Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway AdministrationSearch FHWAFeedback
Highways for LIFE

Arrow Marketing Plan for Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems (PBES)

<<Back Contents Next >>

Marketing Strategy: Year One

Target for FY2007

During the 2006 fiscal year, the PBES implementation team's goal was to have 15 additional states try PBES on one or more projects, with 8 of them determining that PBES will be their standard approach to bridge design, with "stick–built" being used only when PBES is not appropriate.

Also, participation in the PBES implementation effort needs to include others within the highway community, so at least four industry groups and associations were targeted during the first year of the program. A key device for measuring an organization's commitment to PBES was having their primary member publication publish a positive article on PBES, with a commitment to encourage the use of the technology by their members.

Marketing Strategies

The PBES implementation team will meet and discuss which states are most liable to go to PBES as a standard approach and target them first. The idea is that, as more and more states adopt PBES, eventually a "tipping point" will be reached, after which other states which might not be inclined toward PBES now, would be more so inclined.

Once these "opportunity states" have been identified, appointments will be made for bridge specialists on the team to travel to the appropriate division offices, there to meet with the division administrator [DA], give an all–hands presentation on the technology, and then to accompany the DA to the state DOT offices. At the DOT offices, the bridge specialist from the marketing team and the DA would meet with the CEO, with the state bridge engineer from the DOT in attendance. At that meeting, the bridge specialist from the marketing team would show a short (1 to 3 minutes) video on the technology, focusing on the bottom line benefits. Once that meeting was over, the bridge specialist from the implementation team would give more details to the state bridge engineer, perhaps showing a longer, more technical version of the video to the entire bridge design staff in the state DOT. The bridge specialist from the implementation team would leave behind a copy of the video, a brochure for each bridge person on the staff, and an advertising specialty item that was selected to tie in somehow with PBES. There would also be invitations provided to upcoming open houses/showcases or formal training sessions. Opportunities would be made for holding a training session there in that city.

National and regional workshops, conferences, and open houses/showcases also will be held throughout the year, and individuals from the targeted "opportunity states" will be invited to attend. Special travel scholarships will be made available for those same individuals, so that they can be sure to attend. Ultimately, the goal would be that, once an opportunity state has implemented PBES (and then later institutes PBES as the standard), DOT staff members will serve as champions for the technology to their peers. They will be asked to represent their state on panels at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and other prestigious conferences, as well as to accompany PBES implementation team members on Marketing Plan for Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems (PBES) 23 calls to other states, where possible. Should some sort of peer–to–peer program be established, these champions would be among the first to be recruited to serve.

Through a variety of special events, media interviews with trade journal reporters, and the above–mentioned association publications, the PBES message will be sent out nationally. Reprints will be obtained of all articles published on PBES, and these will be distributed to members of the target market. The message from this wide–ranging communications push will be that PBES is an established, ready–to–be–used technology that is being used throughout the country.

Identification of PBES Opportunities and Obstacles

The PBES implementation team identified opportunities to implement PBES and obstacles to the use of PBES and then consolidated, categorized, and prioritized the list. The top categories of opportunities in priority order are:

  • Standardizing and stockpiling "bread & butter" bridges (200 ft or less total bridge length)
  • Saving Money
  • Technology advancements (high performance materials [HPM], design, construction, etc.)
  • Congestion Reduction
  • Success stories and lessons learned

The top categories of obstacles in priority order are:

  • Lack of training and tools
  • Need to develop "bread & butter" (200 ft or less total bridge length) structure plans and implementation packages
  • Lack of standardization
  • Resistance to change/lack of buy–in
  • Industry not geared up to deliver
  • Need for knowledge transfer on all levels
  • Lack of champions from states

Prioritized Recommendations to Implement Opportunities and to Address Obstacles

The team developed recommendations to implement the top prioritized categories of opportunities and to address the top prioritized categories of obstacles. The recommendations to implement opportunities (OP_) and to address obstacles (OB_) were then prioritized as shown in the tables below in ranked order. The recommendations without an "OP_" or "OB_" designation were ranked as low priority. Ties are shown with an "a," "b," etc., after the number.

