.. •.•• •AD-A281 083 •' •US-m op fEomsA -A 8 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer

water Resources Support Center Cw~ucbOBEn~hIUU1

InstiMe for Water Resouress earch Lborgoris

: ~ 1 Challenges and Opportunities forInnovation in the Public WorksInfrastructure a Volume 11

EL.ECT~

94-20364

Federal Infrastructure Strategy Program

June 1993 IWR Report 93-FIS-3

Federal Infrastructure Strategy Reports

This is the third in a series of interim reports prepared to support the Federal InfrastructureStrategy Initiative, a 3-year program to explore the development of an integrated multi-agency Federalinfrastructure strategy.

The Federal Infrastructure Strategy is a dynamic program involving many Governmentdepartments and agencies. The series of reports which chronicle the strategy's development reflect thedesire to publish interim documentation as results become available. Theses documents will be usedto facilitate the dialogue within the Federal and non-Federal infrastructure communities as policydeliberations continue.

The program will culminate with a final report to be published at the end of 1993. The interimdocumentation contained herein is not intended to foreclose or preclude the program's finalconclusions and recommendations. Within this context, comments are welcome on any of thesereports.

This report documents the results of an in-depth study and workshop which developedmethods which could be applied to overcome barriers to innovation and the use of innovativetechnology within the nation's public works infrastructure.

The first report published as part of the Federal Infrastructure Strategy Program was:

The Federal Infrastructure Strategy Program: Framing the Dialogue - Strategies. Issuesand Opportunities (IWR Report 93-FIS-1).

The next three reports planned for publication as part ,1 the program are:

Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Public Works Infrastructure,Volume I (IWR Report 93-FIS-2), and

Infrastructure in the 21st Century Economy: A Review of the Issues and Outline of aStudy of the Impacts of Federal Infrastructure Investments (IWR Report 93-FIS-4).

Federal Public Works Infrastructure R&D: A New Perspective (IWR Report93-FIS-5)

For further information on the Federal Infrastructure Strategy, please contact Robert A.Pietrowsky, Program Manager at:

Institute for Water ResourcesCasey Building

7701 Telegraph RoadFort Belvoir, VA 22060-5586Telephone: (703)-355-3073)

The Federal Infrastructure Strategy study team includes Cameron E. Gordon, Economic StudiesManager and James F. Thompson, Jr., Engineering Studies Manager. The program is overseen by Dr.Eugene Z. Stakhiv, Chief, Policy and Special Studies Division, and Kyle Schilling, Director of theInstitute. Reports may be ordered by writing (above address) or calling Arlene Nurthen, IWRPublications, at (703) 355-3042.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYCORPSe OF GNOGNIN. WATER RESOURCES SUPPORT CENTER

INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESOURCESTM TITELERAPH ROAD

ALIDANRIA, VA 2231•3, 8

Masp June 24, 1994

CEWRC-IWR

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, Defense Technical Information Center,Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA 22314

SUBJECT: Transmittal of IWR Report 93-FIS-3

1. Reference AR 70-31.

2. Two copies of IWR Report 93-FIS-3, "Challenges andOpportunities for Innovation in the Public Works Infrastructure -Volume II", has hereby been submitted

3. Initial distribution of this report has been made toappropriate Corps of Engineers agencies. It is recommended thatcopies of this report be forwarded to the National TechnicalInformation Center.

4. Request for the DTIC Form 50 (Incl 2) be completed andreturned to WRSC-IWR.

FOR THE DIRECTOR:

Enclosure Kyle E. SchillingDirector

THE FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY PROGRAM

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION

IN THE PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE

VOLUME H

Directorate of Civil WorksOffice of Interagency and International Activities

Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Prepared by

Moonja P. KimDiego Echeverry

Guruprasad N. Rao

U. S. Army Construction Research LaboratoryP.O. Box 4005

Champaign, Illinois 61820-1305

for

Water Resources Support CenterInstitute for Water Resources

Casey BuildingFort Belvoir, VA 22060-5586

DTZC QUALITY INSPECTD) 3

June 1993 IWR Report 93-FSI-3

rg~~~~ 7~~ 41

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1

WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS ........................................ 3

Performance Challenges to Infrastructure Design:Enhancing the Role oflnnovation in Public Works

Prof. John P. Eberhard ......................................... 5

Searching for the Infrastructure of Tomorrow:National Research Council Activities, FederalInterests and Federal Roles

Dr. Andrew. C. Lemer ......................................... 9

How Effective is our Investment in Roads,Streets, and Highways?

Prof. Thomas D. White ........................................ 23

An Example of Successful Innovation: Three-DimensionalGraphics on Construction Projects

Mr. Ronald Zabilski ......................................... 33

Issues in Technology Transfer: Sharing ExperienceBetween Manufacturing and Construction

Prof. Stephen Lu and Prof. Arthur Baskin ........................... 45

Advancing Innovation in Transportation Through Research ................... 77Prof. Michael Walton

Technological Advances and Public Works:A Synergistic or Antagonistic Relationship

Prof. Neil Hawkins ........................................... 83

Barriers to Adoption of New TechnologiesProf. Peter Nowak .......................................... 101

Factors Influencing Technology Transferto Local Public Works Agencies

Mr. Richard A. Sullivan ....................................... 107

Identifying Programming, Executing InfrastructureResearch and Development

Mr. Carl Magnell............................................. 117

iii

CONTENTS (Continued)

pareInfrastruture Finance: The State and Local Perspective

Mr. Beidan Mays ........................................ 123

Legal Problems with Innovation in Public WorksMr. Charles Seemann ....................................... 143

Innovation and Technology Transfer Opportunities:Industry/University/Government Partnerships

Mr. William D. Michalerys ................................... 153

Technology Transfer as a Work-Practice Change ProcessProf. J.M. De La Garza ............................... o...... 159

Technology Transfer and Public InfrastructureDevelopment: Financing Capital ImprovementsThrough the Creation of Knowledge

Mr. Michael B. Goldstein ...................................... 167

implementation of Innovation Through TotalQuality Management

Dr. James A. Broaddus ....................................... 191

Technology Transfer and Marketing: Army-StyleMr. Jeff Walaszek ........................................... 205

SUMMARY OF WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS ........................... 231

APPENDICES: ................................................... 243

Appendix A - Workshop Agenda ..................................... 245

Appendix B - Analysis of Workshop Presentations ........................ 249

Appendix C - Biographical Sketches ................................. 255

IS GRA&It *'DTIG IM E3

Au•noW20d g100* janitotImeactio

B.

*Av2.2eb~lity Codes*- lAvail and/gdi

iv.......

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATIONIN THE PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE:VOLUME II - WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

INTRODUCTION

This report is Volume II of a two-volume set. Volume I includes a survey of professionaland technical literature on innovation, infrastructure, and technology transfer issues, andsummarizes the contributions of a group of experts to a national workshop on the topic. Thecurrent report, Volume 1I, comprises the proceedings of the workshop.

That workshop, "Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Public WorksInfrastructure," convened a group of nationally recognized experts to discuss barriers toinnovation in the public works infrastructure, share insights, and suggest ways innovation couldbe promoted to benefit the condition of the nation's public works infrastructure.

The workshop was sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal InfrastructureStrategy Program. It was hosted by the U.S. Army Construction Engineering ResearchLaboratories, in Champaign, Illinois. The program included sessions for presentation of papersand group discussions to develop recommendations for overcoming barriers and taking advantageof opportunities to innovate in the public works infrastructure. Participants were stronglyencouraged to make recommendations for enhancing the role of innovation.

The program was organized into three separate topic sections: (1) opportunities forinnovation, (2) barriers to innovation, and (3) enhancing technology transfer. For the groupdiscussions, participants were divided into three groups corresponding to these topics. At theend of the workshop, there was a plenary session for reporting on each group discussion. Achairman and a recorder were assigned to each discussion group and were responsible forproducing the final group discussion summary. Three group discussion agendas were sent to allparticipants to be used as a starting point for their discussions.

Contents of this volume include the following: a reproduction of the workshop agenda, thetext of all the workshop papers, reports on the three workshop group discussions (as submittedby the recorders), summaries of the workshop presentations and group discussions, andbiographical sketches of all workshop participants.

The authors would like to express their deep sense of gratitude to all who participated inthe workshop: Prof. Arthur Baskin, University of Illinois; Dr. James A. Broaddus, ConstructionIndustry Institute (CII); Mr. Joel Catlin, American Water Works Association; Prof. J.M. De LaGarza, Civil Engineering Dept., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Prof. JohnP. Eberhard, Carnegie-Mellon University; Mr. Michael B. Goldstein, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson;Dr. Francois Grobler, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL);Prof. Neil Hawkins, University of Illinois; Dr. Andrew. C. Lemer, Building Research Board; Prof.Stephen Lu, University of Illinois; Mr. Carl Magnell, Civil Engineering Research Foundation(CERF); Mr. Benjamin Mays, Government Finance Officers Association; Mr. William D.

of Water Resources (IWR); Mr. Jesse Story, Federal Highway Administration; Mr. Richard A. Sullivan,American Public Works Association (APWA); Mr. Jim Thompson, IWR; Mr. Jeff Walaszek, USACERL;Prof. Michael Walton, Transportation Research Board (TRB); Prof. Thomas D. White, Purdue University;Mr. Ronald Zabilski, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.

Many people at USACERL helped provide important logistical support for the workshop. Althoughit would be difficult to name all who contributed, it is important to acknowledge the efforts of Dr.Francois Grobler and Mr. Thomas Napier to help prepare, conduct, and report the discussion sessions.

WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS

PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES TO INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNEnhancing the Role of Innovation in Public Works

John P. EberhardHead, Department of Architecture

Carnegie Mellon University

To make significant advancement in the urban networksof movement, information, metabolism, and shelter requiredby new challenges and opportunities calls for a newperspective on the nature of infrastructure problems and newgoals for the performance of such systems.

Functional Performance:Every populated area requires four basic infrastructure

systems:1. A means of movement for persons and goods betweenlocations within the area, and a method of connectingto movement systems outside the area. In mostsituations there is a requirement for both horizontaland vertical movement.2. A means of communicating between persons and betweenorganizations, and for providing information forgovernance and management. This includes both writtenand aural modes, as well as instances of tactilerequirements.3. A "metabolic" process providing energy for work tobe done, materials for building and repairs, andmethods for disposing of resulting wastes.4. The "skin and skeleton" of the city which shelterthe functions of individuals and organizations. Theseplaces provide protection from the elements andenemies; create visual, acoustical and tactile spacesfor living and working; and should adapt to changingfunctions over time.

Over thousands of years the infrastructure of citieschanged slowly. Ways of harnessing animals for transportgradually were supplemented by steam and water-borne modesof movement within cities. Communications methods movedfrom town-criers and messengers to written documents as moreand more people learned to read. The energy of coal, whaleoil, and steam was harnessed to do work. Waste wastransported further and further from city centers fordisposal or dumped into rivers, lakes and streams whichflowed through the city. Buildings became designed andcrafted objects of large size (compared to primitiveshelters) and often of some elegance.

However, towards the end of the 19th century the growthof large urban centers (beginning to approach one millioninhabitants), spurred on by the Industrial Revolution, madethis slow evolution unsatisfactory. Especially in thecongested city centers, the prevalence of epidemics, the

5

growing threat from major fires, and the economic pressurefrom speculative increases in the price of land, became the"necessity" for which invention was a dramatic response.Large numbers of people capable of technological inventions,protection afforded by a patent system promising nineteenyears of no competition, and the corporate form of businessenabling thousands of persons to make small investments tocapitalize a new venture, all helped stimulate a period ofrapid changes in the infrastructure of cities. Theresulting quantum leaps towards the end of the 19th centurycan be termed a "second generation of urban infrastructure".

The second generation was based essentially on eightinnovations introduced before 1900:

1. The steel structural system, separating structurefrom the exterior walls, thus making tall buildingspossible.2. The elevator making vertical movement withinbuildings taller than five or six floors practical.3. Electrical systems, including generators,distribution methods, motors and the electric light.4. Central heating which removed the danger of fireand the logistics problems of fireplaces and stoves;5. Indoor plumbing, including water supplies, sewers,bathtubs and toilets.6. The telephone, including switching centers andwires for distribution.7. The automobile (more importantly the internalcombustion engine) easing trips to the suburbs.8. The subway, making movement patterns in dense urbanareas more effective.

Since the turn of the century, with the possibleexception of radio and television, there has been no majorinvention capable of displacing these one hundred year oldsystems. All civilian infrastructure investments andcreativity have gone into modest improvements in performanceand/or appearance of these eight innovations, or into thediffusion and maintenance of existing systems.

It seems clear that major new infrastructure inventionsand innovations are possible. One of the requirements foradvancing new concepts and introducing innovations is tohave a set of performance requirements, e.g., goals andobjectives for infrastructure stated in language which isindependent of existing solutions. A preliminary set ofsuch performance requirements follows:

Attributes Required of All Systems Independent of Function:1. Systems should be financed in a way which makes themeconomically viable and socially just for all citizens.2. Systems should be operable whenever needed tosustain a safe and effective supporting network for thecommunity, including periods of darkness and/orinclement weather.

6

3. Systems should be ecologically benign and supportiveof the natural environment in which they are located.This includes the long term impact on resourcedepletion as well short term maintenance of air andwater quality.4. Systems should be safe to use and equally accessibleto all citizens, including those impaired by age ordisabilities (The American with Disabilities Actprovides for the civil rights of moi:e than 900categories of disabilities. On July 26, 1990 the ADAwas signed into law by President Bush. This is civilrights legislation designed to improve access to jobsand workplaces for people with disabilities. A keyphrase is to provide "full and fair enjoyment" to allcitizens.)5. Systems should be easily repairable and haveadequate back-up support to be operable at all times.

