown structure for each discipline that can be used as a foundation for developing information modeling standards and checklists. Appendix B can be used as a starting point when piloting digital delivery.
- Create a LOIN standard composed of level of geometric detail and LOI.
- Update policy and contractual language that sets prerequisites for deliverables, and refer designers to the agency’s project requirements and modeling standards.
For detailed guidance, refer to Chapter 5.
6.3.3 Defining Process Control for Model-Based Design Reviews
As introduced in Chapter 2, quality management programs can use a mix of process and product controls to achieve quality objectives. A well-defined process control framework is likely to result in fewer product controls. This section provides guidance for leveraging modeling software configurations to control the production process, as well as onboarding trainings on the agency’s quality management procedures to control product outcomes.
Process Control for Modeling Software
Modeling software configurations can be a very powerful tool for creating a consistent and repeatable model-based design process. Since the introduction of CADD software, many agencies have standardized the look and feel of contract plan sets. Configuring plan production
tools within software makes it easier for users to apply established standards rather than trying to figure it out on their own. An agency can work with its software vendors and CADD support team to set up the configuration and libraries to follow the defined modeling standards for each discipline. This is typically accomplished by setting up libraries of traditional CADD standards, such as layering, color, line styles, and standard 2D and 3D cells or blocks, and adding a series of assemblies and subassemblies of model-based objects.
Creating 3D object libraries that comply with agency design standards and standard drawings will likely provide at least 80 percent of all model elements necessary to assemble pavement and shoulder structures, bridges, and drainage systems. Modern modeling software has the functionality to create parametric objects, following specific standards, that users can select, drag, and drop when assembling discipline-specific models. The ability to use parametric objects, elements, or cells allows designers to quickly update or automate changes rather than recreating an entire object from scratch. When utilizing parametric objects within a defined library or configuration, agencies can provide workflows for using and updating the objects. Configuring the system to set up modeling tools and software design calculations following agency or national standards will make it easier for users to apply model development standards in a consistent and repeatable manner.
Agencies may want to consider setting up a methodology for reviewing and deploying new versions of software. The CADD support team needs to work closely with IT when deploying new software. Agencies can coordinate with IT to check for agency requirements related to operating systems, cloud-based usage policies, hardware and infrastructure, and cybersecurity.
Once a software package has been deployed, the agency may also consider establishing standard checking criteria for critical functions within the software (i.e., functions related to calculations as the basis for the design, such as superelevation and calculations). Parametric behavior of templates may be another example of a functionality in the software to spot check using standard validation criteria. Lastly, there needs to be a process for documenting the review procedure that was established for deploying these new software versions.
Onboarding Training Procedures
Standardized onboarding training procedures should be employed as much as possible. Providing standardized guidance on the most effective workflows for using specific software enables users to confidently reproduce the steps that result in quality model–based deliverables. Trainings need to include repeatable and reproducible steps for performing design reviews, as well as checklists and standardized forms for documenting reviews. With the proper documentation in place, the process will enable any qualified person to track the record of decisions for all reviews that are performed.
6.4 Technology: Current Functionality and Ongoing Developments
This section summarizes current software functionality and gaps, and it offers guidance for working with software vendors and the industry to improve the functionality and automation of tools for reviewing model integrity and verifying model-based design and information requirements.
6.4.1 Functionality of Review Software
The state of the practice for modeling software is quite advanced, including software in the infrastructure domain. Many software vendors provide a variety of packages for model-based
corridor design, bridge modeling, and hydraulic and drainage modeling. While no software is perfect and the functionality of specific packages could be improved, current modeling tools provide the features that agencies need to deploy model-based project development and delivery methods. Many agencies still need to build or expand their software configurations to implement process control and standard approaches to model development, which would improve the quality, checkability, and usability of the resulting digital data.
Numerous vendors offer technical solutions for managed environments that are compatible with ISO 19650 standards for CDEs. The ISO 19650 series defines a CDE as both the technical solution for sharing data, which vendors provide, and the rules and workflows for collaboration, which an agency needs to establish. Many commercially available tools are compatible with formalized rules and workflows, offering managed access to folders and notifications that trigger when files change status.
Some aspects of model review or design verification software are currently less advanced in other fields. Market-driven innovation in automation tools may eventually make it easier for agencies and design teams to perform effective and efficient model quality reviews. But one significant barrier to bringing these tools to market is the diversity of data models that need to be supported for each proprietary format model. Once IFC 4.3 is adopted for infrastructure domains, enabled by its publication as an ISO standard in 2024, new model and design-review tools will likely come to market since vendors will only need to support one schema. Nevertheless, software vendors need to know what types of checking features to implement. Desired features fall into the following categories:
- Security: locking model elements and other strategies to avoid accidental, or even deliberate, changes after an element has been reviewed.
- Status indicators: providing methods to track which elements have been reviewed and which elements still need to be reviewed. Reports can be quality artifacts that track who reviewed which elements and when.
- Comparisons: the ability to identify, highlight, and report out differences between two files.
- Issue logs: the ability to create, assign, manage, and export issue logs. These issues should be attached to elements (as a data attribute) or a saved view. Reviewers should be able to view markups and resolutions from previous reviewers and, potentially, review cycles (e.g., tracing the review history of an element).
- Design code checks: checking model elements against design standards. These are domain-specific and include standards such as the AASHTO load and resistance factor design manual for bridges, superelevation and alignment curve tables for sight distance, and minimum and maximum slopes for drainage.
- Geometry rules checks: in addition to basic clash detection routines, the ability to identify and highlight geometric issues like ponding or checks for positive drainage, differences in terrain slopes, and roadway cross slopes.
- Information validation: checking the completeness of a dataset using tools like an IDS, an IFC schema validation, and the validation of metadata against rules. Reviewing naming conventions for model elements and file names is useful, as is digital signature validation.
- Configuration: the ability to preconfigure checking routines and comment responses, trigger workflows like notifications, and preload or reference specific standards, like state or local design codes.
6.4.2 Existing Automation Tools
Existing automation tools can be categorized into three types of checks: CADD standards compliance, design code compliance, and 3D design review and clash detection.
CADD Standards Compliance Checks. Most modeling software already offers CADD standards checkers, though they are underutilized. Software should be configured to run a routine that checks specific drawings against a master standards template file or library. This type of checker inspects whether proper layers, line styles, and colors have been applied to specific geometry in drawings. Third-party add-on software also provides the same functionality. These applications may offer additional checking functionality or customization beyond what native software offers. One example of CADD standards compliance software is CADconform! by Altiva Software, and Pencil9’s Harmony is software that helps automate standards and configurations for CADD applications.
Design Code Compliance Checks. The Nemetschek Company’s Solibri is software that provides model checking and clash detection capabilities. Solibri is used for commercial BIM architectural design. Software should be configured appropriately to compare BIM files to specific codes.
Current corridor modeling software—such as Bentley Systems’ OpenRoads Designer and Autodesk Company’s Civil 3D—provide the functionality to set up geometric design standards that are used for calculating geometric features of roadways, such as horizontal and vertical alignments and superelevation. These software packages can be configured to provide warnings when a design exceeds geometric requirements (e.g., curve radius, stopping sight distance, and K values) specified in the AASHTO Green Book or other agency standards. Current modeling software can also be used to set up and produce different report types that can summarize design parameters, including alignment information, hydraulic calculations, and tables. While not a completely automated tool, these reports provide documentation that reviewers can check against a model; however, some knowledge of the software is required to open dialog boxes and view the parameters of various design elements.
3D Design Review and Clash Detection Checks. Software like Autodesk NavisWorks and Bentley Infrastructure Cloud can be used to combine 3D models, navigate them in real time, take measurements, and review files using tools that allow users to post redline drawings, post comments, and assign comments to specific users. These applications also can be used to perform clash detection algorithms (e.g., hard and soft clashes) and produce reports of identified interferences.
6.4.3 Role of Open Data Standards
There has been much development in the deployment and adoption of open data standards and services provided by buildingSMART International. These services and standards are being explored by many European countries as well as AASHTO’s BIM for Bridges Pooled Fund Studies TPF-5(372) and TPF-5(523). Software vendors are working to incorporate these new standards. Agencies may want to stay informed about the development of these standards since this is a potential solution for keeping proprietary file types accessible into the future.
Open data standards rely on the IFC schema, which is used to reference model elements within a design to the IFC data structure. How this is executed depends on the proprietary software being used. But the result should be the same—the ability of modeling software to export one or multiple IFC files. Once IFC files have been exported, a specific sequence of steps must be completed to verify their quality. First, IFC files need to be run against the buildingSMART IFC File Validation Service. This initial check verifies that a file complies with the normative rules of the IFC schema, meaning that if the file has a bridge, this object should be referenced as IfcBridge, and that all bridge subassemblies are also referenced to the proper IFC rules. The second check is to run an IDS that identifies all the alphanumeric information that is required to be part of the IFC file.
The TPF-5(372) BIM for Bridges Pooled Fund Study produced an IDS that is intended to check an IFC file deliverable issued for bidding and construction. The IDS can only check for alphanumeric information requirements, so reviewers should verify that the geometry complies with agency-established modeling standards. The IDS standard can be used to create an IDS file to check discipline-specific alphanumeric information, including metadata related to the review process. This file could be used to archive review documentation. The IDS file can be opened using IDS viewers or an HTML viewer, if the reviewer can read HTML. There is also IDS editing software that can be used to create individualized, project-specific specifications to check against.
BCF by buildingSMART is an open source development with great potential to advance the ability of agencies to conduct and document model-based reviews. BCF is an open data technology that allows different modeling software to communicate model-based issues with each other, provided that design teams are producing IFC models. The IFC models can be shared and opened using modeling review software that is compliant with BCF technology. BCF technology allows the user to create and send comments via a BCF file to others who can view them in their own model review software. The number of commercial software currently supporting BCF is limited, but a list is available on buildingSMART International’s website.
6.5 Conclusion
Human reviewers are essential for inspecting the nuances of design, but software can potentially provide automated checks of design standards and changes made between milestone reviews. Since not all agencies will use the same CADD or design review software, agencies need to define their standards and functional requirements based on performance outcomes rather than prescriptive methods. Current business practices for developing project deliverables for construction may not be adequate in a model-based design environment. This distinction is important because users often pass on opportunities to improve the process simply because a new methodology does not align with their preferences. Agencies must collaborate with software developers and the industry to improve the process and products used currently for model-based development and delivery.