Priority Prioritized Recommendations to Implement Opportunities
OP1 Develop and promote standard design plans and specifications for PBES and substructure.
OP2 Continue to develop new technologies to implement PBES, e.g., durable connections.
OP3 Determine how cost analysis is being done in different states and develop standard formula for calculating cost savings. Incorporate it into framework.
OP4 Promote construction during off–peak times.
OP5 Expand and continue to share knowledge of innovative construction techniques and equipment.
OP5b Find states with large capital improvement programs and encourage partnership with fabricators.
OP7 Promote use of innovative contracting strategies for ABC bidding (e.g., incentive/disincentive).
OP8a Work with industry to see what it would take for them to make it work, e.g., Alabama DOT program.
OP8b Get 360° feedback and knowledge from industry on what works and what doesn't work.
OP8c Promote regional and national technology exchange.
OP8d Enhance media relations programs (e.g., publish articles on projects and case studies).
OP12a Develop cost analysis software for initial, user, and life cycle costs.
OP12b Maximize use of accelerated construction techniques (e.g., offsite construction).
OP12c Continue to use internet to advance technology.
OP15a Look at cost information for past projects and success stories.
OP15b Mine and share information on past projects.
Test prototype(s).
Show that life cycle costs are lower with high performance materials.
Incorporate and promote high performance materials for long–term durability and efficiency.
Keep "Get In, Get Out, Stay Out"
Priority Prioritized Recommendations to Address Obstacles
OB1 Collect and compile information (standard sections and plans) from all states, including connection details catalog. Hold at central clearinghouse.
OB2 Continue to develop and conduct demonstration projects and workshops.
OB3 Make NHI training a top priority.
OB4 Develop promotional and implementation packages for various levels of end users.
OB5a Get the technical tools to states (availability of manuals and tools expedited).
OB5b Promote use to all levels of owners.
OB7 Encourage owners to spec it.
OB8 Encourage owner to develop specifications that take some of risk away from contractors (DB)
OB9 Identify and recruit State DOT champions.
OB10 Find out what other technical tools are needed.
OB11 Use LTAP & TTAP centers.
OB12 Market the technical tools and training.
Develop executive summaries on training for CEOs.
Increase personalized effort by FHWA headquarters to collect information.
Develop and deliver tools and training.

PBES Action Plan for 2007, 2008, and 2009, Including Budgets

The PBES developed a listing of the activities to be conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2009 to accomplish the prioritized recommendations. Who, what, when, where, and how much cost were identified for each activity, as shown in the following table.

