APPENDIX G. IHEEP 2023 WORKSHOP SUMMARY

Workshop Materials

The 90-minute workshop agenda included an icebreaker, a project overview presentation, two surveys, and two group activities. At the end of the workshop, facilitators recapped the workshop and shared next steps with the participants. After the icebreaker activity, facilitators shared a short presentation focused on:

• Workshop goals and objectives.
• Quality management standards and concepts.
• Gaps in quality management framework for 3D digital delivery.
• NCHRP Project 10-113 goals and framework.

Two surveys were conducted during the workshop:

• Participant benchmark survey was conducted to capture information about attendees. This survey was designed to benchmark the answers provided based on the roles and responsibilities of those in attendance.
• Feedback on review description survey was conducted to capture input on the digital delivery quality framework developed by the research team as part of the Task 8 Methodology. Answers from this survey were used in the final preparation of the guide during Phase III.

Two activities were designed to capture input from participants to assist the research team with updating the methodology that was ultimately used in Phase III of the project to develop the guide.

Activity #1. Defining Quality. The desired outcome for this activity was to capture feedback on determining criteria for assessing the quality of a 3D model. For this activity, the participants were instructed to:

• Collect ideas from everyone in their groups.
• Organize ideas into groups of thoughts.
• Vote to identify group priorities.

Activity #2. Review Definitions. The desired outcome for this activity was to gather input on the model review definitions previously developed by the research team. Due to time constraints, the workshop focused on only reviewing the Discipline Design and the Roadway 3D Model Integrity definitions.

Workshop Feedback

Workshop participants were provided with a survey to capture feedback on the digital delivery quality framework developed by the team. A summary of the questions and responses is presented below:

27. Which review did you choose?

28. To what extent do you agree with these statements about the review DESCRIPTION?

29. To what extent do you agree with these statements about the review SCOPE and INFORMATION?

30. To what extent do you agree with these statements about the review PROCESS?

31. Please provide any constructive feedback:
    • Need a data section – GIGO
    • Very comprehensive and well done!
    • May be helpful to suggestion methods of tracking review for staff to know where said documents are in preparation for an audit.
    • This document is a great start to iterate from. The only suggestion that I have is based on where the review occurs. Not realistic for all review to occur in the authoring tools. Needs to be online.

1. • I think there should be more comprehensive standards that relate specifically to the 3D elements. Spikes in surfaces are a good start, but maybe providing a heat map or surface to identify slopes.
   • Emphasizes the need for non-CADD users to have a tool for checks. Construction staff are vital.
   • There are issues with the description especially in regard to DTM. Today’s SW does not allow crossing lines in DTM., smoothing a DTM reduces accuracy. Not enough time for thorough review.
   • The document was put together strongly and not so technical where someone could not understand it.
   • Excellent maximum expected side slope conditions. Surface overlap inspection between surfacing layers of roadways. The ins from bridge embankment to road subgrade. Hard checks on topo surface at conecti.
   • The review process is very simple and I’d be nervous it doesn’t cover enough detail for a thorough review.
   • The document provides an excellent starting point for an agency SOP.
   • Nice job.
   • The session flew by. Very engaging and interesting 10/10.
   • Thinking about how modeling is supposed to make us better at examining visuals – some visual representations of these processes would help a lot.
   • Contiguous should be replaced by something like ‘conveys design intent.’ Often small gaps are intentionally placed in models to avoid voids and peaks.
   • For surface accuracy, discuss model triangulation edges/tie-ins.
   • Checklists should include reports to allow data output tables etc.
   • Add steps in process to review data reports.

32. Does your agency require project quality plans?

33. To what extent do you agree with these statements about Project Quality Plans?

34. To what extent do you agree with these statements about Project Quality Plans?