Performance Criteria Specific to the Four Basic Systems;

1) Methods of movement within an area must:- facilitate movement between all geographic sectors ofthe area including three dimensional changes intopography or building levels;- facilitate movement of loads of any reasonable sizeand weight and provide sufficient flexibility toaccommodate additional sizes and weights under specialconditions;- accomplish such tasks within a time frame responsiveto the functional needs of the community (but alwayswithin safe limits);- be capable of growth and adaptation to both short-term demands, such as daily commuter patterns, and longterm changes, such as population increases and changesin functions; and- be responsive to emergencies to facilitate rescueoperations, fire fighting, police calls, and medicalcare.

2) Information-management systems of the community must:

- be sufficiently reliable and have adequate redundancyto assure continuous operation at all times, especiallyin emergencies;- enable the management of the operations of all otherinfrastructure, including the interactions between eachsystem;- provide effective connections to all otherinfrastructure;- be capable of use by large and small assemblies ofcitizens, as well as by individuals, regardless oftheir language skills;- be capable of expansion to meet growing long-termdemands or rapid short-term surges, and

7

- provide the highest technological level of service tothe largest number of citizens possible, commensuratewith economic conditions.

3) "Metabolic" systems must:- facilitate the supply and distribution of energy,goods, food and other resources to support life andgrowth in the community;- provide for the effective removal and disposition ofall wastes created both inside and outside the system;- be flexible and adaptable to short-term changes indemand; and- make provisions for those times when extraordinarydemands may be placed on the system by the community orby natural events.

4) The surrounding shells and interior divisions of theshelter system must:

- facilitate privacy for individuals and groups underall reasonable circumstances;- protect all citizens from harm and danger, whethercaused by failures in the shelter system, naturalevents, or intruders;- enable all users to find their way within the shelterenclosure and to identify places (such as parkingspaces) with sufficient clarity to recall theirlocation;- provide an esthetic context which responds tocommunity values and is harmonious with other adjacentplaces.

If the standards making bodies of this country wouldfurther develop performance requirements of this type, andif government programs for funding infrastructure researchand development were to be tied to these requirements, wemight begin to see a third generation of urban systems earlyin the next century.

SEARCHING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF TOMORROW:

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL ACTIVITIES, FEDERAL INTERESTS AND FEDERAL ROLES

An Issues Paper Prepared for the

Workshop on Challenges and Opportunities for InnovationIn the Public Works Infrastructure

Construction Engineering Research LaboratoryChampaign, Illinois

3-4 March, 1992

Prepared by

Andrew C. Lemer, Ph. D.Director, Building Research Board

National Research CouncilFebruary 12, 1992

9

SEARCHING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF TOMORROW:

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, FEDERAL INTERESTS AND FEDERAL ROLES

by

Andrew C. Lemer t

Director, Building Research BoardFebruary 12, 1992

INTRODUCTION

Today, the products of technological innovation in many fields are all around us: Organ transplants havebecome almost commonplace in hospitals around the country. A daunting array of new food products with longshelf lives entice us at supermarkets. Computers that now fit comfortably on one's lap pack more power thanthe room-sized machines commonly available just two decades ago.

In contrast, our infrastructure relies for the most part on technologies that emerged initially in the 19thcentury. Brooklyn's (New York) was the first modern urban sewerage treatment system, built in 1857 (Hermanand Ausubel, 1988). The first concrete roads followed within two decades the 1824 invention of Portland cement,and the Place de la Concorde in Paris was paved with asphalt as early as 1835 (Hamilton, 1975). Modern watersupply was born in London in the middle of the century. Alexander Graham Bell invented his telephone in 1876,and Edison his electric light in 1880.

Some observers argue that technological innovation in infrastructure is lagging, and that governmentaction is needed to remedy the situation. Others note that with the exception of occasional newsworthy events-burst water mains, ruptured steam lines, failed cables and switches---most of the U. S. infrastructure continuesto work well, and that other demands for public resources merit higher priority. Does the United States faceparticular problems of opportunities lost or higher costs for infrastructure innovation? Is the United Statesfalling behind other nations in providing infrastructure's services, with consequences for our future quality of lifeand international competitiveness? If so, can we agree on an effective course of action? The Building ResearchBoard (BRB), a unit of the National Academy of Sciences, is working to help answer such questions.

1 The views contained herein are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of the Building Research

Board or the National Research Council.

II

This paper reviews some of the BRB's current work that sheds light on these and related questions.We are fiding that there are indeed problems and, while these problems are frequently subtle and resistant toanalysis, there appear to be effective ways to deal with them. However, much remains to be done.

DEFINING INFRASTRUCTURE

Speaking at subcommittee hearings in 1987, during which the results of one NRC study were beingdiscussed (NRC, 1987), former Sen. Stafford commented that "probably the word infrastructure means differentthings to different people."2 One cannot take for granted that people know what "infrastructure" is.

Physical infrastructure is a system of users interacting with a diverse collection of constructed facilitiesand associated services, ranging from airports to energy supply to landfills to water treatment. While facilities-infrastructures, as some term them----comprise the hard core of the concept, to discuss infrastructure only interms of facilities neglects the important services provided by both private enterprise and public agencies, thatare enabled by these facilities. The success of such corporations as Federal Express and DHL in air parceldelivery, for example, reflects the development of new infrastructure services based on existing infrastructures.

The system of infrastructure is constructed and managed primarily at the level of states and localities,but has crucial importance for the nation's economy and quality of life. Yet there is no federal center ofresponsibility for infrastructure policy, nor are there mechanisms in government at any level for addressing issuesof infrastructure as a whole. Despite more than a decade of debate regarding problems the nation'sinfrastructure suffers---underinvestment, inadequate maintenance, lagging technological progress-a variety ofinstitutional and social barriers block effective action.

SLOW CHANGE OF INFRASTRUCTURE

A study sponsored by the National Academy of Engineering noted that a decisive characteristic ofinfrastructure is the generally long physical lifetime of the facilities and the persistence of development and usepatterns that make infrastructures difficult to remove or retire. (Marland and Weinberg, 1988) Infrastructurefacilities are routinely designed to meet demands projected for three decades or more into the future, and despitesome early failures, most dams, bridges, and highways endure for many decades, and sometimes for centuries3 .Maintenance and occasional refurbishment are required, but the underlying structure often remains littlechanged.

Infrastructure facilities are in many instances taken out of service only when a competing device canperform the service more effectively or because the service is no longer particularly valuable-for example, abridge is too narrow for increased traffic loads. However, the design of facilities often reflects the expectationsof the designers, and so U. S. highway pavements have been designed for 20-year lives, while the Germanautobahns designed to serve Hitler's 1000-year reich still are serviceable, 50 years later. Power plants havetypically been expected to last 25 to 30 years because history has shown them to become noncompetitive by then,although that perception is said to be changing---and lifetimes lengthening-as designers reach the ceiling ofthermodynamic efficiency in conventional generation technology.

2 Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure; Committee on Environment and

Public Works; October 21, 1987.

3 The Takoma Narrows Bridge, famous for its dynamic response to winds, collapsed four months after itsopening. In contrast, the Brooklyn Bridge still serves after 100 years.

12

Because of the large investment embodied in infrastructures, new technologies that might requirereplacement or substantial reconstruction of existing facilities must offer much greater benefits than mightotherwise be the case. The evidence shows that there is a relatively long time period, on the order of 100 yearsin the case of rail and road, in the transition from one infrastructure technology to the next. The rapid advanceof computers and consumer electronics is due in no small measure to the short service lifetime (e. g., less thanfour years for desktop computers) expected of these devices. Shorter-lived or more flexible facilities wouldprovide an incentive to innovation in infrastructure technologies but this approach raises questions of risk andreliability, and flies in the face of several centuries of engineering tradition of designing for the long term.

New technologies that can be put into practice through incremental alteration of existing infrastructuresstand a much greater chance of success than those that require major new construction. For example, a quantumleap in road transport became possible only after introduction of the internal combustion engine. Before that,even ambitious road construction programs could not significantly improve the slow transport speeds ofhorse-drawn carriages and wagons.

The sites occupied by infrastructure facilities may live longer than the facilities themselves. Urb Adregional development patterns respond to infrastructure's availability and thereby create demandcontinuation of infrastructure's services. Public resistance to location of new facilities enhances the fcontinuing operations at existing locations. These effects give substantial impetus to efforts to enla-,ceproductivity of infrastructure technology, relative to its uses of land.

TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Evidence is strong that declining research efforts and a continuing focus on incremental project-by-project advances underlie a lagging rate of technological innovation, felt throughout the construction sector butespecially serious in applications to physical infrastructure. Accurate statistics are stubbornly elusive, butestimates by the Building Research Board (BRB) placed aggregate spending on research by the U. S. design andconstruction industries at roughly $1.2 billion in 1984, about 0.4 percent of sales in the industry (BRB,1988). Incomparison to other mature industries such as appliances (at 1.4 percent), automobiles (1.7 percent), or textiles(0.8 percent), this spending rate is low.

In comparison to the construction industry in other countries, the spending is low as well. Estimatesassembled by the Conseil International du Batiment pour la Recherche r'Etude et la Documentation (CIB) placethe rate of building research and development (R&D) spending in the United States at well below half the ratein Japan, and a role for just over 20 percent of the spending rates in Sweden and Denmark, the nationsseemingly most committed to building research within their national economies (Sebestyen, 1983).

New programs in the United States, such as the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' ConstructionProductivity Advancement Research (CPAR), the several research foundations associated with professionalsocieties and industry associations, and the Construction Industry Institute have been started since these statisticswere assembled, but there is no indication that the aggregate levels of R&D activity have increased significantly.According to the National Science Foundation, total annual nondefense R&D expenditures in the United Stateshave stayed nearly level at about 1.8 percent of gross national product (GNP) since 1981 (Jankowski, 1989). InWest Germany and Japan, the 1988 spending rates were approximately 2.6 percent and 2.9 percent of GNPrespectively, up some 30 to 40 percent over the past decade.

A currently ongoing BRB study on innovation has noted that some of the spending on constructionresearch--perhaps most of it, in the United States and elsewhere---is devoted to solving problems on particularprojects. Such effort goes unreported in the standard economic statistics and yields benefits initially restrictedto the single project (although more generally applicable improvements in technique typically are used again onother projects, spread to other firms in the region and eventually to other regions). Also, in contrast to many

13

other nations, there is no U. S. central government department of construction or other agency responsible forpolicy in the building industry, so under-reporting of R&D may be marginally more severe in the United States.

Nevertheless, many people have suggested that the U. S. construction industry is lagging, and some goso far as to argue that U.S. construction and related industries are antiquated and have little real potential forinnovation. It is instructive, however, to recall Charles H. Duell, director of the U. S. Patent Office a centuryago, who advised President McKinley that the agency should be dosed down because "everything that can beinvented already has been."

INSTITUTIONAL FORCES FOR NEGLECT

Several characteristics of U.S. society and government are basically ill-suited to effective infrastructuredevelopment and management. The most frequent result of these characteristics is that we underspend andunderinvest in infrastructure.

U. S. per capita demand for water supplies, the automobile, and disposable materials are extremely highby global standards, even when corrections are made for relative income levels. These high demands requirehigh capacity facilities, which then entail more burdensome maintenance and repair requirements. Yet ourpolitical system makes it difficult to assure that funding will be available, so there is a tendency to spend fromcapital by allowing facilities to deteriorate more rapidly and then having to refurbish or replace them sooner.

In addition, infrastructures are intrinsically poorly suited to yielding the short term results, particularlyin financial terms, that U. S. business and elected officials favor. Hence, we tend to underinvest. While financialinstruments such as revenue bonds and corporate stocks are available to bridge the gap between long term andshort term interests, they expose the technical concerns of infrastructure to the vagaries of financial markets andfurther discourage investment.

A free market system works effectively in principle only when the prices are right for the goods andservices exchanged in that market, and the pricing of infrastructure is notoriously faulty. Infrastructure drawson natural resources -treatable water, clean air, pristine landscapes---that traditionally have been viewed asfree to all who would capture them, despite early recognition that the herds of a few may overgraze the publiccommon. Government's role as the primary provider (or at least the regulator) of infrastructure having directimpact on public welfare has a long-accepted tradition, carrying with it the expectation that general taxes shouldoffset some or all of the costs. Hence, the direct beneficiaries, users or others, seldom pay the full costs ofinfrastructure. In the absence of strong political forces to build infrastructure, this under-pricing also encouragesunderinvestment.

Because infrastructure facilities are typically big, geographically extensive, and used by many people,infrastructure development and operations often have substantial environmental and social impacts. Theseimpacts have frequently in the past been poorly estimated or neglected in planning and design, and often arepoorly managed within the context of traditional governmental, economic, and institutional relationships. Therapid expansion of U. S. environmental legislation in recent years has resulted in an "uncoordinated patchwork"of control requirements that has grown, by one count, from only seven environmental laws enacted in the entirehistory of the United States to 1955, to more than 40 by 1986 (Balzhiser, 1989).

These laws, enacted to effect important changes in public priorities, have slowed and sometimes stoppedinvestments in infrastructure that would have been easily accomplished in prior decades. However, a valuableconsequence is the emerging shift toward environmentally beneficial technologies, more supportive of"sustainable" economic and social activity.

14

Finally, the substantial public works aspect of infrastructure collides with a distrust of government thatis deeply imbedded in American ideology but especially active in the final decades of the 20th century. Majorinfrastructure projects that displace individuals and disrupt communities raise this distrust to a level muchbroader than the self-interested resistance of the NIMBY response, further discouraging investment andinnovation.