Marketing Activities Timetable
Priority Date Activities Location Target Audience Lead Team Member Approximate Cost
OP5a
OP8c
OB2
Dec. 2007 Conference Baltimore, MD Bridge Professionals V. Mistry
R. Ailaney
$98,000
OP5a
OP5a
OB2
2008
2009
ABC Workshop Pittsburg, PA Bridge Professionals V. Mistry $5,000/yr.
OP5a
OP5a
OB2
2007
2008
2009
PBES Bridge Replacement Showcase TBA Bridge Professional; Government Leaders; General Public V. Mistry
R. Ailaney
G. Jakovich
$40,000/yr.
OP5a
OP8c
OB2
June 2007 PBES Bridge Replacement ShowcaseSalt Lake City, UT Bridge Professional; Government Leaders; General Public V. Mistry$20,000
OP5a
OP8c
OB2
2008 PBES Bridge Replacement Showcase OregonBridge Professional; Government Leaders; General Public V. Mistry
T. Rogers
$20,000
OB3 2007
2008
2009
Best Practices Manual for ABC & NHI Training  Bridge Professional; Government Leaders; General Public V. Mistry
R. Ailaney
G. Jakovich
$750,000/1st yr. (SBIR)
OB1 2007 Catalog of Connection Details HQ Bridge Professionals; Designers V. Mistry
R. Ailaney
G. Jakovich
$240,000
OB4 2007
2008
2009
Presenting successful projects and case studies (marketing video)   Bridge Professionals; Decision Makers V. Mistry
R. Ailaney
G. Jakovich
$25,000/yr.
OB1
OB8
2007 Meeting with 8 States to compile existing plans & specifications for all ABC (1–on–1 mtgs) CA
FL
LA
NY
PA
TX
VA
WA
Team members & Div. Bridge Engr. with State Bridge Engr. R. Ailaney
G. Jakovich
T. Rogers
$15,000
OB1 2007 With initial compiled plans & specifications, coordinate with HfL to populate the exchange website HQ FHWA, States, industry, local agencies M. Cribbs
G. Jakovich
R. Ailaney
$10,000
OP5a
OP12c
2007
2208
Re–format PBES website to topic based format HQ Web users M. Cribbs
R. Ailaney
$0
OP1
OP8b
OB10
2007
2008
Collect existing industry standards & populate website HQ NCBC, NSBA, PCI, PTI, PCA, SCEF/PCEF, PCINE, ASBI, G. Jakovich
R. Ailaney
T. Rogers
H. Bowman
C. Napier
M. Cribbs
$10,000/yr.
OP2 2007
2008
2009
PBES testing of connections & other details as needed TFHRC Users M. Adams
G. Jakovich
TBD
OP3
OP12a
2007
2008
2009
Develop standard methodology, software, & template for calculating all costs, and include in Framework, Best Practice Manual, NHI training, & HfL evaluation of projects HQ Users R. Ailaney
C. Napier
K. Bergeron
E. Gabler
$250,000 in 2nd yr.
OP4
OP5a
2007
2008
2009
Ongoing — manual training, workshops, framework HQ Users Team
OP4
OP7
Aug. 2007 Educate Divisions on innovating contracting strategies TN FHWA Division Bridge Engineers R. Ailaney
H. Bowman
$5,000
OB1
OB7
OB8
OB9
2008
2009
Do 1–on–1 meeting in all States 52 minus initial 8 in 2007 State Bridge Engineers, Construction Engineers, & Project Mgrs. V. Mistry $50,000/yr.
OP8d
OB4
OB51
OB5b
OB10
OB11
2007
2008
2009
Develop 2–level set of tools:
–Marketing
–Technical & then take to users
HQ Users K. Bergeron
G. Jakovich
$75,000/yr.
OP5a
OP12b
2007 Publish & distribute SPMT Manual; post on website HQ Users T. Tang
M. Cribbs
$10,000
OP5b
OP8a
OP8b
2007
2008
2009
Contact Alabama DOT, Gene Calvert, NCBC & NSBA to learn what they are doing with fabrication of stockpiled products. Then go to states with large capital improvement projects to promote partnerships with fabricators HQ FL, OH, OR, UT B. Tang
G. Jakovich
V. Mistry
s. Elnahal
$10,000/yr.
  2007 6–month follow–up meeting TN
DC
DC
TeamV. Mistry $5,000/yr.
  Dec. '07
June '08
Dec. '09
Annual Meeting TBD Team V. Mistry $10,000/yr.

Reviews and Evaluation

Twice annually (at least through 2009), the PBES implementation team will meet to review and evaluate progress on the activities to achieve the prioritized recommendations that will implement opportunities and address obstacles. Mid–course corrections will be implemented as needed to ensure that the activities are consistent with where the team has determined it should be going to reach its goals by 2010.


<<Back Contents Next >>

More Information

Events

Contact

Kathleen Bergeron
Highways for LIFE
202-366-5508
kathleen.bergeron@dot.gov

This page last modified on 04/04/11
 

FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration