drones

Article
A Method for Selecting Strategic Deployment
Opportunities for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
for Transportation Agencies
Sarah Hubbard 1, * and Bryan Hubbard 2
1 Purdue University School of Aviation and Transportation Technology, Purdue University Polytechnic
Institute, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
2 Purdue University School of Construction Management Technology, Purdue University Polytechnic Institute,
West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 16 June 2020; Accepted: 30 June 2020; Published: 2 July 2020


Abstract: Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are increasingly used for a variety of applications by
state Departments of Transportation (DOT) and local transportation agencies due to technology
advancements, lower costs, and regulatory changes that have simplified operations. There are
numerous applications (e.g., bridge inspection, traffic management, incident response, construction
and roadway mapping) and agencies find it challenging to prioritize which applications are most
appropriate. Important factors to consider when prioritizing UAS applications include: (1) benefits,
(2) ease of adoption, (3) stakeholder acceptance, and (4) technical feasibility. These factors can be
evaluated utilizing various techniques such as the technology acceptance model, benefit analysis,
and technology readiness level (TRL). This paper presents the methodology and results for
the prioritization of UAS applications’ quality function deployment (QFD), which reflects both
qualitative and quantitative components. The proposed framework can be used in the future as
technologies mature, and the prioritization can be revised on a regular basis to identify future strategic
implementation opportunities. Numerous transportation agencies have begun to use UAS, some have
developed UAS operating policies and manuals, but there has been no documentation to support
identification of the UAS applications that are most appropriate for deployment. This paper fills that
gap and documents a method for identification of UAS applications for strategic deployment and
illustrates the method with a case study.

Keywords: unmanned aircraft systems; UAS; drone; strategic planning; technology innovation;
DOT; prioritization

1. Introduction
The objective of this paper is to present a process for state Departments of Transportation (DOTs)
and local transportation agencies to prioritize applications for the strategic deployment of unmanned
aerial systems (UAS). Key tasks in this process include documentation of candidate UAS deployments
by transportation agencies, development of a framework for prioritizing UAS applications for an agency,
and presentation of a case study to provide an example of the prioritization process for a transportation
agency, in this case a DOT.
The prioritization of candidate UAS applications reflects a number of factors including stakeholder
willingness to accept the new technology for the application, how easily the technology can be adopted
for the application, the benefits associated with the deployment, and if the UAS technology can reliably
support the proposed application.

Drones 2020, 4, 29; doi:10.3390/drones4030029 www.mdpi.com/journal/drones

Drones 2020, 4, 29 2 of 16

Stakeholder willingness to accept UAS can vary significantly, depending on the application
and stakeholders. Stakeholder acceptance reflects both the organizational acceptance (e.g., culture,
management objectives, organizational structure and policies), and the individual acceptance.
Stakeholder acceptance of technology and ease of adoption reflect how user-friendly the technology is
for individual workers, as well as financial and regulatory considerations that may make adoption
more challenging.
The benefits of UAS vary depending on the application, and may include safety for transportation
workers, safety for the traveling public, costs savings for the transportation agency and the traveling
public, and increased capabilities for the transportation agency. Cost savings may include the value of
time for the traveling public, the value of time and equipment for the transportation agency, and the
value of increased safety in terms of accidents and injuries avoided.
Technical feasibility reflects the maturity of the technology for the proposed application. This may
encompass factors such as control and sensor capabilities, as well as battery life, and operation in the
actual environment. The technology also needs to be proven technically feasible for the proposed
deployment in the actual environment, which may include wind, rain, and other harsh and sometimes
unpredictable environmental challenges.
Based on the stakeholder acceptance, ease of adoption, benefits, and technical feasibility,
prioritization of potential applications can be accomplished utilizing both quantitative and qualitative
techniques. The consolidation of these prioritizations results in an identification of strategic
opportunities for DOTs.

Overview of UAS Applications for DOTs

Simplified UAS operations under Part 107, in combination with advancements in UAS technology
and the resulting lower prices, have resulted in a dramatic increase in the prevalence of UAS. The growth
in UAS has facilitated an increasing number of potential UAS applications. Many government agencies
have recognized the benefits and potential benefits of UAS, and UAS have been deployed at both the
state and local level to support a wide range of agency activities. UAS have been implemented as
standard practice for some applications, and as demonstrations and investigations for other applications.
The potential for UAS to provide a valuable tool has been reflected by investigations, demonstrations,
and even deployment as standard practices at DOTs and transportation agencies.
There are a number of UAS applications that have been documented in the scholarly literature,
the media, and in UAS consultant reports and websites. Public agencies have incorporated UAS for
a wide variety of applications, from emergency response and disaster management to vegetation
management (e.g., to assess invasive species and to identify illegally grown marijuana), and construction
and infrastructure management (e.g., bridge inspections and construction inspections).
For over a decade, UAS have been proposed as a means to provide rapid and accurate information
to first responders, and as a tool to provide real-time visual confirmation to the wide variety of
stakeholders who participate in emergency response activities [1]. Although regulation historically
limited the utilization of UAS in emergencies [2], the promulgation of Part 107 in 2016 significantly
reduced regulatory constraints, and simplified the process for legal operation. Used properly, UAS are
a valuable tool that may provide excellent documentation of conditions, enhance situational awareness,
allow distant experts to provide technical assistance in real-time, facilitate communications and
the data collection, and reduce injuries and increase safety for both day-to-day operations and
during emergencies.
UAS are used for a variety of tasks to support construction and infrastructure management,
including surveying and pre-construction activities (e.g., lidar, 2D and 3D mapping and
imaging), documentation of earthwork quantities, documentation of construction progress
and activities, inspections, and aerial photographs and video for communication and project
documentation [3,4]. UAS may also be a useful tool to support quality control and worker safety [5].
High-resolution photographs and advanced image processing are facilitated by UAS data collection
Drones 2020, 4, 29 3 of 16