THE BRB'S STRATEGIC PROGRAM IN INFRASTRUCTURE

Reflecting past and current studies, the BRB concluded, first, that there are indeed obstacles toinnovation inherent in the technology of infrastructure. These obstacles cause innovation to lag behind that beingexperienced in other technological fields. Further, these obstacles may be no greater in the United States thanelsewhere, but evidence suggests that U. S. efforts to search for and willingness to invest in new infrastructuretechnology lag behind those of other industrialized nations.

To foster broader vision within the nation's leadership regarding the problems of infrastructure andprospects for enhancing the system's contribution to future wellbeing, the BRB has undertaken a program toencourage research, changes in government policy, education, and cooperative action by private and publicdecision-makers. The BRB program is founded on a premise that the traditional emphasis of research and policyinitiatives-addressed primarily to particular modes of infrastructure-should be linked with broad cross-cuttinginitiatives that take an integrative and synoptic view of infrastructure as an organic system. These cross-cuttinginitiatives should focus attention on a core of political concerns, institutional structures, and scientific andtechnical knowledge common to all infrastructure:

* Complex facilities and multiple users linked through geographically extensive networks* Common materials such as concrete, steel, and ceramics* Facilities and services valued not for their own sake, but rather as support for other social andeconomic activities"* Long service lifetimes requiring long-term financial commitments to assure reliable and safe service"* Diverse and often unforeseen environmental and social impacts that are felt unequally by the varioususers and neighbors of infrastructure.

Advances in these cross-cutting core areas will ultimately provide broadly useful lessons for moreeffective infrastructure development and management. The pursuit of such cross-cutting concerns--and theireffective integration into national policy-is the central element of the BRB's strategic program in infrastructure.

LOOKING AT LOCAL SOLUTIONS

The initiating activity under this program, approved by Executive Committee of the Governing Boardof the National Research Council in December 1989, has been a series of colloquia designed to address topicsof immediate interest, substantial payoff in terms of motivating improvements in the nation's infrastructure, andlong term relevance. Recognizing that infrastructure problems have national strategic consequences but theircharacter and solutions are essentially local, the BRB concluded that a major obstacle to effective national actionin infrastructure is bridging the gap between national policy and diverse local and state-level concerns. Studiesto date have largely neglected infrastructure's local users and neighbors, including those who may view particularinfrastructures as a burden out of proportion to their local benefit. This neglect is manifest in the increasinglywidespread NIMBY response to infrastructure projects, now sometimes being supplemented by NOTE (not overthere either) and NIMTOO (not in my term of office)!

15

Yet there have been notable successes in which local communities have been united and mobilized tocome to grips with their infrastructure problems. Identifying the common elements of these successes will giveinfrastructure planners, administrators, designers, builders, and operators better understanding and guidance informulating development and management strategies. This guidance will in turn enhance -at the nationallevel--the performance and efficiency of our aggregate investments in infrastructure.

Three colloquia are being held to defin, these common elements of success, in Phoenix, Arizona,Cincinnati, Ohio, and Boston, Massachusetts. These three regions were selected from among a long list ofproposals, based on eight principal criteria:

"* Uses of innovative technology"* Transferability of technology"* Demonstrated overcoming of barriers to use of new technology"* Demonstration of constituency building and community support"* Demonstration of effective citizen involvement"* Effective improvement of existing infrastructure (vs. new-build)"* Demonstration of unique institutional approaches"* Effective application of life cycle cost/benefit analysis as a management tool, particularly in thecontext of political decision-making

Each colloquium will serve as a reconnaissance or "fact finding" workshop involving local professionalsfamiliar with how infrastructure issues were raised and resolved in their communities. Following the thirdcolloquium, scheduled for August, 1992, the BRB will prepare a report on the common lessons learned and howthese lessons may be more widely applied.

Partial support for these symposia has been received from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for CivilWorks, Department of the Army, and the Program for Structures and Building Systems, National ScienceFoundation. Additional support is being solicited.

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

A second element of the BRB's strategic program will be a study to define the state-of-the-art, basicresearch needs and priorities related to the structures, geomechanics, and building systems of infrastructure. Thisstudy is being undertaken by the BRB at the request of the National Science Foundation's Division of Mechanicaland Structural Systems of the Directorate of Engineering, in cooperation with the NRC's Geotechnical Board.The resulting research agenda will present high-priority opportunities that may be used by the National ScienceFoundation and the research community to guide basic infrastructure core research, targeted ultimately toprovide lessons of cross-cutting value for effective infrastructure development and management.

The study will be focused on fundamental underpinnings of physical infrastructure technology, but willbe shaped by the broad national policy debate reflected in such reports as those by the National Council onPublic Works Improvement and others, and work by committees of the NRC and National Academy ofEngineering. The study will also build on other infrastructure research agenda-setting efforts, including workby the Building Research Board and the Geotechnical Board, and the recent work of other organizations suchas the Civil Engineering Research Foundation's "National Civil Engineering Research Needs Forum" and theInternational Society for Arboriculture's "National Research Agenda for Urban Forestry in the 1990s."

16

COST-EFFECTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE

In developing their 1988 report, Fragile Foundations, the National Council on Public WorksImprovement found that none of the various measures available gives a clear, comprehensive, and convincingpicture of the status of the nation's infrastructure. In this, the Council echoed the concerns of an earlier bodywhose 1984 report, Hard Choices, had questioned at length the widely used concept of measurable "need" forinfrastructure. These studies exemplify a growing awareness among professionals and policy-makers that theways performance of infrastructures is characterized and the standards used to judge whether performance isacceptable have far-reaching but poorly understood consequences for how problems are perceived and whatsolutions appear reasonable.

As a part of their efforts to explore future federal government roles in infrastructure development andmanagement, the Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, has undertaken to identify andaddress key issues of infrastructure performance and its cost-effective achievement. Institute staff have askedthe BRB to undertake a study to delineate and address key issues related to the definition, measurement, andachievement of cost-effective infrastructure performance. Such issues include data needs, problems ofmeasurement, problems of institutional structure, and others. The study, subject to approval by the GoverningBoard of the National Research Council, will focus primarily on infrastructure within urban areas.

OTHER STRATEGIC PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

In addition to these major initiatives, the BRB is working to extend the strategic program. For example,the BRB's Federal Construction Council and the National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly hosteda symposium on Addressing Infrastructure Problems on Government Installations. The symposium, held inFebruary 1992, explored the problems of infrastructure on military bases and other campus-style multi-buildinginstallations, what some refer to as the "mesoscale" of infrastructure. The Federal Construction Council hasrequested the BRB to undertake a study of how to assess needs and priorities for infrastructure renewal at thismesoscale, but budget limitations may delay this study.

Development of joint inter.iational research and development for new infrastructure technology is beingexplored with Japanese local governments and private companies. If feasible, the idea might be extended to theEuropean Community and other areas. For example, a joint international program might be initiated as a multi-year activity of partnering and exchange, undertaken with financial support and professional participationbalanced between the United States and Japan or other nations, with participation of both private and publicsectors in these nations. Some coordinating body might be established (perhaps a Joint Infrastructure Researchand Demonstration Institute-JIRDI) to act ac sponsor or broker for specific research and demonstrationactivities. The specific activities could address both new technologies responding to needs in one or more modes,and major new systems providing substantially different services from those now available. Selection of specifictopics will depend on the program's specific private and public participants, sources of sponsorship and funding,and other institutional arrangements. A variety of mechanisms might be ccnsidered for setting priorities andfinancing the work.

Attention is being given to the relationship of infrastructure to environmentally and socially sustainabledevelopment. "Sustainable development" is, to quote the President of the National Academy of Engineering, "animprecisely defined concept that seeks to capture what many regard as the central problem of humanity- howto sustain the life-supporting environment of the planet while providing for the economic development that willensure civilized standards of living for its inhabitants." Development and diffusion of environmentallyadvantageous technology is crucial to the solution of this problem, but there is at present no mechanism formobilizing the nation's vast technical resources to address these needs.

17

The BRB's work is intended to produce new policy initiatives and functioning programs to address issuesof physical infrastructure. The work andorecommendations that motivate such action are embodied in reportsissued by the National Research Council. The target audience for reports prepared under this program includesfederal agencies and the Congress, state and local governments and their representative institutions such as theNational Governors' Association, the American Public Works Association, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors,academic and research communities. These reports are prepared and issued according to the NRC's stringentreport review procedures intended to assure balance and objective analysis of the issues at hand. Disseminationof the information developed in these activities will be supported by public events and media presentations aswell as broad distribution of reports.

DEFINING THE FEDERAL ROLE

While such activities under the BRB's strategic program in infrastructure are addressing a variety ofspecific obstacles to innovation, these activities and other BRB studies of technological innovation in the buildingindustry are making clear the need for some overarching central force for infrastructure innovation. This impliesa possible federal government role. However, defining this role is a complex problem.

In contrast to many other countries, there is no U. S. government agency with explicit responsibility forrepresenting or encouraging enhancement of either public works or the nation's construction industry as a whole.The Department of Commerce and the Office of Science and Technology Policy share executive branch concernfor the nation's technology and industrial competitiveness, but seldom address issues of construction and publicfacilities.4 There is an effective gap between the interests of the agencies that undertake construction ormanage facilities as accessories to their primary missions---e. g. the Corps of Engineers or the Public HealthService-and the policy-oriented agencies that may include construction, building products and equipment, orfacilities themselves (i. e., housing or highways) within their broader purview.

Analogies have from time to time been drawn between the U. S. farm and construction industries, bothcharacterized by many small producers spread across the country, and proposals have been made that thereshould be a construction equivalent to the Department of Agriculture or a U. S. government equivalent of othernations' ministries of construction. In an historic example, the national crisis of the Great Depression of the1930s (during which the total annual rate of construction in the United States dropped to one third of its averagein the late 1920s) fostered creation of the Public Works Administration (PWA). However, the diversity ofinterests among federal construction agencies and the many organizations active in the private sector have beengenerally unresponsive or antagonistic to such proposals. Although the PWA survived for some years, its roleas builder was largely relinquished to local government or supplanted by special purpose agencies. (Craig, 1984)Other centralized building programs of the era, such as the WPA (Works Projects--originally Progress-Administration) were dismantled as the nation went to war in the 1940s.

Despite such past reluctance, there are sound reasons why the federal government should play asignificant role in the search for infrastructure innovation:

0 Infrastructure innovation will help government agencies to achieve better cost, quality, andperformance in their own facilities.

* Infrastructure innovation will enhance quality of life in the United States.

4A major exception is the focus on the construction industries of Japan and the United States in tradenegotiations of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

18

0 Infrastructure innovation will support growth in U. S. industry's productivity and thereby enhancecompetitiveness in international markets.

While no comprehensive evaluation or recommendations have yet been made, the BRB's studies ofinnovation suggest several promising components that might be incorporated in the federal role: (1) federalagencies encouraging applications of new infrastructure technology for their own projects, (2) support for world-wide infrastructure technology intelligence-gathering to increase domestic awareness of international technologicalprogress, (3) development of standard testing procedures and evaluation criteria that would enhance theacceptance and effective transfer of new technology to U. S. local communities and the private sector, and (4)increased support for targeted research efforts to develop new technologies in specific areas, perhaps throughexisting and new university- and industry-based "centers of excellence."

A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL

No specific form for the federal role has yet been considered in the BRB work. These four componentsmight be distributed among agencies or concentrated in one existing or new institutional location. However, theauthor's own analyses suggest strongly that the search for new infrastructure technology (and policy) should bepursued initially with strongly unified and focused effort. The reasons are several:

(1) In any society, there is an inevitable limit on the resources available to deal with any particular issue,problem, or goal. When these limited resources are spread too thinly, little is likely to be accomplished, and thathas been a problem with infrastructure.

(2) The institutional framework is complex, and with the notable exception of transportation---andhighways especially---there is no historical focal point for infrastructure issues in the United States, althoughprofessional organizations and trade groups (e.g., the American Public Works Association, the American WaterWorks Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and others) do provide some focus. What is neededis some institutional and intellectual coordination of effort to address the common, crosscutting opportunitiesand problems of infrastructure.

(3) Stronger linkages between the national level and state and local bodies active in development andapplication of infrastructure technology are needed. The existing modal and disciplinary professionalorganizations are vital channels for forging these linkages, but additional efforts are needed to mobilize and guidethe university-based research and education programs that will be expected to yield new technology and thepersonnel trained to apply this new technology to practical problems.

The new focus would provide leadership in the national discussion of infrastructure policy, a point ofcontact for international exchange on issues related to global infrastructure and impacts, an effectiveclearinghouse for research and development information exchange, and perhaps limited funding for policy-relatedresearch. The Council on Environmental Quality, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, or the Officeof Science and Technology Policy might be domestic models for a new agency. The International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis, in Austria, and the International Rice Research Institute, based in the Philippines butwith projects in other countries, are possibly applicable international examples.

An effective focus might be established within an existing institution. The role of the Surgeon Generalof the United States and the 19th-century office of the "Supervising Architect" responsible for federal buildingdesign are models of what might be done within existing agencies. The current joint work of the Army Corpsof Engineers and the Department of Transportation on possible federal support of high-speed magnetic levitation(maglev) transportation suggests that other forms may also work. However, there is no clearly defined

19

responsibility for this activity within any single currently active federal body, and the specific form should becrafted to assure the institutional linkages needed for research results to enter practice quickly and effectively.

The greatest proportion of work on infrastructure research and policy concerns issues specific to oneor another of the modes of infrastructure, but perhaps ten to twenty percent of concerns span modes and warrantthis focused interest. A research-funding agency, such as the National Science Foundation, could undertake toestablish one or more "Centers of Excellence" in infrastructure technology and modal agencies such as theDepartment of Transportation, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, andothers could be directed to channel some portion of their research spending---perhaps one to two percentinitially-into topics of cross-cutting significance, for which university and agency researchers would compete.

The loose confederation of university transportation centers, some of which competed successfully forfunding under the Department of Transportation's Congressionally mandated system of ten designated "centersof excellence" (grown to fifteen under the new 1991 transportation legislation), is possibly a target model of aneffective system of university-based infrastructure research and training, and might provide the seed organizationfrom which a broader infrastructure research program could be grown.

Supplementing this government-sponsored, there should be tax credits or other federal incentive toprivate sector participation in infrastructure research and development activities. The benefits of this broaderparticipation would be felt not only within the U. S. infrastructure system, but also in the export potential of newU. S. infrastructure products and services and in the generally enhanced productivity of a nation better-servedby infrastructure.

The core of this incentive might be preferential tax treatments for private expenditures on infrastructureresearch and development, public-private partnerships for new technology demonstration programs, and privatelyfinanced programs of insurance and other mechanisms for sharing the unavoidable risks of new technology.However, formation of a national infrastructure development bank, modeled perhaps on operations of the WorldBank, would establish a "lender of last resort" for demonstration projects that appear to offer high economicreturns but with institutional challenges that exceed what private financial markets are willing to accept. Capitalfor this bank could be raised initially by small commitments from existing federal infrastructure trust funds-perhaps two to five percent of current highway, airport and interstate energy transmission funds--and privatemarket underwritings. In addition, all state and local jurisdictions hoping to participate in projects funded bythis bank would be required to commit some fraction of their property tax and infrastructure use tax revenues(e.g., licensing fees and sewer rates)-again, perhaps two to five percent---to the institution's capitalization.

CONCLUSION

As with any technological field, innovation in infrastructure faces many challenges but offersopportunities as well. The challenges in infrastructure may, for many reasons, be greater than in other fields,and the finding ways to encourage innovation has been especially difficult. The BRB is working to buildunderstanding of whether actions can and should be taken to meet these challenges and, in particular, what rolenational policy and the federal government can play in this very locally oriented field.

Baseball star Yogi Berra is said to have opined "No matter where you go, there you are." In discussionsof infrastructure innovation, we are still at the stage of determining where we are, and where we want to go. TheBRB is working to help us find the way.

20

REFERENCES

Balzhiser, R. E. 1989. Meeting the Near-Term Challenge for Power Plants. In Technology andEnvironment, J. H. Ausubel and H. E. Sladovich, eds. Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress.

BRB (Building Research Board). 1988. Building For Tomorrow- Global Enterprise and the U.S. ConstructionIndustry. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.

Craig, L. 1984. The Federal Presence: Architecture, Politics, and National Design. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress.

Herman, R. and J. H. Ausubel. 1988. Cities and Infrastructure: Synthesis and Perspectives. In J. H.Ausubel and R. Herman, eds. Cities and their Vital Systems. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press.

Jankowski, J.E. Jr. 1989. National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1990. Report number NSF 90-316, NationalScience Foundation, Washington, D. C.

Marland, G. and A. Weinberg. 1988. Longevity of Infrastructure. In Cities and their Vital Systems, J.Ausubel and R. Herman, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sebestyen, Gy. 1983. Measurement, Accounting, and Taxation for Research and Development: Volumeand Support of Construction R&D. Study submitted to the board, Conseil International duBatiment pour la Recherche l'Etude et la Documentation (CIB), Rotterdam.

National Research Council, Committee on Infrastructure Innovation. 1987. Infrastructure for the 21st Century.Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.

21

HOW EFFECTIVE IS OUR INVESTMENT IN ROADS, STREETS ANDHIGHWAYS?

T.D. White, Associate ProfessorSchool of Civil Engineering

Purdue University

Introduction

States are making a significant annual investment maintaining, rehabilitating, andconstructing or reconstructing the highway and bridge infrastructure. However, there is stillconcern about the overall level of serviceability and condition of these facilities. Similarly,large cities have deteriorating roadway/street networks. These cities are population centersand public service demands are taking a larger portion of available financial resources andas a result reducing the resources available for the roadway/street network as well as otherimportant infrastructure components. Small cities and towns have generally not had the taxbase and do not now have taxpayer support to increase taxes to fund major construction orrehabilitation. In many cases they do not have resources for effective pavement maintenanceprograms.

Real improvement in the serviceability and condition of the highway transportationinfrastructure will require an innovative and long term perspective. A large part of theproblem lies with legislation, agency philosophy, and industry. In turn a large part of thesolution will come from these same parties.

Transportation Significance

By any measure, the impact that transportation has on the Nation's economy issignificant. Table I gives the relative percent that can be attributed to transportation forseveral components of the nation's economy. This includes gross national product, federaltaxes, capital outlay and civilian employment.

The estimated freight bill for transportation of products produced by the economyare shown in Table 2. The highway component of freight transportation, obviously is themost significant of those listed. The total government expenditures at the federal, state andlocal levels for transportation facilities are given in Table 3. The highway share of theseexpenditures is the largest.

A measure of the innovation that might be applied to the transportation systemwould be the U.S government R&D outlays for transportation that are shown in Table 4.The interesting statistic from this table is that the outlay for highways is about 14 percentof the total federal R&D outlay as compared to 66 percent for air transportation. Anotherinteresting fact from this table is that the federal R&D outlay for transportation ascompared to total government R&D outlay is 3.3 percent. The outlay for

23

highways based on this total government R&D would be about 4 tenths of one percent.

Enabling System for Transportation Infrastructure

As shown in Figure 1, an attempt has been made to consider the institutions thatmake up the system for legislating, overseeing, designing, building, advising, advocating andresearching aspects of the infrastructure in general and the transportation infrastructurespecifically.

Figure 1 shows these various interests as legislatures, industry, academia and agency.Of course, the philosophies, concepts, and actions of these interests all impinge upon society(John and Jane Q. Public). In fact, the health of society, as supported by the strength of theeconomy, is guided and determined by the action of the other components. Thesecomponents of the system impact the transportation infrastructure in a number of ways.

Legislators

Legislation or rules that affect transportation infrastructure occur at various levelsof government. However, the primary legislation is enacted at the federal and state level.Local policies and rules are generally adopted under the guidelines set at the state andfederal level.

Because of the impact that transportation has on society and the amount of resourcesnecessary to built and maintain transportation systems, the transportation departments ofgovernment become a focus of politics and legislation. The complexity and technical aspectsof transportation departments should dictate that a high degree of technical ability andprofessionalism would be employed in the leadership of transportation departments. Insome states, this is the situation, however, in a number of states it is not. In those statesthat this is not the situation the leadership is provided by political appointees, often timeswith little experience and leadership for such a position. In one midwestern state, with achange of administration, the job description for district engineers was rewritten as a districtmanagers position. This creates the possibility the position could be filled by an appointeewithout an engineering background. The situation that this creates is that the engineeringactivities of the transportation department in that district would not be directed andmanaged by a professionally trained engineer. If this should happen the responsibility andthe liability of engineering activities undertaken within districts then would be passed to thecentral office and the chief engineer. Supervising these dispersed engineering activities fromthe central office would be a significant responsibility for the chief engineer.

24

Politics also play a role in the organizational structure of transportation departments,restructuring for efficiency is desirable and may actually be one of the options for dealingwith a structured civil service system. Unfortunately, in todays tight financial resourcesituation restructuring is associated with making do with less money. Salaries intransportation departments are traditionally low, although there may be a few exceptions.In many cases the low salaries are making it difficult to replace professional staff in a timelymanner. State administrators and legislators are reluctant to raise salaries because it isconsidered poor politics. The lack of professionally trained leadership and administrationof transportation departments is ultimately a loss to society.

There is an opportunity for comprehensive long-term legislation to impact thetransportation infrastructure. Perhaps an omnibus legislation at the federal level couldprovide a framework for an integrated transportation system and guidelines for growth ofthat transportation system. It is time for new comprehensive transportation developmentthat would include integration of air, automobile, rail, truck and bus modes of travel andmovement of goods. In a recent newspaper article Boeing Aircraft Corporation was quotedas having estimated that air traffic will triple by the year 2020. There are a number offactors, particularly the national and international economy, that will affect the actual rateof growth. Whether air travel triples or not, it will grow significantly within that time frame.It is easy to suggest that the number of airports will not triple within that period of time.Only a modest increase in physical facilities is likely to occur. That means that there isgoing to have to be a significant latent elasticity for handling increased demand with currentairport facilities.

A large portion of the major airports in the United States are concentrated in urbanareas. The increase in air traffic and an associated increase in passengers will impact onground transportation. Attention paid to developing an integrated transportation systemwould pay benefits by establishing a structure for ground transportation that would not onlybe more efficient for handling an increase in the number of air passengers but would benefitthe other modes of transportation. It is recommended that the existing transportationsystem be integrated as soon as possible.

There should be an extended time horizon with which legislation and policy isestablished. This may be difficult when many legislators view their position on a timehorizon of two to four years which is based on the political expediency of being reelected.A distant time horizon for many institutions in U.S society would be beneficial. It isparticularly true of the transportation infrastructure. A significant reason for adoption ofthe legislation establishing the current interstate highway system was predicated on the needfor a direct high speed road network for national defence. The interstate system as a meansof public transportation was also stated and the benefits to the public were considered.However, once established and construction undertaken, the national defense aspect becameless important. During the 1970s and 80s as the initial construction began wearing out, thecost of maintaining and rehabilitating the highway system became a prime issue at the stateand federal level. The twenty to thirty year time frame for planning and design of the initialinterstate system obviously was not adequate. It would have been more appropriate to haveadopted a time horizon of a 100 years or more. That a national policy for such an

25

important aspect of a nations infrastructure could be established for 100 year has aninteresting example in the current development of a national high speed rail network inFrance.

Plans already implemented in France call for the development of high speed rail(TGV) segments to serve four quadrants of the nation. These segments will hub at Pariswhere a central facility has been built. The right-of-way leading into Paris for the highspeed rail will follow a right-of-way that was set aside for rail purposes in 1900. That right-of-way is being developed as a multi use corridor that will blend the rail service with a greenbelt that will provide recreational opportunity and blend well with the neighborhoodsthrough which the right-of-way passes.

There is an opportunity for legislators and political leaders to establish long termpolicies that would insure timely and logical development of the nations transportationinfrastructure and foster innovation. This would require non-partisanship and vision on thepart of our leadership. It appears that the public sees a need for leadership and is becomingincreasingly sensitized to such issues. The presidential primary of 1992 has been a veryenlightening experience in this respect. For example, the news media in a surprised wayreported in the South Dakota primary that the voters of that state were exhibiting a deep-seated anger at the business as usual attitude and lack of leadership from legislators andadministration.

On the political landscape, legislators are having to face the fact that society is goingthrough a period of activism. The activism comes from individuals, groups and businessesand their associations. This activism has significant impact on transportation infrastructuredevelopment. For example, in San Diego, California a light rail mass transportation systemis being developed. The development of that rail system is being focused upon byindividuals and groups that are divided by the definitive positions of yes and no. It is difficultto work at developing this transportation facility on a timely and cost effective basis in thistype of an environment. However, in spite of this focus of attention, the development of thelight rail system is proceeding.

Industry

A large part of our economy produces, transports or sells goods. There is also a partof the economy that provides services. The transportation system that supports thesebusiness as well as personal travel demands is itself supported by a large component ofindustry that includes contractors, consultants, material suppliers, equipment suppliers, andindustry associations and research centers. Users such as the driving public, truckers, andairlines can also be considered to have an impact on the transportation system. Theseparties are considered in this paper as the transportation industry. This industry affects thetransportation system through demand, support for legislation, and materials and equipmentfor construction and maintenance.

The transportation system and society would be better served by balancing demand.Trucking interests lobby for bigger vehicles. However, bigger vehicles are not necessarily

26

compatible with small vehicles or with the transportation infrastructure. Constructionmaterial interests compete for market share and there needs to be an equable process ofcomparing material choices and pavement types. Standard materials and pavement typeswould be better applied and innovative materials and processes could be better evaluated.

There are a number of opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of resources thatare expended on the transportation infrastructure. Professional engineering experience andknowledge could be expanded by certification in specialties. Certification would create ademand for continuing education to prepare engineers for certification and to maintain thatcertification. Another enhancement would be a means of evaluating new technology thatwould reduce the time for approval and adoption by industry. Accelerated pavement testingthat is being pursued by several agencies is an example of how materials, pavement featuresand loading can be evaluated. Figure 2 shows a schematic of an accelerated pavementtesting system being put into service by the Indiana Department of Transportation andPurdue University in West Lafayette, In.

Traditionally design and construction research in civil engineering has been done inthe public sector. The transportation infrastructure would benefit from industry taking amore active role in funding research in-house, at universities or in research centers. TheNational Asphalt Pavement Association and National Stone Association have recentlyestablished research centers in their respective areas of interest.

Agency

Transportation agencies establish the scope, design criteria, material specifications,construction methods and quality control/acceptance method for transportationinfrastructure projects. In some agencies this system is historical and well entrenched andprovides barriers to innovation. A new perspective of this system would create opportunitiesto apply innovation to the transportation infrastructure. The concept of a warranty forconstruction is used in Europe but not in the US. Additional benefit might be gained bycombining warranties with the concept of design/build. This combination would encourageinnovation from the design/build team. There is also the potential for private industry toown and maintain transportation infrastructure facilities.

Agencies can benefit from innovation and are faced with implementing a number ofnew technologies. Productivity incentives have been evaluated in Oregon for Departmentof Transportation maintenance workers. Productivity is measured by amount and quality.Agencies are on the threshold of an information explosion. This is coming about becauseof development of hardware, software and the means of collecting data.

Research can be a source of innovation for agencies. The Strategic Highway ResearchProgram is producing a number of innovative products and agencies are developing plansfor their evaluation. However, there are constraints on research that inhibit innovation. Theconstraints come from the fact that major research funding organizations solicit researchbased on defining the tasks, products, schedule and funds. The National CooperativeHighway Research Program is an example of this approach to funding research.

27

Universities

Universities face challenges in hiring faculty, incorporating infrastructure technologyin course work, and teaching and research resources. Infrastructure technology is evolvingrapidly. There is a shortfall of knowledgeable, experienced faculty and a number ofuniversities are having difficulty filling vacant positions. Another trend that may impact thenations infrastructure is that a number of major universities have deemphasized CivilEngineering which is the major discipline for infrastructure engineering staff.

The shortfall of financial support to maintain and equip laboratories for teaching andresearch is growing. Many university laboratories are not equipped to demonstrate currenttest procedures. As innovative materials and tests are adopted this limited capability will notbe adequate. As an example, the Strategic Highway Research Program is proposing asphaltand asphalt mixture tests that will require equipment that has been estimated will cost$320,000. If these tests are adopted only three or four universities in the country are likelyto be able to purchase the equipment. Research will be further inhibited.

Summary

Transportation and its infrastructure represents a significant portion of the nationseconomy. Continued health of the transportation infrastructure will benefit from long rangeplanning to include a time horizon of 100 years or more and integration of transportationmodes. Innovation is needed and is possible both from industry as well as transportationagencies. Universities need support if key infrastructure technology is to be effectively taughtand meaningful research conducted.

References

American Society of Civil Engineers Policies and Priorities, Washington, D.C., January 1992.

Germane, G.E., Transportation Policy Issues for the 1980's, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,1983.

Small, K.A., Winston, C. and Evans, C.A., Roadwork. A New Highway Pricing andInvestment Policy, The Bookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1989.

28

Table 1. Impact of Transportation on Economy -1981 (Germane 1983).

Gross National Product About 21%

Federal Taxes About 15%

Capital Outlay Over 15%

Civilian Employment About 10%

Table 2. The Nation's Estimated Freight Bill (Germane 1983).

1980

Total in Millions $204,698

Percent of GNP 7.79%

Carrier

Shares

Air 1.6%

Highway 72.7%

Oil Pipelines 3.3%

Rail 13.6%

Water 7.2%

Other 0.4%

(Forwarder & REA Exp.)

Shipper 1.2%

Internal Costs

100.0%

29

Table 3. Federal, State & Local - for Transportation

Facilities (millions of dollars) (Germane 1983).

1978 Shares

Airways & Airports 4,106 11.2%

Highways 30,831 84.4%

Railroads* ......

Rivers & Harbors 1,588 4.4%

Total 36,525 100.0%

* Does not include government guaranteed loans or AMTRAK,or urban and high speed ground transport federalexpenditures.

Table 4. U.S. Government Transportation R&D Outlays (% of

total federal R&D) (Germane 1983).

1980

General 2.6%

Air 66.2%

Highway 13.6%

Railroad 5.2%

Urban Mass Transit 6.9%

Water 5.5%

Total Transportation 100.0%

Total Transportation R&D $ 1,020

(millions of $)

Total U.S. Gov't Outlays for $30,477

R&D (millions of $)

Transportation R&D as a %

of Total

U.S. Government R&D 3.3%

30

AGENCY "INDUSTRYSOCIETY

(John and Jane 0. Public)

ACADEMIA

Figure 1. How Does the System Work.

31

C

0 >Ep -

El

LII> 6-

322

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATIONIN THE PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE WORKSHOP

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPOF ENGINEERS

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY

AN EXAMPLE OF SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION:THREE-DIMENSIONAL GRAPHICS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Ronald J. Zabilskil

ABSSACT

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation is using a Computer AidedConstruction System that integrates construction planning withestimate development, schedule generation, and project managementtools. Integration is achieved by linking IBM's DB2 relationaldatabase with the CATIA three-dimensional (3-D) solids modelingapplicaLion. The relational database is the central repository forall plant information and documents of a project over the lifecycle of the entire facility. The 3-D model is the plant designand the window to the database information.

Construction planning is conducted with the 3-D constructionsequence model. The model provides the construction engineer witha tool that helps clarify the scope of the project. The designmodel is disassembled into its base components, pipe spools,concrete pours, and equipment. A project team then assembles themodel, simulating the sequence of field construction activities.The sequence model can be played back for verification of the logicand can be easily modified to account for problems, such asmaterial and equipment access, delays in equipment delivery, andcraft loading. Quantities are developed from the physicalcharacteristics of the 3-D model. Labor-hours are generated bymultiplying historical installation rates by the modeledquantities. Material and labor costs are then extended. Thegraphics sequence model is then used to generate the projectnetwork schedule. Construction progress is reported by selectingmodeled components that have been completed in the field; labor-hours are loaded from the project's accounting system. The systemthen updates the schedule and reports using performance measuringtechniques.

'Manger Advanced Construction Systems, Stone & WebsterEngineering Corp., P.O. Box 2325, Boston, MA 02107

33

INTRODUCTIO

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation has implemented a projectdevelopment and management system that integrates all plantinformation into a single Integrated Plant Database. Informationis developed in three-dimensional (3-D) graphic format for plantlayout and as text data that describe and document the project.The graphical and textual information is linked together in thedatabase by unique identifiers, which permits the development ofapplications for design and construction of new plants, backf it andlife extension of existing facilities, and operation andmaintenance of operating plants.

The IPD was developed using commercially available IBM products,including DB2, a relational database, and CATIA, a 3-D solidsmodeling application. Stone & Webster created interfaces thatallow these programs to communicate. The IPD operates in amainframe environment.

CONSTRUCTION

With the advent of 3-D computer modeling, construction personnelhave become more interested in the capabilities of computergraphics. The 3-D computer solids model has enabled theconstruction engineer to benefit from information that waspreviously unavailable ti him. He can view a design from anydesired view. He can choose the information and the format inwhich the information is to be displayed. With prior systems,information was displayed in a form that was chosen by thedesigner.

Leveraging the capabilities of the CATIA 3-D modeling applicationand the benefits of the DB2 relational database, Stone & Websterhas developed an advanced construction management system. TheCOnstruction XMAagement Display Bystem (COMANDS) enables automatedquantity development of project estimates linked to the modeledquantities, automated development of construction schedules basedon the construction sequence model, identification of bulkmaterials for procurement, and construction progress reporting bypointing to completed elements in the model.

CATIA supports true full-scale 3-D solids modeling, which meansthat each element in the model has full-sized physical dimensionsand properties. The software can automatically calculate length,area, and volume. If element densities are provided, weight andcenter of gravity are also calculated. When element descriptorsare added to each component, quantities, such as cubic yards ofconcrete, tons of structural steel, and square feet of paintedsurface area, can be generated automatically from the model. Thisinformation is stored in the database and is used to create anestimate of the material and equipment that will be needed duringconstruction. Total craft labor-hours and costs are also

34

calculated in the database by multiplying material quantities byhistorical craft installation labor rates and craft hourly wagerates.

Stone & Webster uses COMANDS in two modes: on Stone & Websterdesigned projects and projects designed by other engineeringcompanies.

In the first mode, projects are designed and engineered in CATIA 3-D graphics. The project database is developed simultaneously.Drawings are generated by projecting a solid geometry image into a2-D window. Notes and dimensions are then added. Constructionpersonnel then use this information to develop the COMANDSdatabase.

In the second mode, the project is designed by others. Three-dimensional models and the database are then developed from thedesign drawings. The drawings are loaded into CATIA byconstruction, estimating, and scheduling engineers. Experience hasshown that information can be modeled from 2-D drawings veryrapidly. The boiler building of a 150 MW pulverized coal powerplant was modeled in three weeks by two engineers. The modelincluded the structural steel columns and beams, the boiler, allmajor equipment, piping, HVAC duct, cable tray, and platforms. Themodeling effort simulates construction in the field andfamiliarizes the participants with the project's scope of work.Since all components have to fit together in the 3-D model, thedesign is verified prior to start of actual constructionactivities, with constructibility analysis, value engineering, andinterference identification being conducted concurrently.

Since COMANDS is used as a construction tool, the level of detailthat is required in the 3-D model need only be at the level thatproject management chooses to monitor the construction activities.Modeling to the nuts and bolts level would be extremely timeconsuming, whereas a building block model would not providesufficient detail to be useful. Stone & Webster models to thelevel of detail that is identified in the project's work breakdownstructure (WBS). The WBS account/activity list identifies thislevel of detail. An activity can be tracked at a system level; forexample, "Install Feedwater Piping and Testing." It can also betracked at a component level where each account is identified inthe installation process; for example, 10 inch carbon steel pipe,pipe supports, welding, valves, painting, insulation, testing, andturnover. As a rule all civil and structural activities aremodeled to the level of detail in the design. This includesexcavation, backfill, foundations, slabs, walls, and structuralsteel. Mechanical equipment has been modeled as it physicallyexists and as volumetric blockouts. Pipe has been modeled with andwithout valves and fittings. Electrical equipment is modeled asequipment blockouts, and cable tray is routed dimensionally

35

correct. Conduit is not usually modeled since it is normally runto suit existing field conditions.

A compromise needs to be made between the initial cost of thedetailed 3-D model and the downstream savings of having thisinformation available for estimating, purchasing, and projectcontrol. This does not preclude specific areas of the design beingmodeled in a high level of detail for study purposes.

APPLICATIONS

Duct Removal Project

After the model has been developed, planning is the first step inthe use of COMANDS. Planning starts with the development of aconstruction sequence model. The model is disassembled into itsbase components. Concrete slabs and walls are split at theconstruction joints, piping by spool section. The model is thenassembled by a project team, simulating the sequence ofconstruction activities as they would be conducted in the field.The sequence model can be played back for verification of the logicand can be changed easily to account for problems such as materialand equipment access, confined work spaces, and craft personnel-loading. An example of this is demonstrated by the demolition ofan exhaust duct section which was part of a precipitator backfit atan operating plant (Figure 1). The precipitator was designed to beinstalled in the location of an existing duct section. The projectwas designed in 2-D. The design was manually loaded into CATIA inthree weeks. The model consisted of the exhaust duct section,chimney and breaching, precipitator foundations, structural supportsteel, and hydraulic jacks. The installation duration spanned 18months and included two planned outages, one at the start and oneat the end of the project.

During the initial two-day outage, a pipe sleeve was installedthrough the existing exhaust duct. After the sleeve was installed,the exhaust duct was put back into service. This enabled theinstallation of the foundations, structural steel, and precipitatorwithout impacting the plant operations. The second outage tookplace at the end of the schedule when the duct section was cut outof the exhaust duct. The 105 ton duct section was lowered to theground with four 27.5 ton hydraulic jacks. Once on the ground, theduct was cut up and removed. Also, the precipitator tie-in wasperformed simultaneously.

The modeling effort identified three construction problems thatwere not readily apparent from the 2-D design. The first problemwas identified after the assembly of the model and interferenceswere investigated. A second interior structural steel column wasoccupying the same space as a portion of the duct and stiffeners.A second concern was raised during the sequence study of lowering

36

Figure 1. Exhaust Duct Demolition Sequence Planning

37

the duct section. The design of the foundations caused the duct tohang up on the concrete prior to contact with grade. The lastrestraint was identified when the remaining structural steel wasinstalled between grade and top of the structure. The bottom ofthis steel interfered with the top of the duct. This would requirethat the duct section be removed prior to installation of thissteel, thereby increasing the duration of the schedule.

The first problem with the structural column was solved by cuttingout the portion of the duct stiffeners that was interfering. Thesecond and third problems was solved by modifying the foundationdesign, eliminating the hang up and enabling the top of the duct tobe 18 inches lower than the bottom of steel when lowered to grade.

The 3-D construction model identified these deficiencies earlyenough in the project to permit effective constructibility analysisand value engineering. If the problems of the duct hanging up onthe foundation and the structural steel interference were notidentified until the outage commenced, the impact on the schedulecould have been severe.

Power Plant Environmental Systems Retrofit

Stone & Webster's 3-D modeling system has also been used on a 550Megawatt pulverized coal fossil power plant. The project consistedof retrofitting the existing scrubber units, removing precipitatorunits, and replacing 800 tons of exhaust duct during a twelve weekoutage.

During the proposal, 3-D computer models were developed of theexisting plant configuration and the owner's conceptual new ductdesign. The models were developed from the existing plant drawingsand a preliminary walkdown of the plant. The models were completedby two construction personnel in three weeks and included allfacilities and equipment associated with the plant's flue gasdesulfurization area (Figure 2).

The models initially were used to help Stone & Webster personnelunderstand the scope of the outage work and facility layout for theproject. They were also used to quickly determine quantities ofduct work, structural materials that were to be restored, removed,or installed, and the surface area of the structural steel forsandblasting and painting. However, the main use of the models wasto develop a construction sequence to visually verify that theproject could be completed on schedule. This approach was used toconvince Stone & Webster's management, as well as the owner, thatthe tight schedule could be met with minimal risks.

After the contract award, Stone & Webster conducted the detaildesign of the plant building upon the model developed in theproposal. Three-dimensional modeling was used for all new

38

EXISTING DUCTWORK DESIGN

NEW DUCTWORK DESIGN

Figure 2. Existing and New Environmental SystemsConfigurations

39

mechanical and structural design. This included footings andfoundations, structural steel, mechanical equipment, duct work,pipe, and pipe components. Design drawings were made from the 3-Dgeometry using the system's 2-D capabilities.

Using 3-D design, the design engineer translates the 3-D image inhis mind to create that same image on the screen of the work-station. Structures and systems are continuous and complete. Theyare not regulated or designed on separate sheets. Structural baysare developed; general arrangements of equipment are fitted intothe bays; and pipe, HVAC, and electrical systems are routed betweenequipment, avoiding interferences. When the model has beencompleted, checked, and verified, drawings are then created. Inthis fashion the design is represented in the model; drawings areused to communicate that design. Most 3-D systems have beendeveloped to enable the geometry of the drawing to be created byprojecting the image of the model into a 2-D window where clippingand dressing-up of the image can be conducted. Notes anddimensions are then added.

A duct work configuration different from the original conceptualdesign was developed in 3-D. The new design could have beenconducted in the 2-D mode; however, communicating that design withthe 3-D model among the project participants proved to be veryeffective.

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) estimates that the costof rework on industrial projects exceeds 12 percent of the totalproject cost. Design deviations, changes, errors, and omissionsaccount for 80 percent of the increased costs. Constructiondeviations account for 20 percent. The CII cost influence curvealso shows that the earlier construction experience, methods, andknowledge are introduced to a project's design, the higher theprobability that these factors will influence the design and reducecost and schedule. With this philosophy in mind, two full timeconstruction supervisors were assigned to implementconstructibility issues early in the design of the project.Construction worked closely with the engineers and designers duringthe design process. Areas of concern included labor and materialaccess, scheduling, and construction equipment placement.

During the design process, Construction Specialists are reviewingthe models for constructibility. In the past these specialistsreviewed completed drawings which did not allow a great deal offlexibility to make changes. Now copies of the model are usedstarting in the conceptual stages of the project continuing throughdetailed design to assess site layout, craft and equipment access,and ease of construction; implement modularization; size pipespools and locate field welds; plan the construction process;select and size construction equipment; and create the constructionschedule. The 3-D design model provides the project with apowerful communication tool utilized among all levels of the

40

project team, including project management, the owner, engineering,and construction.

Computerized modeling also provides the capability to more fullyintegrate both design and construction with the facility'soperations and maintenance requirements. This can be achieved bypassing the as-built model to the owner for future use and linkingthe model to the owner's customized plant database.

Construction used the proposal model to refine the demolitionsequence of the existing precipitators and duct work. Cranestudies were conducted with a library of premodeled cranes toanalyze access, placement, capacity, and boom reach. A 4600Manitowoc luffing tower crane was selected based on capacity,reach, and the minimal number of setups required. After the cranewas chosen, sizes of the existing duct-work sections were thenidentified for removal. The 3-D modeling system enables densitiesto be applied to each modeled solid and the corresponding weightsto be determined. Cuts in the duct work were identified thatmaximized the size of the sections to the capacity of the crane.Centers of gravity were also calculated for each duct section toidentify rigging pick points. Using this quantitative informationobtained from the model, in conjunction with 3-D graphic images asa guide, a preliminary outage demolition schedule was developedusing Primavera's Finest Hour scheduling package. The demolitionsequence model was then refined based on the critical path andmanloading capabilities shown on the schedule.

When the design reached the final stages, construction made copiesof the models and began to take them apart to experiment withdifferent construction scenarios. Duct work was again sized to thecapacity of the crane at the placement boom length. The new ductwork installation sections were analyzed and scheduled similarly tothe duct work removal sections. The demolition and installationsequence models were integrated to facilitate a complete outageconstruction sequence. This sequence model revealed thatmodifications needed to be made to the corresponding duct workconstruction schedule where original assumptions did not hold.Isometric piece mark sketches were then created that identified theduct mark number, weight, and sequence of installation. Thesesketches were sent to the duct vendor, at their request, to assistin the duct work fabrication and delivery schedule (Figure 3).

Using the 3-D system, construction personnel developed their ownerection drawings from the engineering models. Pipe spool sizesand field weld locations were identified on the model, based uponconstruction requirements. Isometric sketches were then developedwith each spool piece, hanger, and field weld identified. Weldingprocedures and test information were included for each weld. Thematerials management module provided an automatically generatedmaterials list, by spool piece, for each pipeline, which was fedinto the purchasing system. The isometric sketches and bills of

41

[• FAN OUTLET TO STACK BREECHING

its|

Its SCRUBBER OUTLET TO FAN INLET

ISOC

i IGA

Figure 3. Duct Piece Mark Sketch

42

materials were included in the bid packages to the prospective pipefabricators, along with the orthographic drawings.

When the Finest Hour construction schedule was completed, it wasdownloaded to DXF format and uploaded into the modeling package.The sequence model steps were placed around the schedule, matchingtime frame and logic. The result is a document that provides allof the logic and detail of the schedule and a 3-D graphicrepresentation of the project (Figure 4).

Three months prior to the start of the outage, the client delayedthe duct and scrubber modifications for approximately 18 months.Business reasons were cited for the postponement, as well asextensive boiler modifications scheduled during the same timeperiod and labor shortages in the area.

Prior to this announcement, Stone & Webster was awarded the boilermodification construction work. This consisted of boiler waterwall panel replacement, asbestos removal, hot reheat pipelinereplacement, coal pulverizer refurbishment, and the replacement ofsix feedwater heat exchangers.

Construction Specialists responded to this sudden change in scopeby again utilizing the 3-D modeling system. Facilities included inthe new contract were fully modeled using the owner's designdrawings, clarifying the scope of work and verifying preliminaryinstallation scenarios.

The model also proved to be invaluable when 3 weeks prior to thestart of the boiler modification outage, the owner requested thatthe two existing precipitators be removed and replaced with ductwork. Using the design model, Stone & Webster's engineers wereable to select newly fabricated duct sections, previously designedfor use in the modified duct work arrangement, as transition piecesin the precipitator area. Supports were designed as a combinationof the existing precipitator support steel and temporary supportmodules. The ends of the transition pieces were modified toconnect the assembly to the existing boiler duct and the scrubberduct. The temporary modification design was completed in only 4weeks after notification.

These models also proved valuable on the jobsite in familiarizingnew construction personnel with the project. In the Spring of1992, duct and scrubber outage planning and scheduling will beginagain.

43

Figure 4. Construction Sequence Model Linked to Schedule

44

Issues in Technology Transfer:Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

Arthur B. BaskinAutomation Support Center

Department of Computer ScienceDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Stephen C-Y. LuKnowledge-Bases Engineering Systems Research Laboratory

Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringDepartment of Computer Science

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

In manufacturing, construction, and infrastructure maintenance, there is an increasing premiumon solving large system-level problems in shorter times, with fewer resources, and withoutcompromising the quality of the result. In the manufacturing arena, the increasing complexityof engineering products and the intense competition of the world market have combined to forcea change from the centralized methods of the past toward a more decentralized approach. Thisdecentralized approach deals with complexities by dispersing different product developmentfunctions to a team of engineers, where each team member contributes special expertise to theoverall solution.

For complex construction projects or in situations where materials and/or building techniques callfor specialized expertise, the same sort of group coordination is required. In the best case,solving the problem of coordinating the various sets of expertise leads to a shorter constructionprocess with an attendant cost decrease. In the worst case, the integrity of the structure can becompromised when design or construction changes are made without adequate review by theappropriate construction team members.

The condition of the national infrastructure will have a profound effect on the competitivenessof U.S. industry in the emerging era of global competition (1). Here again, multiple interactingconstraints must be brought together to balance the competing costs of deferred maintenance withpresent day outlays for repair or rebuilding. In much the same way that materials knowledgemust be brought to bear on developing useful, reliable, and economical manufactured products.engineering life-cycle knowledge must be used to allocate limited resources for infrastructurerepair or replacement.

45

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

Manufacturing, construction, and infrastructure maintenance all involve complex system-levelproblems which, at best, can only be decomposed into multiple interacting sub-problems. Thesesub-problems require cooperative conflict resolution among differing areas of required expertise.While this approach allows more complex problems to be solved than more traditional methods,it is more difficult to manage than previous approaches. Fortunately, computer tools forcooperative work, such as those being developed for concurrent engineering, are beginning tobecome available (2,3). While this emerging technology is still in its infancy, there is everyreason to expect that it will produce an impact on group or team productivity as profound as thatof the personal productivity systems on individual workers.

1. The Two Meanings of Technology Transfer

In all three of the areas discussed in this paper, technology transfer can mean either the transferfrom researchers to practitioners or the adaptation of tools from one discipline to another. Inpreparing this paper, we have used both definitions of technology transfer. After discussing theneed for cultural change in the next section, we discuss issues which arise when informationsystems are used as agents for transferring new decision making technologies from researchersto practitioners. We illustrate these issues with examples drawn from our experience inmanufacturing and engineering logistics management. In later sections, we generalize currentlyactive areas of research in concurrent engineering to problems in construction and infrastructuremaintenance. By looking at the challenges, requirements, and solutions being developed forsystem-level engineering problems, we may be able to benefit from work done in one area bytransferring techniques, if not actual tools, from one discipline to another.

2. The Need for Cultural Change

As we briefly outlined above, there is a need for a change in the traditional decision makingculture in manufacturing, construction, and infrastructure maintenance. In each case, separate(and usually serial) decision making needs to be replaced by a more parallel process emphasizingcooperative conflict resolution. Traditional manufacturing design was a serial process in whichcommunication was frequently in the form of specifications and drawings. In this approach,conflicts lead to expensive backtracking in order to revise early design commitments in light ofdownstream factors. The current emphasis on concurrent engineering represents a change inculture away from this serial approach.

Figure ' illustrates the evolution of product development practice with its increasing emphasison concurrent engineering. As we shall discuss in greater detail in the remainder of this section,manufacturing has evolved from centralized product development to distributed productdevelopment on its way toward true concurrent development. Construction and public worksinfrastructure mranagement are already highly decentralized and will need to converge on a moreconcurrent planning process in order to improve.

46

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

Complexity

high

.. . . . . . . . . . ...... :..... ". .11.: •:

.. ...

.::i lowlOW -, • Lead-Time

" , long . - short

high - - - - -

Q :centralized product development (past)Quality () :distributed product development (present)

:concurrent product development (future)

The concurrent product development practice (also called Concur-rent Engineering) strives to:

* Shorten product development lead-time(better manage life-cycle concerns)

* Manage high product complexity(through tightly integrated functions)

9 Increase product competitiveness(keep high quality with low costs)

in order to maximize the overall product value.

Figure 1. Competitiveness of Product Development and Its Evolution

47

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

2.1 The Need for Increased Communication and Coordination

In large construction projects in the U.S., there is frequently a separation between thearchitectural designer and the construction team. Again, there is a relatively low bandwidthcommunication channel between these two groups (e.g. architectural drawings and associatedspecifications). As in the manufacturing case, design rationale is rarely captured in suchdocuments making it difficult to make the inevitable modifications due to the arrival ofdownstream considerations. Based on the experience with manufacturing design, it seems clearthat a change will be required in this arm's length relationship between the necessary componentsof expertise. Indeed, this change has already begun in Europe where it is not unusual for anengineering design firm to receive a separate contract to oversee construction according to itsdesign.

As much of the U.S. infrastructure ages, it will become progressively more important to use fiscalresources wisely. In such areas as maintenance of the nations navigable waterways, it is onlynow becoming possible to adequately inventory the state of this component of the infrastructure.In many cases, construction and repair materials and techniques have changed radically sinceoriginal construction. In addition, the experience with existing structures now provides life-cyclemodels that can be used to predict the future course of maintenance activity. Unfortunately, thesethree sets of information are rarely found in a single individual or even a single group. As inthe two cases above, a change of culture is required to break down the barriers between existinggroups of experts in order to improve the quality of decision making, and thereby, theinfrastructure itself.

2.2 The Need to Reward Innovation and Its Attendant Risks

In addition to the need to change from a serial information flow and decision making process toa more parallel process, there also needs to be a qualitative change in the character of thedecision making. In the manufacturing arena, this change is usually described as a need forinnovation. In construction and infrastructure management, this change is usually described asa need to promote more experimentation and, thus, risk taking behavior. In each case, a changein the nature of the decision making process will be required. Although not apparent on thesurface, these two qualitative changes are really aspects of the same underlying mechanism.Promoting design innovation is not possible without making it sufficiently safe to try newmaterials or new product definitions. Promoting innovation in construction also requires makingit sufficiently safe to try new materials or construction methods. As long as it remainsimpossible to wave a magic wand and remove risk, the only way to reduce individual risk willbe through risk sharing. Whether by bringing downstream design considerations to bear on earlymanufacturing designs or melding architectural design rationale with construction and life-cycleexpertise, it will be essential to change the current serial and adversarial conflict resolution intoa more parallel and cooperative process.

2.3 The Need for the Right Amount of Decentralization

In manufacturing, concurrent engineering will mean a more decentralized process in which

48

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

relatively independent agents coordinate their activities to achieve a common goal. Inconstruction and infrastructure management, the problem is that the process is currently toodecentralized. In these cases a more centralized process will be required. Judging from therecent experience with manufacturing design, the challenge will be to avoid over shooting thedesired equilibrium point where the currently adversarial independent agents engage incooperative conflict resolution.

3. Information Systems as Agents of Cultural Change

In working with engineering field offices at U.S. Army installations in the continental UnitedStates and Europe, we have noted, and occasionally exploited, the role of computer-basedinformation systems as agents of change. A new information system can either reinforce existingpatterns of communication and problem solving or it can disrupt existing patterns. In workingwith Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) offices, we routinely suggest that aconscious decision be made about which role new technology is to play. When the decision ismade to introduce new patterns of communication, it is also necessary to provide administrativesupport for the new system (which is not usually required for automating existing patterns).

Implementing the cultural changes outlined in the previous section will be facilitated by usinginformation systems as an agent for change. As at the DEH, this change will require additionaladministrative support. By implementing information processing systems that foster a newpattern of information sharing and decision making, we can build an information processinginfrastructure that will positively reinforce the desired changes. Having now resolved to buildcomputer-based information systems to foster a change in decision making culture, we willdiscuss some of the constraints on such development in the remainder of this section beforediscussing the importance of timing in the next section.

3.1 Information Systems Should Support Evolution Not Revolution

As appealing as a revolutionary change in information processing might appear, revolutionarychange is almost never possible. Even such apparently revolutionary technologies as local areanetworks and CAD work stations are actually well grounded in previously existing patterns ofinformation sharing and design document presentation.

As an example of the need for evolution, consider our experience developing tools for capturingdesign rationale. In our early tool development, we produced a computer-based system whichdebriefed an engineer to capture a detailed statement of overall and component design rationales.While the system worked as we intended, it required the engineer to separate out a componentof activity which is not naturally separated from the process of designing an artifact. Eventhough the potential benefits for design reuse could be quite large in the future, engineerspreferred not to use the separate design rationale system because it actually interfered withcurrent practice. Based on these reactions, we are now developing techniques to embed designrationale capture in more traditional design tools in order to provide a more natural method ofcapturing design rationale.

49

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

3.2 Information Systems Should be Grounded in Current Practice

Even when using new information systems to promote cultural change, we have found it wiseto conduct empirical studies of human problem solving in order to better match our tools topatterns of human information sharing and problem solving (4,5). New tools which conform toexisting patterns of human cognition and problem solving will be more readily assimilated thantools which require users to adapt to inefficient patterns.

As the design rationale example above indicates, it is possible to evaluate tools by developingthem and metering their effectiveness with actual users. Unfortunately, this generate and testapproach is terribly inefficient and is part of the reason why only a small fraction of developedsoftware systems are actually put into widespread use. In our work with engineering design, wehave used a different approach. We have conducted empirical studies of architectural design andaircraft design in which we have analyzed the actions of interactive design teams. We havelooked both at expert and novice behavior. In these situations, we have concentrated on routinedesign problems and identified the types of problem solving behavior found. Surprisingly, evenin routine design where one might expect that use of previous patterns might dominate, we haveseen a preponderance of conflict detection and resolution behavior. Thus, even in cooperative(i.e. non-adversarial) groups, communication of mutually interacting constraints on the solutionplays a dominant role. This rapid folding together of constraints on the solution from differentperspectives leads to better decisions in shorter times.

As part of our development effort, we analyzed transcripts of problem solving activity andformed a basic theory conflict management for cooperative conflict resolution. Figure 2 showsa portion of the conflict hierarchy which we developed. In our complete conflict hierarchy, wewere able to identify types of conflicts associated with resource management design and routinedesign. Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram of a computer-based system which we developedto provide conflict management advice to a group of cooperating experts (human and/ormachine). These two figures, taken together, illustrate the pattern of deriving functionalityrequirement from studying human performance and then building tools that match the humanperformance requirements.

As another example of the importance of grounding new systems in a knowledge of currentpractice, consider the development of branching questionnaires to collect medical histories.These systems were developed in the early 1970s to meet a perceived need for collecting morecomplete histories than is possible in a normal office visit. Apart from some managed caresystems in California which used the systems as screening devices, the systems were a failure.In an effort to be comprehensive, these systems generated so many false positive responses thattheir reports were too lengthy to be digested by a physician before an office visit. For thisreason, the systems have not been incorporated into medical practice despite studies that clearlydemonstrate their effectiveness at information gathering. They simply do not fit current practiceand do not provide a sufficiently great benefit to offset their perceived cost.

50

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

conflict instances (-60) and resolutions (-200)were collected and analyzed to build hierarchyof conflict classes with resolution strategies

All ConflictsII I

Objections Conflictingby Critics Recommendations

Global Domain Shallow Differing DefaultExpert Expert Model Local Assumption

I MMaxima

Numerical Resource Functional NumberConstraint Limit Constraint ValuedViolated Exceeded Violated Feature

Anticipated Actual One Side Both SidesUsage Usage Flexible Flexible

Worst Likely Budget BudgetCase Usage for forUsage Total Design

Design Subtask

Figure 2. A portion of a conflict hierarchy obtained by analyzing a the problem solvingbehavior of human experts involved in architectural design and local area networkdesign.

51

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

"* design agents consist of distinct domain design and conflictresolution components

"* CR component maps conflicts to conflict classes to specificsuggestions via dialogue with design agents involved inconflict

Conflict Collect AdviceClasses General Advice

I Instantiate, Advice

M04P ToColasics / Specific

Clsss CR PlansPick CR Plan

G":h

Resolve Conflict CR Plan

Nt ExecuteSCR Plan

Conflict Queries ActionsManifestation Using Query Using Action

Conflict Language Language

Detectiont

InconsistentDesign

StateA search taxonomy for classes whose abstract

preconditions subsume conflict . use abstract"query" language, e.g.

conflict involves critique?component isa resource-conduit?untried plans for goal?

A fill in "slots" in associated strategies with context-specific values to produce specific adviceexpressed using action language

Figure 3. A computational model for conflict resolution based derived from the study ofcooperative conflict resolution by groups of human experts.

52

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

3.3 Exploit the Natural Evolution of System Level Problems

While it would be possible to blindly apply concurrent engineering tools to problems inmanufacturing, construction and infrastructure management, such an approach ignores much ofwhat has been learned in the last ten years. Improving the quality of decision making in theseareas requires more fundamental considerations than just simply implementing better proceduresfor cost controls or managing change requests. We must examine the complexity of concurrentengineering from the perspective that this approach is intrinsically a system-level problem. Ingeneral, there are three required levels of understanding, namely event, process, and methodologywhich must be understood before sound solutions to a system problem are possible. The eventlevel focuses on individual results (or cases) and experiences gained from these results. Theprocess level involves underlying reasons (e.g. physics, mechanisms, rationales) upon which theevents were based. At the methodology level, various paradigms and theories, either empiricalor analytical, are proposed to explain and guide event occurrences based on the understandingof their respective processes. It is important to note that one can only arrive at a sound systemsolution through a gradual evolution through these consecutive levels of understanding.

Table I summarizes research and development challenges in manufacturing, design, concurrentengineering, and infrastructure management. In manufacturing, different operations (i.e. events)were treated as black boxes and experience-based knowledge dominated the community before1950. The work of Dr. M. E. Merchant in 1950 marked significant turning point with theintroduction of the notion of manufacturing systems (6a). Unfortunately, early research attemptedto leap directly to a systems approach without a sound understanding of manufacturing processesand methodologies. As a result, even though discussion of manufacturing systems continuedfrom the 1960s through the 1980s, the significant research results in this era were reported fromthe studies of the physics involved in various manufacturing processes. Results from thesestudies gave us a clear understanding of detailed mechanisms and enabled us to propose differentmethodologies to control manufacturing operations for improved results. Only after this longjourney through event, process, and methodology, are we now able to produce useful results formanufacturing systems, 30 years after Merchant's initial proposal (6b).

Although not thought of as a system-level problem yet, recent research on engineeringmaintenance and repair (REMR) has begun to exhibit many of these properties (7). Early fieldwork emphasized the need to inventory and, later, inspect the condition of such large civil worksstructures as locks and other structures within navigable waterways. During the past six years,a number of computer-based systems have been developed to automate the maintenance ofinspection data for these structures (8). These programs have recently grown to emphasize thereporting of status for groups of structures and attempts to use life-cycle process knowledge toassign a condition index (CI). The condition index along with its underlying rationale iscomparable to the physics of manufacturing discussed above. Surely, system level integrationand coordination of activity was an implicit goal of the REMR effort. Unfortunately, the datafrom inspections and validation of CI calculation mechanisms is not yet assernbled intomethodologies for infrastructure management. Based on the experience with manufacturing,results becoming available from the use of REMR tools over the next few years should spur thedevelopment of new paradigms and theories of managing large infrastructure systems. These newparadigms will need to be embodied in infonriation systems in order to be most effective.

53

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

Exploit Natural Evolution of

System Problems

Levels

Event Process Methodology System

results physics paradigms integrationFocus experience mechanisms theories cooperation

Manufacturing 1950 early 1980s mid 1980s late 1980s

Design mid 1980s (?) late 1980s (?) (?)

ConcurrentEngineering (?) () (?) late 1980s (?)

Maintenanceand Renair late 1970s Mid 1980s Early 1990s (?)

Financial Tracking Materials REMR Life CycleExamples and Invencory Research Condition Index

Table 1. System-level problems naturally evolve from events through process andmethodology before a true system solution is possible. This table shows history

and status of the movement toward concurrent engineering as well as theanalogous situation for maintenance and repair.

54

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

4. Decisions Have an Optimal Time to be Made

The case for the importance of decision timing is very strong. Figure 4 shows a typical costbreak-down for a product development process involving conceptual design, detailed design,manufacturing planning, and production stages (9). These stages could just as readily be design,planning and construction stages for a large construction or civil works project. There are twotypes of costs, one for the committed cost (i.e., the % of final product market cost that is beingdetermined at that stage) and the other for the incurred cost (i.e., the actual expenses of productdevelopment activities at that stage) indicated for each stage in the figure. It is clear that amajority (about 80%) of the final product cost has already been determined at the end of thedetailed design stage. This leaves only very small opportunities for cost improvement at theproduction phase where a majority of actual expenses are incurred. It is interesting to note thatthe area above the upper line can be seen as the opportunity for improvement, and the area underthe lower line can be viewed as the cost for regret. In this way, the challenge of concurrentengineering can be defined as "how to make sound decisions at early stages of productdevelopment where committed costs are high (or how to maximize the opportunity forimprovement by increasing the area above the upper line)?". Similarly, it can also be definedas "how to avoid changes at later stages where incurred costs are high (or how to minimize thecost for regret by reducing the area under the lower line)?".

The key message from Figure 4 is that sound decisions must be made at early stages to avoid(or minimize) subsequent engineering changes. This is because that engineering changes are themain "cost-driver" in product development. For example, engineering changes have been amain factor in determining the product competitiveness between U.S. and Japanese manufacturersas illustrated in Figure 5. The figure compares the pattern and amount of engineering changesin a typical U.S. (dotted line) and Japanese (solid line) company in the automotive industry (10).As can be seen from this figure, most engineering changes in a Japanese company occur between36 to 24 months "before" the date when product is introduced to the market (the D day), andthere are almost no changes afterwards. In contrast, engineering changes in a U.S. companyoccur much later during the process, reaching a peak during the production stage, and continuingon even after products are on the market.

The significance of this comparison is not only on the number of engineering changes processed(the Y axis) but, more importantly, the time when those changes occurred (i.e., the patterndistribution along the X axis). Again, engineering changes at early stages of productdevelopment have lower costs and can help to minimize future changes. This is a very importantpoint and must be incorporated into concurrent engineering computer tools.

In both of the cases above, the most important observation is that the value of decisions atdifferent point in the development process is not uniform. In general, design decisions whichinclude downstream considerations at earlier times will be more valuable than those whichserialize the process.

55

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-V Lu

Different Costs for Product Development

QD. Design Engineering Manufacturing Engineering n

_a_ OpportunityIfor:.IImprovement I

% ofTo alCosts 4: con tted

1 0 inc4rred j1

- - - -- - - - Cost forR R egret 1

Conceptuail Dctaiilcd Pkt111iinig Productionl

Concurrent Engineering Challenges:

"* How to make sound decisions at early stages?- (i.e., to maximize the opportunity for iml)roveineclt)

"* How to minimize changes at later stages?- (i.e., to minimize the cost for regret)

Figure 4. Different Costs During Product Development Stages

56

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

Benchmark Comparison of Engineering Changes

No. of EngineeringChanges Processed

U.S.-•C•mpany "es-rn..-

* S

Japanese S

CompanyRecalls

*0 S

The D Day

Months of

I Product

-36 -24 -12 Job #1 12 24 Development

Concurrent Engineering Challenges:

• How to reduce the total number of engineering changes?

* How to minimize engineering changes at later stages?

* How to best manage and support engineeering changes?(if they are not avoidable!)

Figure 5. Benchmark Comparison of Engineering Changes

57

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

5. General Requirements for Concurrent Engineering Tools

In order to transfer technology between disciplines we should understand how the challenges.current techniques, and future requirements of the disciplines relate. Technology transfer bet%,eendisciplines based on such a foundation is more likely to be effective than the use of isolatedtechniques. In this section we explore requirements originally developed for concurrentengineering in manufacturing settings which should also apply to construction and civil works.

To develop a new design, engineers use their specific domain knowledge to generate geometricalshapes and relationships which, in term, result in a set of data defining the product specifications.For mechanical products, knowledge, geometry, and data are the three basic entities thatengineers must effectively deal with in order to make good decisions. At the beginning of thecomputer-aided engineering era, many tools were developed to support data-intensive tasks suchas engineering data bases and simulation programs. Those tools are useful mainly for the laterstages of product development (e.g., analysis of product performance) where product knowledgeand geometry have already been decided. The development of various computer-aided draftingand design programs (e.g., CAD) over the past two decades have produced computer tools forgeometry-intensive tasks. Those tools are useful during intermediate stages of development torepresent product knowledge in geometric forms to be converted into engineering data fordownstream activities. Recently, artificial intelligence (Al) techniques have been used to buildexpert systems to support various engineering decision-making tasks (11). Although their fullpotential is yet to be seen, Al-based tools should be more suitable for knowledge-intensive tasksat earlier stages of product development than those traditional geometry- or data-oriented tools.

As engineers go through the early, intermediate, and late stages of product development, thechallenges of their tasks shift from being knowledge, geometry, and data intensive accordingly.Therefore, as more computer tools are being developed to support early activities, the foci ofthese software developments are being extended from data and geometry to knowledge about theproduct. Unfortunately, current computer tools for supporting data, geometry, and knowledgeintensive tasks are often developed in isolation from each other. As a result, they are only usefulat a particular stage of the development process. To move from one stage to another, it iscommon for engineers to change to different computer tools (e.g., data-based, CAD-based, or Al-based) to cope with the changing requirements of different product development tasks. Thisresults in many wasted efforts and prevents the integration of various product developmentconcerns required by concurrent engineering. To overcome these difficulties, more intelligentsoftware must be developed to support knowledge-intensive tasks and integrate with existinggeometry- and data-oriented tools (12). This section will examine some functional requirementsof computer tools that are useful for knowledge-intensive, decision-making tasks in concurrentengineering. Specifically, we will discuss these requirements (denoted as R) according to theirroles in the following activities needed for concurrent engineering:

integration of complementary engineering expertise (R-a-),

cooperation of multiple competing perspectives (R-b-),

communication of upstream and downstream concerns (R-c-), and

coordination of group problem-solving activities (R-d-).

5X

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

5.1 Integration of Complementary Engineering Expertise

In order to effectively incorporate life-cycle considerations, different engineering expertise mustbe "integrated" during the product development process, rather than "interfaced" afterwards.Knowledge representing complementary expertise must be shared among product engineers beforethey reach their individual solutions (13). The following four functions are required to supportthe knowledge sharing and expertise integration during product development:

(R-a-1) Combine numerical/symbolic representations: Some of the product developmentexpertise, such as performance analysis, will have numerical representation while others, suchas manufacturability checking, may be more suitable for symbolic representation. A usefulconcurrent engineering tool must be able to treat numbers and symbols indifferently with auniform representation to facilitate the true integration of different complementary expertise.

(R-a-2) Break the synthesis/analysis barriers: With traditional practice, synthesis and analysisare done separately and iteratively through the product development process. To minimizeengineering changes, the barriers between these two tasks must be broken so that they can bedone simultaneously. In order to do this, computer tools must be able to effectively reason (orcalculate) from inputs to outputs and vice versa. This requires multi-directional data propagationamong problem attributes within the tool.

(R-a-3) Adapt to standard data definitions: One major difficulty of integration in the currentpractice is that computer tools for different engineering tasks, such as design, planning, andscheduling, all use different data definitions. Data incompatibility prevents sharing of expertiseand makes cross-functional consistency checking impossible. Efforts in developing standards fordata definitions, such as PDES/STEPP and IGES, are important to the realization of concurrentengineering.

(R.a-4) Integrate with CAD and database tools: As explained before, any decision supporttool at the knowledge level must be integrated with software for representing geometries andstoring data. This integration is more than just creating file links or software pointers betweendifferent programs. It requires the ability for decision support tools to truly "reason about"knowledge implicitly available from geometry and data programs.

5.2 Cooperation of Multiple Competing Perspectives

Product development practice is not a pure scientific activity, and product decisions are alwaysperspective-driven. A major challenge in concurrent engineering is to effectively managecompeting perspectives to maximize the values of differences during the product developmentprocess (14,15). The followings are desired functional requirements for managing competingperspectives:

(R-b-1) Record decision histories and rationale: Since product development is a "process"of making decisions, records of how different decisions evolve (i.e., history) and why they evolvein a particular way (i.e., rationale) are useful for the management of various perspectives. Mostcurrent computer tools, such as CAD and databases, only document "results" of product

59

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

decisions without keeping track of their heritage. They act as "static cameras" taking snap shotsof product development results. Concurrent engineei a;:' tools must be able to record histories,assumptions, rationale of various decisions. Such rc,t,,' ds can minimize the risk of makingchanges which violate early assumptions, provide bases for systematic conflict resolutions, andfacilitate communication and coordination among product development team members (see R-c-and R-d-).

(R-b-2) Automate consistency maintenance: Most existing tools are "inactive" in the sensethat they allow inconsistent specifications to exist in the product model before its execution. Away to minimize changes at later stages is to have computer tools that can immediately"complain about" (or detect) inconsistent decisions at the time when they occur. Such reactivetools are very useful for supporting individual and group "what-if" analyses to ensure thatinnovations do not violate the global states of consistency. Since the burden of maintainingconsistency is shifted from human to computers, engineers will be more willing to try newalternatives, consider different opinions, and accept "better" ideas from others.

(R-b-3) Facilitate conflict management: Competing perspectives lead to conflicts which mustbe detected and resolved before the product development process can proceed. In a typicalproduct development team, a significant portion of engineers' time and resources are spentdetecting and resolving conflicts. Therefore, computer tools that support conflict managementactivities will be of great value to concurrent engineering. Methods must be developed toautomatically identify the sources of conflicts, suggest possible resolution strategies, andsummarize consequences of proposed changes. Once certain changes are decided to be necessary(by either engineers or computers with human consent), the tools should automatically carry outthese changes (with human supervision) and detect any side-effects. Decision histories andrationale play an important role in automatic conflict management as previously explained.

(R-b-4) Provide comprehensible explanations: The ability to explain ones decisions to otherconcerned parties in a comprehensible manner is crucial to integration, cooperation, andcoordination among product development team members. Computer tools which can provideunderstandable explanations of decisions will be beneficial to engineers who often need toexplain what they did, how and why they did it to their colleagues. This requires more than justprinting out pre-stored textual information. The explanations must be automatically tailored toparticular viewpoints with proper levels of details for those concerned engineers. Graphicalrepresentations of explanations (e.g., graphs of dependency networks) are often useful for easycomprehension. Again, good records of decision histories and rationale play an important rolein these explanation activities.

5.3 Communication of Upstream and Downstream Concerns

Iterations and changes at later stages can be minimized if downstream product developmentconcerns can be communicated upstream to those who make decisions at early stages. Therefore,computer tools must be developed to promote and support early communications among productengineers to avoid iterations and changes (16). These tools must also provide representations of

60

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

decisions in a manner suitable for communication. The following functional requirements mustbe considered:

(R-c-1) Support the least commitment approach: A way to facilitate upstream anddownstream communications is not to make premature commitments or specifications, leavingroom for others to express their concerns later on. This is called the least commitment approachto problem solving in Al, and is a very useful concept to promote communications in concurrentengineering. For example, one way to support the least commitment approach is to developcomputer tools that allow interval value specifications. In the early stages of productdevelopment, few details may be explicitly known. Engineers can use intervals to specifyacceptable ranges of values based on upstream concerns, leaving these intervals to be furtherrefined by others at later stages where downstream concerns become apparent. Traditional toolsonly support atomic value specifications (e.g., single numbers or symbols) and, hence, forceengineers to commit to specific values unnecessarily. In contrast, interval values, much like thetolerance concept in design and manufacturing integration, can make product decisions more"communicable" to promote concurrent engineering.

(R-c-2) Adaptive focus at multiple abstraction levels: Upstream and downstream productconcerns are often expressed with different levels of abstraction. Therefore, computer tools mustbe able to support reasoning with adaptive focus for concurrent engineering communication.Given a specification of "interests" based on engineers' different roles in the productdevelopment team, such tools must be able to automatically mine out relevant information fromgeneric product specifications. As engineers change their interests at different stages, these toolsmust adapt their focus of information mining accordingly. Without such tools to support adaptivefocus, engineers will be overwhelmed by the amount of information, most of which is notdirectly relevant to their current interests, and unable to communicate effectively at the propertime.

(R-c-3) Facilitate early evaluation of decisions: Early evaluations are important because theycan eliminate unpromising choices before major resources are consumed. However, upstreamevaluations are difficult because most traditional analysis tools require very detailed decisionspecifications and, therefore, can only be used for downstream analyses. Methods must bedeveloped to form analysis models based on downstream detailed knowledge to support earlyevaluations of upstream decisions. With these early evaluation models extracted fromdownstream knowledge, product decisions can be gradually refined at optimized at various stages.

(R-c-4) Provide hypothetical reasoning: Since not all the concerns are explicitly known atupstream, engineers often need to hypothesize downstream conditions to generate several differentproduct scenarios. Hypothetical reasoning is an important activity in product development, andgood computer support for this activity can greatly assist concurrent engineering. There areseveral software techniques from AI, such as multiple worlds and truth maintenance systems,which can be used to support multi-scenario reasoning based on different hypotheses and canautomatically merge different scenarios when necessary. These techniques must be furtherdeveloped and integrated to support hypothetical reasoning at different abstraction levels forconcurrent engineering.

61

Arthur Baskin and Stephen C-Y Lu

5.4 Coordination of Group Problem-Solving Activities

Concurrent engineering is inherently a group activity and, therefore, group productivity" is amain concern. To date, most computer tools are design for enhancing individual productivity.New tools must be developed to support group interaction of engineering teams with differenttechnical backgrounds and geographical locations (17). These interactions could be centralizedor distributed, synchronous or asynchronous, technical or administrative, and involving bothpeople and machines. For the concurrent engineering purpose, these group productivity toolsmust meet the following requirements:

(R-d-1) Deal with homogeneous and heterogeneous tools: Unlike small groups where membersare likely to use similar tools in problem solving, heterogeneity of computer tools always existswhen dealing with large engineering groups or a collection of small groups. Group productivitytools must be able to accommodate small and large groups with similar and different tools. Thesegroup tools should act as a common platform for group work, allowing results generated fromdifferent tools to be integrated. The issues related to unified representations, standard datadefinitions, and automatic consistency management discussed above play important roles insupporting this group-work platform.

(R-d-2) Manage ownerships among group members: Although engineers are encouraged toshare ideas and work cooperatively in concurrent engineering, they must declare and controlownership of some product decisions in order for the product development team to be effective.Without some technical authority of decisions, it is impossible to assign and evaluate theresponsibilities of engineers in the team. Computer tools must automatically manage theseownerships and responsibilities of decisions as they are declared and agreed by the groupmembers. These tools should also allow sharing and changing of ownerships as necessary andmanage these situations accordingly.

(R-d-3) Support synchronous and asynchronous interaction: Depending on the nature andstages of product development, the required interactions in a product team can be eithersynchronous or asynchronous. Supporting synchronous interaction is important because it allowsimplications and feedback of one engineer's decisions to be immediately known by the groupmembers. However, such instantaneous interactions could sometime cause instability of theoverall team development efforts and discourage innovation by team members who might wishto try out some new ideas without being publicized right away. Since good ideas take time tomature before they can be seriously shared, engineers may sometime prefer asynchronousinteraction with large time delay. Group productivity tools for concurrent engineering should beable to support both types of interactions.

(R-d-4) Promote local and remote interaction: Engineers who have required productdevelopment expertise may not come from the same location, and yet still need to interact duringthe product development process. Computer tools which can create "virtual co-location' amongengineers regardless of their actual geographic locations are needed for concurrent engineering.New hardware and software technologies, such as local and global area networking, multi-medium information systems, and distributed databases supporting consistent and persistent datastorage, are all important to this activity.

62

Sharing Experience Between Manufacturing and Construction

5.5 Three Fundamental Requirements

Among the above 16 functional requirements of concurrent engineering tools, three are mostfundamental (12,18) to software development as indicated by the axes of Figure 6. The X axisrepresents "perspectives" which refer to different life-cycle concerns such as function, structure,manufacturing, and maintenance. On the Y axis, "stages" indicate the current stage of decision-making activities, ranging from the early stage of conceptualization to the final stage of detailedanalyses and production. The Z axis represents "participants" and refers to the number ofengineers required for developing a competitive product. It is interesting to note that mostconventional, computer-aided engineering tools available to date only support a singleperspective, are biased toward a particular stage, and are only suitable for an individual user.These tools are represented as a single point at [0,0,01 in Figure 6. In contrast, computer toolsfor concurrent engineering must ideally be able to incorporate multiple perspectives, supportmultiple stages, and work with multiple participants. They are represented by the volume of the[1,1,1] cube in Figure 6. Basic research efforts are needed to extend current computer-aidedautomation technologies from zero-dimension (a single point at [0,0,0]) to three-dimension (thevolume of [1,1,1] cube) to support concurrent product development (19).

6. Some Recent Results

There are many different approaches available for developing concurrent engineering computertools. Good examples are the Taguchi method (20) and the Axiomatic design principle whichhave been explored as ways to support design and manufacturing integration (21). In fact, sinceconcurrent engineering is a system-level problem, any approach that can improve on systemsolutions is useful. In this section, we will introduce some recent results from an extended Al-based approach, called the Knowledge Processing Technology (KPT).

6.1 The Basic Concept of Knowledge Processing

The need for developing computer tools that can handle multiple perspectives, stages, andparticipants calls for a new automation foundation beyond the current foundation which is basedon the data processing technology (DPT). We developed KPT as a new foundation whichallowed us to build computer tools that could manipulate higher level information contents thanwhat was possible with DPT. In a generic sense, KPT can be defined as a logical set of softwaretechniques, from both Al research and traditional engineering methods, that can increase theutility of engineering knowledge to support complex decision making tasks (22). An importantconcept of KPT is the distinction between data and knowledge. Both knowledge and data areproblem-solving information with different representations and utilities. Knowledge representsthe structure, meaning, usage, justifications, interpretations, and other high-level concepts of data.In contrast to data, knowledge is more flexible, comprehensible, and can be dynamicallyinferenced (rather than statically retrieved). While data keeps records of past events, knowledgelies within the models that give proper meaning to data for future applications.

Due to the above differences, processing data is sufficient for interfacing of mass-productionautomation tasks while processing knowledge is required for integration of highly flexibleproduction systems. Interfacing and integration differ in the method and degree by which

63

Arthur BasiWn and Stephen C-Y Lu

Tool Requirements for Concurrent Engineering

Computer tools that are useful for cooperative team support inconcurrent engineering must have the following characteristics:

Stages 0 :current automation technology(Y) o :concurrent engr. requirements

multiple

I I-- I•-•

II I

s singlc I,il , j ..- (X) PcrspcCtivcsI [0,0,0 . multiple

W0'multiplc(Z)• mlm

Participants

The ability of modeling engineering know-how, know-why, and know-what intelligence by KPT makes the development of these computertools possible.

Figure 6. Three Fundamental Requirements for Concurrent Engineering Tools

64