Difference between revisions of "Help Article"
m (→EPG Approval Process: article construction) |
|||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
'''Level 1 Approval.''' If the idea is a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Engineering Policy Administrator without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary. | '''Level 1 Approval.''' If the idea is a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Engineering Policy Administrator without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary. | ||
| − | '''Level 2 Approval.''' If the idea is a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. | + | '''Level 2 Approval.''' If the idea is a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division then it will be reviewed by the district and division engineers. They will have five working days to provide their comments to the appropriate Director(s). Following the comment period, the directors have one week to consider the idea before providing their decision to the Engineering Policy Administrator. The EPG will be revised as necessary. |
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If the idea is a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business it goes directly to the Chief Engineer after initial review and comment. The EPG will be revised to reflect the Chief Engineer's decision. | '''Level 3 Approval.''' If the idea is a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business it goes directly to the Chief Engineer after initial review and comment. The EPG will be revised to reflect the Chief Engineer's decision. | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
In order to speed the approval process, district and division engineers should have at least one alternate team member with full authority to act when they are absent. This will avoid the districts' and divisions' forfeiting their right to comment. | In order to speed the approval process, district and division engineers should have at least one alternate team member with full authority to act when they are absent. This will avoid the districts' and divisions' forfeiting their right to comment. | ||
| − | Once a | + | Once a substantive Level 2 or 3 revision is approved, a notice (with effective date if required) will be posted on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”. |
The Engineering Policy Group also receives proposed EPG corrections or improvements from districts, although most significant technical revisions would normally go through the divisions. We will gladly receive emails with your specific correction. | The Engineering Policy Group also receives proposed EPG corrections or improvements from districts, although most significant technical revisions would normally go through the divisions. We will gladly receive emails with your specific correction. | ||
Revision as of 07:29, 25 September 2008
The EPG contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities. It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. The information is presented in numerous articles having as simple a layout as possible and often with “Key Points”. The Key Points represent a summary of the most important policy and guidance items described in each article. These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from the spec book, Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.
The Engineering Policy Guide is not a contract document. Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the Missouri Standard Specifications are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications." References and links to the Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction are "Standard Plan XXX.XX".
Contents
Organization
Articles are grouped into the spec book’s divisions (for example, 100 General, 300 Bases, etc.). Many articles have been subdivided into additional articles. For example, the reader may notice that 903.6 Warning Signs and other 903 articles are listed at the bottom of 903 Highway Signing.
In most articles the reader will notice numerous words in blue. These words are links to another article, figure or website with related information. This allows the reader to effectively navigate.
While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specs, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specs. For example, many “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items. Some of these are:
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, 300, etc. articles.
Searching the EPG
Google. Although this document has been organized in a logical manner (at least to the writers), it does contain a huge amount of information that can make finding a specific idea difficult. Therefore, a Google search engine is available to the left of the top of every article. It functions in the same manner as a conventional search engine on the worldwide web and is very effective!
Find (on This Page). Once the reader has used the Google search engine to arrive at an article, it may still be difficult to find the reference’s exact location since some EPG articles are large. In the upper left of each EPG article, next to “File”, we recommend the reader click “Edit”, then, in the drop-down menu, “Find (on This Page)” and type in the desired key word(s). The hot key for "Find (on This Page)" is "Ctrl-F". If the entry is in the article, it will be highlighted.
How best to view the articles
The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
Use of Terms in the EPG
- May is for optional practice(s) with no requirement or recommendation.
- Shall and Will indicate mandatory practice. Contract documents often contain independent definitions.
- Should indicates something is expected or typically necessary. The action is not absolutely mandatory but deviation from this practice calls for engineering documentation.
EPG Approval Process
Revisions are provided to the Chief Engineer and the Senior Management Team on a bimonthly schedule via electronic ballot. Each District Engineer and Division Engineer has the opportunity to comment on revisions to their respective Director. The Program Delivery and System Management Directors submit the final decision on Level 2 revisions to the Engineering Policy Administrator.
Proposed EPG revisions can also be submitted to the Engineering Policy Group from a division. The proposal must reflect information approved by the division head. Proposed revisions will be submitted for approval.
Every submittal must also document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:
- 1) Any other standard affected by the revision. Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (Standard Plans, specs, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the proposal. Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes. Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
- 2) Sponsor. The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is required. The sponsor is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
- 3) Summary. Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit). This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
- 4) Fiscal Impact. Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT. Include whatever calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions are necessary to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact. The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value, not simply a vague financial discussion.
Revisions submitted will be categorized by the Engineering Policy Administrator based on the following guidelines:
Level 1 Approval. If the idea is a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Engineering Policy Administrator without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary.
Level 2 Approval. If the idea is a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division then it will be reviewed by the district and division engineers. They will have five working days to provide their comments to the appropriate Director(s). Following the comment period, the directors have one week to consider the idea before providing their decision to the Engineering Policy Administrator. The EPG will be revised as necessary.
Level 3 Approval. If the idea is a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business it goes directly to the Chief Engineer after initial review and comment. The EPG will be revised to reflect the Chief Engineer's decision. The Federal Highway Administration will be given an opportunity to provide comment to the Engineering Policy Administrator on any proposed EPG revision.
In order to speed the approval process, district and division engineers should have at least one alternate team member with full authority to act when they are absent. This will avoid the districts' and divisions' forfeiting their right to comment.
Once a substantive Level 2 or 3 revision is approved, a notice (with effective date if required) will be posted on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.
The Engineering Policy Group also receives proposed EPG corrections or improvements from districts, although most significant technical revisions would normally go through the divisions. We will gladly receive emails with your specific correction.
Style Guide for Proposed EPG Revisions
| Tips on Text |
| While the Engineering Policy Group edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include: |
| Assure/Ensure/Insure: The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation. “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful. “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved. |
| Dimensions: Typically use “high”, “wide” and “long” instead of “in height”, “in width” and “in length”. |
| Farther/Further: Use “farther” to express a physical distance, such as 10 miles farther, and “further” for a non-physical dimension, such as further thought. |
| Fewer/less: Use “few” or “fewer” for something comprised of a small number of countable components (such as fewer dollars, fewer gallons of water, etc.). Use “less” for amounts that are not being counted (less money, less water, etc.). |
| Gage/Gauge: Gage is the size or thickness. Gauge is the instrument for measuring. |
| Gender: Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”. |
| High/Tall: Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high. Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post. |
| Also refer to Use of Terms in the EPG, above. |
When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to the Engineering Policy Group?
The division should usually begin by referencing the current contents of the EPG article to be revised. Submit a Word document in revision mode showing both proposed additions and deletions to the EPG article. The proposed revision should use complete sentences and paragraphs as much as possible. Bullets are permissible, but they are typically used sparingly.
If changes are proposed to EPG figures, provide the new .jpg files for photos and .pdf or MicroSoft Word documents for the textual figures. The EPG wiki can accommodate a number of other types of files, but .jpg, .pdf and .doc files tend to be most efficient.
Creating an EPG User ID
An EPG User ID permits the reader access to a number of capabilities including viewing the history of an article, leaving comments on a discussion page, tracking revisions through the "my watchlist", accessing a printable version of an EPG article and viewing the "what links here" (that shows all the other articles linked to the chosen article).
The following information will be necessary to create an EPG User ID:(NOTE: Highlight the text below and copy. Paste in the email and fill in the data.)
| First Name: | Middle Initial: | Last Name: |
| District: | Organization Name: | Organization Code: |
| User ID: | Phone Number: | Title: |
| E-mail Address: |
To request an EPG User ID send an e-mail to EPGUSERID.
What do I do if I have forgotten my EPG User ID password?
The EPG, like so many other sources using software, requires the reader to enter a password while logging in. What should be done if you forget your password?
Click on the "Log in" box provided by the EPG and select the "E-mail password" option. A system email will be sent to your email address associated with your user ID. Once you open this new system email, you will be provided a computer-generated password. Use this new computer-generated password along with your User ID (this will be the same as your MoDOT network ID) to log into the EPG.
You may want a more pleasing password than the one provided by the system. Above every EPG article are a number of links, one of which is "my preferences". Select "my preferences" and you will be able to obtain a new password by using "Change password".