and are useful in pavement infrastructure monitoring [6,7]. A number of methods have been developed
to provide image processing for a condition assessment based on high-resolution photos. A condition
assessment can also be enhanced by the use of other UAS remote sensing technologies such as laser
scanners (including lidar), ground penetrating radar (GPR), thermal imaging, and acoustics [7].
In addition to DOTs and local transportation agencies, other state and local agencies are using
UAS to increase their capabilities and, in some cases, lower their costs. Example agencies that use UAS
include State Police and local law enforcement, fire fighters and emergency responders, Departments of
Natural Resources, Departments of Environmental Management, Departments of Fish and Wildlife,
local drainage boards, local surveyors, and Departments of Ecology. Universities are often collaborative
partners in the exploration and development of new UAS applications.
There have been a number of surveys of state DOTs in recent years to identify agencies that are
actively using UAS, both for research and in standard practice for regular activities. These surveys
generally indicate increasing interest. In March 2016, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) conducted a survey that found that 17 state DOTs had studied or
used UAS, and another 16 state DOTs were exploring applications, assisting in policy development,
or supporting UAS research [8]. In August 2016, a survey of DOTs by Kansas DOT indicated that
seven had submitted requests for a Certificate of Authorization (COA) exemption and seven were
considering purchasing a UAS once regulations allowed for commercial use when Part 107 became
effective on August 29, 2016 [9]. By March 2018, AASHTO reported the results of another survey,
which indicated that 20 state DOTs were using UAS for daily operations, and 15 more DOTs were
researching how UAS could best be deployed [10].
There are a very wide range of UAS applications that have been implemented, investigated,
and explored. Table 1 provides a partial list of UAS applications. Some applications, such as bridge
inspections, have been studied by numerous agencies. For example, Michigan DOT has worked with
Michigan Tech for more than four years, and has found UAS to be a safe, reliable, and cost-effective
tool [10]. Minnesota DOT has also worked with UAS for bridge inspections for a number of years,
partnering with Collins Engineering [11]. Other DOTs have also utilized UAS for bridge inspections as
an agency activity, but have done so without documentation in scholarly research reports.

Table 1. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) applications.

Roadway and Emergency Environmental Airport and

Construction Other
Bridge Response Monitoring Aviation

Bridge 1 and Fugitive and Airport Advertising

Confined space Agricultural
culvert missing person obstruction and public
inspection monitoring
inspection tracking monitoring information
Airport Building and
High mast pole Construction Crash Environmental
perimeter structural
inspection inspection investigation compliance 2
control inspections
Unpaved road Pipeline Emergency Disposal area Aerial
Media relations
monitoring inspections management inspection monitoring
Pavement Railroad First responder Sinkhole Heritage
inspections inspection information monitoring inspections 3
Traffic Surveying and Avalanche Waterway Dam and dyke
monitoring photogrammetry control inspection inspections
Stockpile Wildlife Pedestrian and
ROW studies Earth slides
measurement surveys bike studies 4
Corridor Work zone Rockfall
Delivery
analysis audits inspections
1 Roadway, rail, and pedestrian bridges; 2 including wetlands; 3 monuments and statues; 4 including compliance

with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

Drones 2020, 4, 29 4 of 16

North Carolina DOT has worked with the State Highway Patrol to deploy UAS for incident
management, and has found that crash reconstruction times using UAS can potentially be reduced to
less than one fourth of the time required using traditional reconstruction methods (25 min with a UAS
vs. 111 min with traditional methods). This reduction in time translates to the road opening sooner,
which can save USD 5000 per interstate crash, considering only user delay and the associated lost
productivity [10]. DOTs that use UAS for regular activities report the following top five missions [12]:
• Photo/video;
• Surveying;
• Infrastructure inspections;
• Emergency response/natural disasters;
• Public education and outreach.
These missions can be used for a variety of applications that support DOT responsibilities, as listed
in Table 1. UAS for environmental compliance includes not only wetlands monitoring, but also
roadside air quality monitoring [13]. Roadway and bridge applications include pavement and bridge
inspections, as well as traffic monitoring. UAS for pavement inspections may include crack detection
and mapping, as well as monitoring pavements on expansive soils [14]. UAS for traffic monitoring
may include detection of recurrent or non-recurrent congestion [15] as well as wrong-way entries onto
the interstate [16]. Some agencies have responsibilities for airports, in which case, UAS can be used
for daily activities such as security (e.g., perimeter control) as well as periodic inspections such as
obstruction monitoring, which ensures aircrafts have a safe path for approach and departure that is
free from encroaching vegetation and manmade obstacles such as buildings and cranes. UAS have also
proven useful for a variety of emergency response activities, including crash investigations, which may
encompass remote inspection of the accident scene to protect personnel, and documentation of the
accident scene. There are numerous other applications, ranging from use of video and images as
a communication tool with the public and decision-makers, to studies for pedestrians and bikes.
Pedestrian and bike studies include UAS for pedestrian observation [17]. UAS have also been used as
part of a crash warning system for the bike lane at intersections with connected vehicle technology [18].
The applications presented in Table 1 are generally consistent with previous research that suggests
the applications of greatest interest to transportation agencies may support the following activities [19]:
• Asset management including infrastructure inspection (significant overlap with roadway and
bridge applications in Table 1);
• Construction;
• Disaster management (encompasses emergency response in Table 1);
• Environmental monitoring;
• Safety;
• Surveillance;
• Traffic operations.
The agency structure for UAS deployment (e.g., whether UAS are owned and deployed at the
district level or from the central office), may have a significant impact on how quickly deployment
occurs and how widely UAS are implemented.

2. Method
There are over forty UAS applications (as illustrated by Table 1) and UAS can be used in different
ways to support many of these applications. Given the broad possibilities for UAS, it is valuable for
an agency to identify the best opportunities for early success and strategically implement UAS as
a tool for these applications. This will give the agency an opportunity to learn from UAS in a strategic
way and limit risk while still advancing organizational innovation. In order to prioritize the strategic
opportunities, a methodology was developed that reflected assessment for the following areas:
Drones 2020, 4, 29 5 of 16

• Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption;

• Benefits;
• Technical feasibility.

Assessment may include both qualitative and quantitative components. Results from assessment
areas are then combined for evaluation using the (TQM) quality function deployment (QFD)
method, a method widely used in other sectors, including total quality management (TQM).
Additional information about the assessment areas and QFD are provided below, with the prioritization
methodology illustrated using a case study for a DOT.

2.1. Assessment Areas

The three assessment areas used for this prioritization include stakeholder acceptance and ease of
adoption, benefits, and technical feasibility. For some agencies, it may be appropriate to have more
assessment areas or otherwise tailor the assessment areas to meet agency needs. For example, it would
be reasonable to separate stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption into separate assessment areas,
and/or separate benefits into agency benefits and public benefits. Separating out the assessment areas
would allow them to be clearly communicated and weighted separately, according to agency goals.
Weightings can be determined by a survey of stakeholders, or through processes such as the Delphi
method, which is based on iterations by knowledgeable experts. In this case study, all three assessment
areas are equally weighted.

2.1.1. Stakeholder Acceptance and Ease of Use

Stakeholder acceptance reflects the organizational and individual support or concerns with
the proposed deployment. Stakeholders potentially include all organizations and individuals who
would be affected by the proposed technology deployment, including people and organizations that
use the technology (e.g., district personnel), interface with the technology, pay for the technology
(e.g., taxpayers), or are affected by its deployment in any other way. Stakeholder acceptance would
include both labor and management perspectives, as well as public perception.
One of the most broadly used frameworks for stakeholder acceptance is the technology acceptance
model (TAM) which states that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the main determinants
for an individual’s use of a technology [20]. Perceived usefulness reflects whether workers believe the
technology will help carry out a task. Perceived ease of use is how much effort is needed to properly
use the technology. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology [21] provides additional
context for technology and recognizes social influence and organizational factors such as facilitating
conditions and whether use is voluntary.
Ease of adoption refers to how easily the technology can be deployed, considering physical
and financial requirements of the proposed deployment, as well as regulatory, institutional,
and political considerations.
Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption are closely related and together they reflect the
potential challenges or support in adopting UAS for a given application, and in this case are called
stakeholder input. In addition to reflecting individual characteristics, such as whether DOT workers
would use the technology if it were available, and institutional characteristics, such as management
support, stakeholder input would reflect support and constraints due to external organizations that
provide regulation and oversight. This would include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for
bridge inspection requirements and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for requirements related
to use of UAS (e.g., under Part 107). Stakeholder input would also reflect any partner organizations that
may be affected (e.g., emergency responders in the case of a roadway crash, or external partners such
as construction contractors). As the assessment becomes more robust, future assessment may reflect
more detailed analysis (e.g., attitude of individual users, compatibility of the proposed technology
with task, etc.).
Drones 2020, 4, 29 6 of 16

2.1.2. Benefits
Benefits include the benefits and costs associated with the proposed technology application.
Benefits may be assessed using quantitative data, when available, or may be assessed qualitatively.
Benefits may include improved operations, improved efficiency, increased safety, and reduced costs.
Benefits may also be assessed based on whether the UAS deployment supports the agency’s mission
and goals. Examples may include improved operations during regular conditions, improved operations
during emergencies, increased safety for the traveling public and workers, increased mobility,
increased efficiency, and reduced costs, and applications that provide communication (with the public
and within the agency) and support education (including public education) and workforce training.

2.1.3. Technical Feasibility

Technical feasibility refers to the practicality and maturity of the proposed technology deployment,
including the equipment, machinery, computers, or automation in the context of the environment in
which it will operate. The technical feasibility of a candidate application reflects the maturity of the
proposed technology for a specific application as demonstrated through simulations, investigations,
demonstrations, or full deployment into standard practice in the actual environment. The maturity
of a technology is often measured by the technology readiness level (TRL), which has been widely
used in the defense industry and is determined using a technology readiness assessment (TRA).
A TRA examines the following areas: (general) technology readiness, safety concerns, risk criteria,
and sustainability. The resulting TRL ranges from 1 to 9 with 1 representing the lowest level of readiness
and 9 representing a technology that has been successfully deployed into practice as part of standard
operating procedures, as shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Combine Assessment Information into an Evaluation Score

To prioritize the potential applications, it is useful to combine the results from all assessment
areas into a single score. In this case, the evaluation must combine both quantitative and qualitative
assessment information. Stakeholder input is inherently qualitative. Since there are limited data
regarding UAS deployments, at this point, the benefits are also qualitative. Even when benefits data
are available in the future, there is typically a qualitative component to benefits assessment since
some benefits are hard to quantify. It is useful to translate both of these qualitative assessments to
a quantitative metric, which can be accomplished using the QFD method. As mentioned previously,
QFD is a multi-attribute utility theory that has been used in TQM as well as in the auto and aerospace
industries by companies such as Ford, Boeing, and McDonnel Douglass [22].
In QFD evaluation, a composite score for each candidate project is based on scores of 0, 1, 3, or 9.
A score of 0 indicates that there is no difference or preference, a score of 1 indicates a marginal or weak
preference, a score of 3 indicates a measurable or medium preference, and a score of 9 indicates clear
superiority or a strong preference. While it is also possible to assign scores from 0 to 10 on an integer
scale, it is often very challenging to assign to meaningfully differentiate between possible scores
(e.g., it is hard to judge whether a qualitative assessment should be assigned a score of 6 rather than
7), however, it is easier to recognize whether there is no preference, a weak preference, a measurable
preference, or a strong preference.
Drones 2020, 4, 29 7 of 16
Drones 2020, 4, 29 7 of 16

Figure 1.
1. Technical
Technicalreadiness level
readiness (TRL)
level descriptions
(TRL) (source:
descriptions Government
(source: Accounting
Government Office (GAO)
Accounting Office
[23]). [23]).
(GAO)

The use
use of
ofQFD
QFDisisintended
intendedto to provide
provide a means
a means to clearly
to clearly communicate
communicate qualitative
qualitative (and
(and in in
some
some cases somewhat ambiguous) information for the purposes of discussion
cases somewhat ambiguous) information for the purposes of discussion and transparent decision-and transparent
decision-making. The evaluation
making. The evaluation is not intended
is not intended to suggest
to suggest thatapplication
that one one application is inherently
is inherently preferable
preferable to
to another, but rather to communicate the findings of preliminary interviews
another, but rather to communicate the findings of preliminary interviews and and the information
information
available
available during
during this prioritization.
prioritization. Assignment of values can illuminate where differences
differences of opinion
may exist, and provide an opportunity
opportunity for stakeholders to share their perspectives on a variety of
aspects that relate
relate to the new technology.
to the new technology.
The prioritization of UAS applications for a DOT using the proposed methodology is illustrated
using a case study below.
below.

3. Results of
3. Results of aa Case
Case Study
Study at
at aa State
State DOT
DOT
The
The results
resultsofof
thethe
most recent
most AASHTO
recent surveysurvey
AASHTO indicateindicate
less thanless
half than
of the half
DOTsofhavethe incorporated
DOTs have
UAS into their daily activities. Identifying which applications from the long list
incorporated UAS into their daily activities. Identifying which applications from the long list in Table 1 are most
in Table
appropriate for an agency is an important first step. In this case study, a list of 21 candidate applications
1 are most appropriate for an agency is an important first step. In this case study, a list of 21 candidate
for evaluationfor
applications was developedwas
evaluation based on the listbased
developed of applications
on the listinofTable 1, refined in
applications to reflect
Table the priorities
1, refined to
indicated during stakeholder interviews. The resulting list of 21 candidate applications
reflect the priorities indicated during stakeholder interviews. The resulting list of 21 candidate was evaluated
in greater detail.
applications wasAssessment
evaluated included
in greaterqualitative information for
detail. Assessment stakeholder
included input, qualitative
qualitative information input
for
stakeholder input, qualitative input for benefits, and quantitative assessment for technical feasibility.
The information from these three assessment areas was integrated using QFD, as discussed in greater
detail below.
Drones 2020, 4, 29 8 of 16

for benefits, and quantitative assessment for technical feasibility. The information from these three
assessment areas was integrated using QFD, as discussed in greater detail below.

3.1. Assessment Results: Stakeholder Input

Stakeholder input reflects both ease of adoption and stakeholder acceptance. Stakeholder input
was obtained during a series of more than 25 interviews with DOT personnel and with contractors that
work for the DOT. A list of example stakeholders that participated is shown in Table 2. Concepts shared
at the interviews are shown in Table 3.

Table 2. Summary of stakeholders providing input on potential applications.

Sample Stakeholders Areas of Greatest Interest

DOT personnel Bridge inspection
Bridge Confined space inspection
Aerial imaging and aviation Construction activities
Logistics Facility management (buildings)
Districts Landslide monitoring
Maintenance MSE wall inspection
Traffic monitoring Pavement inspection
Safety Public relations and public information
Emergency management Stockpile monitoring
Construction Traffic monitoring
Environmental services Aviation obstructions for airports on state airport system
Consultants
Other state agencies that have deployed UAS
Personnel from other state DOTs that have completed
UAS research and deployed UAS
Law enforcement
Local transportation agency personnel
Personnel that have deployed UAS in related sectors
(e.g., rail)
University partners conducting DOT sponsored
research

Table 3. Sample stakeholder input on potential applications.

General Area DOT Suggested Applications and Tasks

Bridge Inspection Pre-inspection safety check for bridge inspector

Aerial imaging to reduce the need for snooper truck
and lane closures
Aerial imaging to inspect joints, rust, and critical areas
Provide live video feed to operation center
Emergency Management and Disaster Response
Assist in determination of emergency egress routes
Support emergency coordination with other states
Support inspection after earthquake
Inspect underneath side of bridge if concern for
collapse
Support monitoring and corrective action for earth
slides
Construction Activities Aerial imaging of future large construction projects
Document work zone traffic set-up for liability issues
Check temporary traffic controls used for
construction and maintenance
Monitor stockpile and excavation volumes
Drones 2020, 4, 29 9 of 16

Table 3. Cont.

General Area DOT Suggested Applications and Tasks

Aerial imaging for airport obstacle analysis

Aviation Obstructions and Airport Support
Check visibility of lighted windsocks (wind cones).
Support public communication
Public Relations and Public Information
Support marketing and recruitment efforts
Traffic Monitoring Support accident incident response and re-routing
traffic
Support determination of line of site on roads
Document traffic issues
Correct sign placement
Asset Management (includes INDOT Signs,
Inspect culverts
Culverts, etc.)
Identify assets along a corridor
Pavement inspections
Support vegetation management including
Vegetation and Environmental Management
classification of plant species
Support environmental management such as
watershed areas
Aerial Imaging Support aerial imaging traditionally done by fixed
wing aircraft
Provide photogrammetry and surveying information

Stakeholder input is assessed based on activities that have been initiated or are planned by the
DOT and partner agencies (shown in Column 1 of Figure 2) as well as the results of the interviews
with DOT personnel and other stakeholders, which are considered indicative of interest in adopting
UAS for the candidate applications.
DOT activities are categorized as a “Demonstration”, “Project”, or “Underway” in Column 1 of
Figure 2. “Demonstration” or “Demo” reflect an agency activity that has been tried but not incorporated
into practice. “Project” reflects a proposed or existing research project funded by the agency and
conducted by a university partner. “Underway” reflects a practice that is underway or is being adopted
by the agency.
In some cases, such as for traffic monitoring, the DOT has done a demonstration with UAS,
as indicated by “Demo”, but the use of a UAS for this application is not part of regular operations
or standard procedures. In other cases, the interview findings indicated that UAS are already being
implemented as part of the DOT procedures, indicated as “Underway”. In the case of aerial imaging,
UAS have been purchased and are a regular part of the DOT procedures. For incident management,
the DOT is supporting the use of UAS by State Police and local law enforcement to facilitate the timely
documentation of the accident scene and return to normal operations.
The stakeholder interviews illustrated that in a large organization such as a DOT, UAS activities
may be underway, although these activities may not be widely communicated throughout the agency
or undertaken as part of a larger formalized agency program.
One consultant interviewed mentioned that some DOTs are already in the UAS business even
if they do not realize it, since the consultant has been using UAS for products delivered to DOTs.
Similarly, interviews with DOT personnel from an agency implementing a comprehensive UAS
program discovered that some district personnel were already using UAS, even though it had not been
formally deployed at the agency level. This illustrates that the findings of the stakeholder interviews
provided benefits in terms of coordination and communication, in addition to the value related to the
prioritization of UAS applications.
Drones 2020, 4, 29 10 of 16
Drones 2020, 4, 29 10 of 16

Figure 2. Prioritization
Figure2. Prioritization considerations.
Drones 2020, 4, 29 11 of 16

The overall assessment of stakeholder input (reflecting stakeholder acceptance and ease of
adoption) reflects the results of activities underway and planned (Column 1) and the results of
stakeholder interviews (Column 2) of Figure 2.

3.2. Assessment: Benefits

UAS application may be easy to adopt and technically feasible, but if it does not provide adequate
benefits, then there is little value in deployment. The benefits assessed in this case reflect whether the
proposed UAS application would support the DOT missions, values, and goals [24] described below.
UAS deployment for application supports agency missions, values, and goals:

• Contributes to the operation of the transportation system during regular operations;

• Contributes to the operation of the transportation system during emergency situations;
• Increases transportation system safety for the traveling public;
• Increases safety for the DOT workforce;
• Increases mobility for the traveling public.

Other important benefits captured in this analysis include a qualitative assessment of the following:

• Improves efficiency;
• Provides cost savings;
• Supports communications, education, and training.

Improved efficiency and cost savings and communications with the public and public education
are consistent with the 2019 Agency Goals to deliver great service and improve construction and
maintenance processes and business practices [24]. Supports communications within DOTs and
education and training for DOT personnel are important components of the agency goal to develop
an advanced workforce.

3.3. Assessment: Technical Feasibility

Technical feasibility was assessed using the TRL based on the reported experience by other
agencies, consultants, and in some cases, activities within the department. A TRL of 9 reflects the
most advanced technology, which would be off-the-shelf capabilities which have been proven in the
environment. For many UAS applications, the technologies are still evolving and there is a degree of
uncertainty associated with their operation, which increases the importance of qualitative information
and assessment, which is captured in the stakeholder input and benefits assessment areas.

3.4. Evaluation: Combining Information from Assessmen Areas

Due to the qualitative nature of some components of assessment, which may reflect concepts rather
than data, the proposed evaluation is a mix of quantitative and qualitative information. As mentioned
previously, the QFD method reflecting a score of 0, 1, 3, or 9 reflects no difference, minor preference,
measureable preference, or significant preference. The score for technical feasibility is an integer rating
between 0 and 9, reflecting the technical feasibility as measured by the TRL. In this case, each of the
three assessment areas was equally weighted in the final score. It would also be possible to vary the
weight of each assessment area to reflect agency priorities.
For stakeholder input, Column 1 reflects current activities at the DOT and Column 2 is the overall
stakeholder input QFD score based on both the stakeholder input from Table 3 and UAS current
activities at the DOT in Column 1. The highest ranking opportunities in terms of ease of adoption and
stakeholder acceptance tend to be applications that are already underway at the DOT which would
indicate strong stakeholder support.
For the assessment of the benefits, the overall benefits score is shown in Column 11 of Figure 2,
and reflects the potential benefits to the DOT and public, as shown in Columns 3 through 10. The overall
Drones 2020, 4, 29 12 of 16

benefits that are expected for an application are indicated with an “x”. In the future, it would be
possible to rank or rate the magnitude of the benefits based on quantitative values such as return on
investment, dollars saved, or the benefit cost ratio associated with using UAS for a given application.
This kind of quantitative analysis will be more feasible in the future, as technologies mature and more
information is available. Potential applications with numerous benefits were scored higher than those
with few benefits based on the QFD scale.
Technical feasibility, as ranked based on the TRL, is shown in Column 12 of Figure 2. A number of
factors went into this ranking, including the current DOT activities noted in Column 1, information from
the literature, and input from UAS professionals that were interviewed.

3.5. Prioritization of Potential Applications

The final scoring is shown in Column 13 of Figure 2 for the 21 potential applications. The proposed
method can be used to re-prioritize potential UAS applications as UAS programs get larger and
as technologies mature. Prioritization can be revised on a regular basis to identify future strategic
implementation opportunities. Based on the current information, the DOT identified the following
UAS applications for strategic implementation:

• Bridge inspection and pre-inspection safety;

• Emergency management and disaster response;
• Construction.

These three applications are being investigated for deployment, as briefly discussed below.

4. Discussion
The applications selected for strategic deployment represent a variety of operational scenarios.

• UAS for bridge inspection safety will be used in regular operations by DOT personnel;
• UAS for emergency management and disaster response will be used in emergency operations by
DOT personnel;
• UAS for construction will be used in construction activities by consultants under contract to
the DOT.

These three different operational scenarios provide an opportunity to strategically implement

UAS in different ways, which will support the development of organizational policy.

4.1. Bridge Inspection Safety

As noted in the FHWA Every Day Counts for UAS, “Keeping workers out of harm’s way is
a major benefit of using UAS. Traditional bridge inspection requires setting up temporary work zones,
detouring traffic, and using heavy equipment. UAS technology can speed data collection while
reducing risk to work crews and the traveling public” [25]. The use of UAS for bridge inspector safety
not only provides a significant benefit by reducing potential incidents, but also provides an excellent
way for transportation agencies to integrate UAS into a core activity and develop supporting protocol
and policy. As UAS capabilities become familiar to bridge inspection teams, bridge inspectors who
have working knowledge of UAS and bridge inspection needs will be able to identify additional tasks
that could leverage UAS as a tool for safe and efficient bridge inspection.

4.2. Emergency Operations

UAS can be used to support emergency management activities including emergency preparedness,
emergency response, and emergency recovery. UAS provide a flexible, safe, and relatively low-cost tool
to enhance the emergency response. UAS support investigation of the conditions during and following
an emergency, and provide important information to support decision-making and response activities.
Drones 2020, 4, 29 13 of 16

Documentation (including video documentation) of emergency situations can be used internally to

support decision-making, and externally to provide public information. Documentation with UAS is
also critical since it provides valuable evidence that can be used when requesting federal assistance,
as well as internal documentation that can be valuable when preparing for future emergencies.
DOTs can use UAS to support emergency management for local or regional emergencies, such as
roadway and bridge closures due to tornado, flood, landslide, bridge failure, or hazardous spill, and for
statewide emergencies, such as an earthquake.

