 Welcome

Progress made on user’s questions from

previous User Forum
(Susiephone)
 Questions & Comments from User
Forum breakout sessions.

 Reviewed by SRWR Management group

& Symology

 Relevant Action taken

 Ability to co-ordinate works.
 Information Available via Searches/Reporting
 Commissioners Website
 Clearly shows extent of works
 Prompts for follow on inspections to take you through the life cycle
 Eases communication
 Reliability. System is seldom unavailable
 Functionality
 System improvements
 Scots system better than English system
 Indicator reports
 Gazetteer almost up to date
 Unique reference numbers for agreements (not all RAs do this currently)
 Mapping/GIS functionality
 1 stop shop for all NSRWA issues
 Ability to tailor search results/reports
 Plant Information Requests felt to be very useful
 Ability to attach images to works
 Provides wide ranging information through public facing website, Scottish Road
Works On-Line.
 Errors sometimes cannot be rectified in notices. Unforgiving with mistakes.
 Wrongly input inspections cannot be rectified.
 RAs not able to hold phases, no works clear.
 Repeat works/Multiple street works can lead to multiple notices which take a long type to
complete.
 Poor Communication of changes to operators.
 Can be difficult to find contact details. No list for all contacts (like an address book).
 Reports not available to all.
 Terminology used does not always match that used by community.
 Training only held at Larbert. Would be better if in house training was offered.
 Can’t store photographs with FPNs.
 Can’t tell when an inspection against a notice has an attachment without opening up that
inspection.
 Works extensions should work on same basis as Minor Works - better controlled.
 Some authorities are easier to contact than others.
 Not Intuitive.
 Some reports are inflexible.
 Cannot cut & paste into/out of register.
 Works Management Interface would be better if real time rather than batch.
 Mapping getting cluttered in some areas.
 Cannot search for FPNs except for LA Ref.
 Comments recorded when not needed clutters up notice.
 Utilities receiving PIRs for areas they have no plant.
 Too easy for Undertakers to remove the Traffic Sensitivity flag.
 Information is only as good as the information entered.
 Prompts not shown for all required steps.
 Mapping Conflicts can be raised where no conflict exists (e.g. potential works or completed
works)
 Use of traffic sensitive status is often used as a blanket restriction .There is often a lack of
understanding regarding the by which such a designation is introduced.
 Unattributed works continue to be problematic and Statutory Undertakers are often unwilling
to accept responsibility for such works even when the evidence of ownership is overwhelmingly
against them. Delegates suggested that utilities would delay providing information within the
first 60 days from when the issue was raised, thereby ensuring that an FPN could not be
issued.
 Errors sometimes cannot be rectified in notices.
Unforgiving with mistakes

◦ Error Correction, Works Status Correction and USRN change were

all introduced to the SRWR in November 2009 (version 3.1)

 Wrongly input inspections cannot be rectified.

◦ Error on results can be corrected, but if results are recorded

against the wrong notice this cannot currently be corrected. A
cancel/rollback solution to this problem is a planned upgrade to
be included in early 2011 (version 3.3)

 RAs not able to hold phases, no works clear

◦ This facility was also implemented in November 2009 (version 3.1)

 Reports not available to all

◦ Reports are now available to al users.

 Utilities receiving PIRs for areas they have no plant.

◦ They should update their area of interest.

 Training only held at Larbert. Would be better if in house training

was offered.

◦ Training can be provided at user’s offices.

 Repeat works/Multiple street works (e.g. parades/embargoes)

can lead to multiple notices which take a long type to complete.
Cannot repeat/duplicate works.

◦ Functionality is being introduced specifically to ease this in the next

release of the SRWR planned for early October (version 3.2).
 Works Management Interface would be better if real time rather than
batch

◦ This has been offered as an option by Symology in the new service contract.

 Undertakers are not accepting responsibility for Unattributed works

in a timeous manner.

◦ The Policy Development group is working to increase the 60 day deadline on

FPNs to 91 days.
◦ An advice note is being produced to describe the process both RAs and
Undertakers should be following.

 Cannot search for FPNs except for LA Ref.

◦ There are plans to introduce FPN enquiry using the FPN Number. Hopefully this will
be included in the release planned for early 2011(version 3.3)
 Mapping getting cluttered in some areas.

◦ There are filtering facilities which can be used to reduce the amount of clutter
displayed.
◦ Ensuring notices are closed when complete would also help prevent this problem.
◦ The SRWR Management group have asked Symology to draft a good practice
guideline on how works should be plotted on the map.

 Comments recorded when not needed clutters up notice

◦ We totally agree. Don't do it. This message has been passed out to the community via
the Area RAUC meetings.

 Communication of changes to operators

◦ Steps have been taken over the last year to improve communication of change to the
SRWR. Please use the breakout sessions today to discuss how this may be improved.
 Please make use of the breakout
sessions today

 Feedback is important

 Action will be taken on issues raised

Description of the Commissioners Indicator
reports and Report Cards
(Commissioner’s Office)
PERFORMANCE REVIEWS
Performance Review for A Utility (January 10)
[Please note that this is a sample performance review and does not represent the information from any current utility]
The Performance Review below sets out Indicator data for your organisation for the last four quarters. All undertakers are
encouraged to review the overall suite of Indicators placed on the SRWR and on the Commissioner's website to
benchmark their performance against similar organisations.

1.0 Noticing Activity & FPNs 2008 2009

1.1 Noticing Activity

The Commissioner wishes to determine if undertakers are meeting their duty to

enter notices for all of their works on SRWR. This is being done by measuring
the number of actual start notices and completion notices entered onto SRWR.
He also wishes to keep under review the designations given to the works.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Works Commenced Report 9a 3,003 2,129 3,312 4,500

Works Finished Report 9b 2,856 2,017 3,255 3,900

Emergency, Urgent or Remedial Dangerous Works Report 4a 352 699 702 659

Minor, Standard, Major Works Report 4b 2,651 1,430 2,610 3,841

1.2 Potential Noticing Offences

The Commissioner wishes to measure the accuracy of the information held on

notices and that the appropriate timescales are being met. This measures the
number of error messages generated by the system which would flag a potential
Fixed Penalty Notice offence. The percentage rate is based on comparison with
the number of actual start notices which are issued. Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Potential Noticing Offences (PNOs) Report 1 1,689 431 685 1,445

Percentage of PNOs (No of PNOs/No Works Starts) Report 2b 56% 20% 21% 32%

In Q1 32% of offences were under S129 (6) and 57% were S114 with 11% S116 and S113(5).
In Q2 26% of offences were under S129(6) and 70% were S114, with 4% S116 and S113(5)

1.3 Fixed Penalty Notices Given

The Commissioner wishes to keep under review the number of Fixed Penalty
Notices given to each undertaker. However, given that the issue of Fixed Penalty
Notices is at the discretion of roads authorities this is included for information only
and is not deemed to be a performance issue for undertakers. The
Commissioner will use Potential Noticing Offences as the performance measure. Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Actual FPNs given Report 1 * 12 45 112 87
Summary
1.1 Noticing Activity
• There is significant variation between the number of actual start and completion notices entered onto SRWR. Notwithstanding that
the works can straddle the ends of quarters the variation is significant. I would welcome you comments on the reasons for this.

1.2 Potential Noticing Offences

• The number of potential noticing offences appears to be increasing again after a big drop in Q4. A noticing failure is considered to
be a breach of duty under various sections of The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
1.3 Fixed Penalty Notices Given
* The number of withdrawn FPNs during the period is subtracted from the actual FPN total. Thus if more FPNs are withdrawn than
given in that quarter a negative number may occur
 Performance Review for A Utility

The Performance Review below sets out Indicator data for

your organisation for the last four quarters. All undertakers
are encouraged to review the overall suite of Indicators
placed on the SRWR and on the Commissioner's website to
benchmark their performance against similar organisations.
Noticing Activity

The Commissioner wishes to determine if undertakers are meeting their duty to

enter notices for all of their works on SRWR. This is being done by measuring
the number of actual start notices and completion notices entered onto SRWR.
He also wishes to keep under review the designations given to the works.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Works Commenced Report 9a 3,003 2,129 3,312 4,500

Works Finished Report 9b 2,856 2,017 3,255 3,900

Emergency, Urgent or Remedial Dangerous Works Report 4a 352 699 702 659

Minor, Standard, Major Works Report 4b 2,651 1,430 2,610 3,841

There is significant variation between the number of actual start and

completion notices entered onto SRWR. Notwithstanding that the works
can straddle the ends of quarters the variation is significant. I would
welcome your comments on the reasons for this.
Potential Noticing Offences

The Commissioner wishes to measure the accuracy of the information held on

notices and that the appropriate timescales are being met. This measures the
number of error messages generated by the system which would flag a potential
Fixed Penalty Notice offence. The percentage rate is based on comparison with
the number of actual start notices which are issued. Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Potential Noticing Offences (PNOs) Report 1 1,689 431 685 1,445