4.3. Construction
The construction industry utilizes UAS technology for numerous applications [13,26] and is
at the forefront of expanding commercial UAS use in the private sector. Data generated from
these contractor-led activities are synergistic with DOT information requirements. Representative
construction applications that may be of greatest interest to transportation agencies include:

• Construction progress monitoring;

• Safety surveillance;
• Quality assurance;
• Documentation of work zone traffic control after an incident;
• Quantity measurement;
• Communication with stakeholders (use of video and images).

The data typically consist of high-definition pictures and video from a standard commercial
UAS. These images can be integrated with software to provide accurate photogrammetric models for
quantity measurements.
Many of these applications directly support data that are important to DOTs such as monitoring
construction activities, quality assurance, and managing the safety of the work zones and construction
projects. In addition to the construction applications that directly overlap with state DOT missions,
data from construction contracts could also be utilized for other DOT applications. These applications
include an inventory of DOT assets in a corridor, classification of plant species in the right-of-way,
and communication with the public. These are just a few examples of how the data generated through
construction contracts could be leveraged for DOT use.
Providing a contract mechanism for state DOTs to obtain UAS images and videos captured during
the construction process is one way to quickly integrate UAS data very easily. Utilization of UAS
data through DOT contracts would potentially support numerous state DOT activities, and does
not require the DOT to own or operate UAS. One possible option is to include requirements in
DOT construction contracts that UAS imagery and video obtained during the construction project be
included as a deliverable to the DOT. Many construction firms already collect these data, and they
potentially can be provided with very little additional effort.
It is important to note that once the data are obtained by the DOT, there is a need to manage
and store the data in a consistent format, and to ensure that the data are readily accessible for the
many potential uses and the many potential users. One potential area for future research is to
identify database requirements and a standard database format for construction contractors and others
deploying UAS. Good database practices will ensure that the DOT and other users can leverage the
large quantity of UAS data to its full potential.
Another topic that is worth mentioning is the risks associated with UAS deployment.
Although some agencies and some agency personnel have valid concerns about the risks of UAS
deployment, there are also risks associated with delayed UAS deployment. For example, UAS during
pre-inspection may reduce the duration of lane closure for the actual bridge inspection, which may
prevent a severe roadway crash and associated motorist fatalities. It is also appropriate to acknowledge
that other commonly used tools may present risks, however, all risk must be balanced with the benefits.
For example, 40 percent of the annual fatalities associated with occupational hazards are due to motor
Drones 2020, 4, 29 14 of 16

vehicle crashes [27], nonetheless, motor vehicles are recognized as an important tool for mobility and
task completion for virtually all workers.

4.4. Other Applications

The three applications discussed were the highest priority for the specific state DOT that sponsored
this research. Different DOTs may have different practices and different priorities, which would affect
the stakeholder input, benefits, and prioritization results. For example, park and ride lots would be
a higher priority for states that have numerous park and ride lots and high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes. Similarly, states that manage a lot of traffic signals would likely prioritize UAS for intersection
traffic monitoring, and states that turn their traffic signals over to local agencies (such as cities) would
be less likely to prioritize UAS for intersection traffic monitoring. Similarly, for incident management,
in many cases, law enforcement and/or fire fighters take the lead as the incident commander and
investigator. As a result, UAS for incident management may not be the highest priority for the DOT,
although it may be a high priority for law enforcement and fire fighters, agencies that have greater
responsibilities for emergency response, and incident management.

5. Conclusions
UAS have already had a significant impact in the construction, operation, and maintenance
of our nation’s infrastructure, and UAS will become an increasingly valuable tool in the future.
Since there are numerous potential applications for UAS, DOTs and other transportation agencies need
to prioritize UAS applications for strategic implementation. Prioritization should consider the many
possible applications in the context of agency priorities, competing interests, finite funding resources,
and personnel constraints. The framework presented in this paper can assist DOTs and transportation
agencies in their decision process, as well as enhance communication and coordination. The proposed
framework focuses on a quantitative and qualitative approach that prioritizes the (1) stakeholder
input, including stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption, (2) benefits, and (3) technical feasibility.
The method presented could be tailored to reflect individual agency goals by adjusting the assessment
areas (e.g., separate agency benefits and public benefits), and by adjusting the weighting for the
assessment areas based on agency priorities.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.H. and B.H.; methodology, S.H. and B.H.; interviews and
investigation, S.H. and B.H.; construction lead, B.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H. and B.H.;
writing—review and editing, S.H. and B.H.; project administration and funding acquisition, S.H. and B.H.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Joint Transportation Research Program, a partnership of the Indiana
Department of Transportation and Purdue University.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge Andrew Fitzgerald, Tim Wells, Barry Partridge and
the numerous professionals who provided input during the interviews for this project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ameri, B.D. Drones Applications: Disaster & Emergency Management. ASPRS Annual Conference 2009.
Baltimore, MD. Available online: http://www.asprs.org/a/publications/proceedings/baltimore09/0007.pdf
(accessed on 4 June 2020).
2. Karpowicz, J. UAVs for Law Enforcement, First Response & Search and Rescue (SAR). Commercial UAV
Expo 2016. Available online: http://expouav.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/free-report-uavs-for-search-
and-rescue.pdf?_ga=1.203618320.1457496562.1470944392 (accessed on 4 June 2020).
3. Gillins, D.T.; Parrish, C.; Gillins, M.N.; Simpson, C. Eyes in the Sky: Bridge Inspections with Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (No. FHWA-OR-RD-18-11); Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
Drones 2020, 4, 29 15 of 16

4. Kim, S.I. Potential Factors Influencing the Performance of Unmanned Aerial System (Drones) Integrated Safety
Control for Construction Worksites; Construction Research Congress: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 2614–2623.
[CrossRef]
5. Vlieg, L.E. Drones Take Flight despite Uncertain Regs. In ENR: Engineering News Record; BNP Media, Inc.:
Troy, MI, USA, 2015; Volume 275.
6. Koch, C.G. A Review on Computer Vision Based Defect Detection and Condition Assessment of Concrete
and Asphalt Civil Infrastructure. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2015, 29, 196–210. [CrossRef]
7. Schnebele, E.T. Review of Remote Sensing Methodologies for Pavement Management and Assessment.
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2015, 7. [CrossRef]
8. Dorsey, T. State DOTs Using Drones to Improve Safety, Collect Data Faster, and Cut Costs.
News Release 2016, March 27. Available online: https://news.transportation.org/Pages/NewsReleaseDetail.
aspx?NewsReleaseID=1466 (accessed on 4 June 2020).
9. McGuire, M.; Rys, M.J.; Rys, A. A Study of How Unmanned Aircraft Systems can Support the Kansas Department
of Transportation’s Efforts to Improve Efficiency, Safety, and Cost Reduction (No. K-TRAN: KSU-15-3, 2016);
Kansas. Dept. of Transportation. Bureau of Research: Topeka, KS, USA, 2016.
10. AASHTO. Survey Finds a Growing Number of State DOTS Are Deploying Drones to Improve Safety
and Collect Data Faster and Better 2018. Available online: https://adobeindd.com/view/publications/
12579497-56a5-4d8a-b8fe-e48c95630c99/1/publication-web-resources/pdf/Drones\T1\textquoteright18cc.
pdf (accessed on 4 June 2020).
11. Lovelace, B.; Principal Investigator Collins Engineers Inc. Unmanned Aer Veh. Bridge Insp. Demonstr. Proj.
Res. Proj. Final Report 2015-40; Minnesota Department of Transportation: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2015.
12. AASHTO Special Report: The Evolution of Drones Part 3, Building Highways in the Sky 2019. Available online:
https://www.transportation.org/the-evolution-of-drones-part-3/ (accessed on 4 June 2020).
13. Li, Y.; Liu, C. Applications of multirotor drone technologies in construction management. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
2019, 19, 401–412. [CrossRef]
14. Congress, S.; Puppala, A. Innovative Monitoring of Pavements on Expansive Soils Using Aerially Collected
Data from UAV-CRP Technology. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
Paper No. 19-03664, Washington, DC, USA, 13–17 January 2019.
15. Yahia, C.N.; Scott, S.E.; Boyles, S.D.; Claudel, C.G. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Path Planning for Traffic
Estimation and Detection of Non-Recurrent Congestion. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1807.11660.
16. Jalayer, M.; O’Connell, M.; Zhou, H.; Szary, P.; Das, S. Application of UAV to Inspect and Inventory
Interchange Assets to Mitigate Wrong-way Entries. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting, Paper No. 19-05114, Washington, DC, USA, 13–17 January 2019.
17. Park, K.; Ewing, R. A New Tool for Pedestrian Observation: Reliability and Efficiency of Small UAS.
In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Paper No. 19-00140, Washington, DC,
USA, 13–17 January 2019.
18. Cai, Q.; Abdel-Aty, M.; Zheng, O.; Yue, L. Developing a Crash Warning System for the Bike Lane Area at
Intersections with Connected Vehicle Technology. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting, Paper No.19-00596, Washington, DC, USA, 13–17 January 2019.
19. Plotnikov, M.; Ni, D.; Collura, J. The State of the Practice of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in State Departments
of Transportation. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Paper No. 18-03694,
Washington, DC, USA, 7–11 January 2018.
20. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology.
MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [CrossRef]
21. Vankatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [CrossRef]
22. Vance, M.; Carstens, J.; Gasper, M.; Parker, P. Quantitatively Exploring Human Preference. J. Manag. Sci.
Bus. Intell. 2018, 3, 15–30.
23. Government Accounting Office (GAO). Technology Readiness Assessment Guide; Report GAO-16-410G;
U.S. Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
24. INDOT Mission, Goals and Values. Available online: https://www.in.gov/indot/2341.htm (accessed on
4 June 2020).
Drones 2020, 4, 29 16 of 16

25. FHWA Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) 2019. Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/
everydaycounts/edc_5/uas.cfm (accessed on 4 June 2020).
26. Irizarry, J.; Costa, D.B. Exploratory study of potential applications of unmanned aerial systems for construction
management tasks. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 05016001. [CrossRef]
27. OSHA Motor Vehicle Safety 2017. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/motorvehiclesafety/
(accessed on 4 June 2020).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).