Percentage of PNOs (No of PNOs/No Works Starts) Report 2b 56% 20% 21% 32%

In Q1 32% of offences were under S129 (6) and 57% were S114 with 11% S116 and S113(5).
In Q2 26% of offences were under S129(6) and 70% were S114, with 4% S116 and S113(5)
Noticing Activity

The Commissioner wishes to determine if undertakers are meeting their duty to

enter notices for all of their works on SRWR. This is being done by measuring
the number of actual start notices and completion notices entered onto SRWR.
He also wishes to keep under review the designations given to the works.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Works Commenced Report 9a 3,003 2,129 3,312 4,500

Works Finished Report 9b 2,856 2,017 3,255 3,900

Emergency, Urgent or Remedial Dangerous Works Report 4a 352 699 702 659

Minor, Standard, Major Works Report 4b 2,651 1,430 2,610 3,841

There is significant variation between the number of actual start and

completion notices entered onto SRWR. Notwithstanding that the works
can straddle the ends of quarters the variation is significant. I would
welcome your comments on the reasons for this.
Potential Noticing Offences

The Commissioner wishes to measure the accuracy of the information held on

notices and that the appropriate timescales are being met. This measures the
number of error messages generated by the system which would flag a potential
Fixed Penalty Notice offence. The percentage rate is based on comparison with
the number of actual start notices which are issued. Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Potential Noticing Offences (PNOs) Report 1 1,689 431 685 1,445

Percentage of PNOs (No of PNOs/No Works Starts) Report 2b 56% 20% 21% 32%

In Q1 32% of offences were under S129 (6) and 57% were S114 with 11% S116 and S113(5).
In Q2 26% of offences were under S129(6) and 70% were S114, with 4% S116 and S113(5)

The number of potential noticing offences appears to be increasing again

after a big drop in Q4. A noticing failure is considered to be a breach of
duty under various sections of The New Roads and Street Works Act
1991.
Fixed Penalty Notices Given

The Commissioner wishes to keep under review the number of Fixed Penalty
Notices given to each undertaker. However, given that the issue of Fixed Penalty
Notices is at the discretion of roads authorities this is included for information only
and is not deemed to be a performance issue for undertakers. The
Commissioner will use Potential Noticing Offences as the performance measure. Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Actual FPNs given Report 1 * 12 45 112 87
2.0 Management & Timing of Works 2008 2009

The Commissioner wishes to review the use of flexibilities agreed by RAUC(S)

relating to early starts, late starts and works extensions and also certain areas
where duties exist regarding the information to be placed on SRWR.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
No and Percentage Early Starts Report 10 (367) 12% 394 (18%) (712) 21% (352) 8%

No of Late Starts Report 10 0 0 0 0

No and Percentage Overrun/Minor,Standard,Major Wks Report 6 (69) 2% (90) 4% (15) 0.4% (41) 0.9%

No and Percentage of Work Extensions Report 12 (521) 17% (772) 36% (695) 21% (742) 16%

Works Awaiting Closure Report 16 115 28 21 2

Works Awaiting Registration Report 16 96 62 0 0

• The use of early starts does not at the moment give cause for concern.
• The number of works extensions has decreased so does not at the
moment give cause for concern. We will continue to review these on a
quarterly basis
• The number of works awaiting closure or registration does not at the
moment give cause for concern.
3.0 Interim Reinstatements 2008 2009
The Commissioner wishes to keep the use of interim reinstatements under review
and to ensure that the timescales for completion are being met.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Interim Reinstatements done Report 14 326 813 899 1,001

Interim Reinstatements due (less than 6 months) Report 18 232 701 768 511

Interim Reinstatements due (more than 6 months) Report 18 39 55 9 7

The number of interim reinstatements over 6 months is relatively small

and does not provide any cause for concern at this time.
4.0 Coring of Undertaker Works
The Commissioner wishes to ensure that undertaker reinstatements comply with
the prescribed requirements.
60% Pass 10% Fail - Monitor 30% Fail - Replace
National Ave 64% Pass 9% Fail - Monitor 26% Fail - Replace

The failure rate for reinstatements stands at a very high level. This is
deemed to be a breach of duty under section 130 of the New Roads and
Street Works Act 1991.
5.0 Traffic Management 2008 2009
The Commissioner wishes to keep under review the standard of traffic
management.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Substandard Traffic Management from Inspections Report 19 45 55 39 29

Although the instances of substandard traffic management are small in relation to

the number of works the Commissioner would wish to see them reduced further.
6.0 Undue Delay in Works (S125) 2008 2009
The Commissioner wishes to keep the number of works where section 125
notices are issued under review and that undertakers comply with their duty to
complete works with such dispatch as is reasonably practical.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Undue Delay in Works (S125) Report 13 10 8 5 7

Although the numbers are relatively low the Commissioner would wish to
see the number reduced.
7.0 Attendance at Area RAUC(S) 2008 2009
The Commissioner wishes to ensure that all undertakers participate at Area
RAUC(S) meetings in areas where they have significant apparatus to ensure that
they keep abreast of all current issues.
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Attendance at Nth of Scotland Area RAUC(S) Y Y Y Y

Attendance at Tayforth Area RAUC(S) Y Y Y Y
Attendance at SW Area RAUC(S) Y Y Y Y
Attendance at SE Area RAUC(S) Y Y Y Y

Attendance at Area RAUC(S) has been satisfactory

 WHAT NEXT?
NEXT REVIEW PERIOD
OCTOBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2010

2ND ROUND OF REVIEWS

NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2010
ORGANISATIONS WHICH
HAVE NOT IMPROVED

COMMISSIONER WILL
CONSIDER PENALTIES
Please be back by 10:40
Overview of the upcoming changes to the
Co-ordination Code of Practice
(Commissioner's Office)
 COORDINATION
CODE OF PRACTICE
REVIEW
 Terms of Reference

To review and recommend amendments to update

and improve the procedures contained within the
Co-ordination Code of Practice and Related Matters
 IN OTHER WORDS HOW CAN WE IMPROVE
THE CODE AND MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE,
READABLE AND USER FRIENDLY
Work Programme

• Identify the particular issues within the current code

which are causing concern.
• Identify from the community, issues of concern not
covered by the current code which require to be
addressed.
• Ascertain solutions to above.
• Determine which of the current RAUC(S) Advice Notes
could be amalgamated into the Code.
• Identify where processes can best be explained by
diagrams or tables and produce such diagrams or
tables.
• Agree the most appropriate format for the Code -
electronic with embedded links or print.
Timescales

• Final draft of the Code completed by the

end of August 2011.
• Allows September and October for a
consultation with the wider community.
• Final version before RAUC(S) in
December 2011.
• Meetings held every 6 weeks or as the
members agree, to meet the above dates.
WORK UNDERTAKEN

• community informed of the

commencement of the Working Group
and asked to feed in comments.
• still time to feed in views.
• corresponding members welcome.
• consideration of RAUC(S) Advice Notes
and whether to amalgamate.
• electronic format – on website.
SIMPLIFICATION
• Only say it once.
• Each topic covers both roads authorities and
undertakers.
• Chapter 4 – reduced from 36 to 23 pages.
• Where possible use tables and diagrams.
• Where appropriate, incorporate advice notes.
• If technical or legislative detail required –
insert as an appendix
LAYOUT
• Based on the structure used in the English Code.
• This follows the process better.
– Very brief intro – light on the legislation
– Coordination in Practice
– Register
– Gazetteer
– Streets subject to special control
– Work categories
– Notices
– Training
 KEY AUDIENCE FOR THE CODE

YOU
THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
INPUTTING OF NOTICES ONTO SRWR
THE FEEDBACK FROM TODAY ON ASPECTS
OF THE CODE WHICH ARE NOT WORKING
WILL BE FED BACK TO THE
WORKING GROUP
Changes to the Inspections Code of Practice
and Impact these have on SRWR
(RAUCS & Symology)
New Road and Street Works Act 1991

Code of Practice for Inspections

Effective from 1st Oct 2010

 So Where Are We?
•It will appear shortly on the SRWC web site under
Legislation & Guidance – Codes of Practice.

•The code actually requires changes to legislation which

is currently being prepared by Scottish Government but
will not be available until at least April 2011.

•RAUC Scotland approved the introduction of the new

code at it’s Sept 2010 meeting to take effect from 1st Oct
with the exception of the new method of calculating
inspections, which will start 1st April 2011.
 Some Highlights 1?
•Firstly it has gone from 37 pages to 59 pages.

•The RAUC’s Defective Apparatus Advice Note 11 has

been incorporated into the code.

•The method of calculating Inspection Units has been

changed to a duration of works basis.

•The various types of inspections have been clarified.

 Some Highlights 2?

•Investigatory works have been better defined

•Financial arrangements have been amended, including

invoicing.

•A new category of Improvement Plan introduced.

•New clearer process charts have been incorporated.

 Lets see some detail – Chapter 2

•2.1.1 - Undertakers will be able to record inspections

against their own works on the SRWR.
•2.1.6 – Road Works Authorities should also check
HAUC qualification of undertaker site staff.
•2.2.3 – Third Party Inspection defined
•2.2.4 – Routine Inspection defined
•2.2.5 – Inspections of Section 109 works defined.
•2.2.6 – Condition Inspections prior to commencement of
works defined.
•2.2.7 – Abortive Inspections defined.
•2.3.2.2 - A unit of inspection, is defined as:
•Works of 15 days duration or less – 1 unit of inspection.
•Works of 16 to 30 days duration – 2 units of inspection.
•Works of a duration greater than 30 days – 3 units of inspection.
•Note this will come in on 1st April 2011.
•Each phase of works will contribute to the calculation of inspection
units.
•Each notice may, by agreement, be extended past its initial
duration by use of a works extension and the inspection units for
the works recalculated to reflect the actual duration. Works which
are extended for an unreasonably long period may be subject to a
S125 notice.
•Remedial works are separate works in their own right and will not
contribute to the inspection units of the initial work.
Defective Apparatus
Chapter 4 Investigatory Works

•Investigatory works defined to include physical work

over and above a visual inspection, i.e. coring, material
sampling, excavations, etc
•Investigatory works do not apply to S, L & G.
 Reinstatement Defects Chapter 5
• 5.2.2 – Reinstatements not causing danger.
• The undertaker contacts the road works authority by the
end of the next day following receipt of the report. Within
24 hrs of receipt of the report the Undertaker must inform
the road works authority that the defect is being
investigated and place a response on the SRWR to that
effect. The undertaker must then contact the road works
authority to arrange a date for the joint inspection of the
defect. The joint inspection will take place within 10 days
of initial notification of the defect, unless both parties agree
that a meeting is not required and the undertaker agrees to
abide by the road works authority’s assessment of the
defect and the remedial works required.
• If, by the seventeenth day after the initial acceptance
of the inspection referred to above, the undertaker
fails to take any of the necessary actions, the road
works authority may revisit the site and charge an
inspection fee as set out in paragraph 2.4.2. of this
Code.
 Financial Arrangements - Chapter 7
• 7.7.3 - DEFECT INSPECTION FEES
A fee for each chargeable defect inspection is payable
to the road works authority. RAUC Scotland
recommends that this fee be the same as the Sample
Inspection fee.

• 7.7.1 -The actual number of inspections carried out

will be charged to the undertaker on a quarterly basis.
The total number of inspections charged for in any
financial year will not exceed the agreed amount.
 Performance - Chapter 8
•8.2 - Copies of the quarterly and annual performance reports should
be forwarded to the appropriate Area RAUC for review and
discussion. In the interests of comparing the results from different
areas, these reports should include the results of sample
inspections, routine inspections, third party inspections and
investigatory works.
•8.3.3 - A Notice of Failure to Achieve Performance or an
Improvement Notice may also be issued for coring failure at or below
80% compliance in any measured area.
•8.3.5 - In deciding whether to issue an improvement notice for
inadequate measures for signing, lighting and guarding, the road
works authority should take into account whether the equipment is
adequate. If it is, only failure to respond to an inadequacy within the
time scale is counted as a defect.
•8.3 - Two stage Improvement Plan
•8.4 – Stage 1
•Undertaker prepares outline plan for improvement.
•Period nominally 12weeks
•RA may elect to carry out additional inspections
•Failure to satisfy improvement will instigate stage 2 Plan
•Stage 2
•Full Improvement plan basically as previously recorded.

•Copy of any failures to achieve requirements in plan

should be sent to the office of the SRWC.
 Appendixes

New Notification Forms Appendix B

New Explanatory Diagrams – Life Cycle of Inspections
Inspection
Category
Sample Cat A

Sample Category
A
Progress

During Remedial
Joint Inspection
Initial Inspection Work
( D/1)
(D/2)
Result

Pass Abortive Visit

Remedial
Action

Works Stopped
Dangerous Dangerous (Pending compliance
None Non-Dangerous
(2 Hours) (4 Hours) with Safe Working
Practices )
Appendix G - Typical Lifecycle of National/Local Coring Failure

Core sites agreed Cores taken by

as per S2.5 of Advice accredited Coring
Note 3 Contractor

SU must contact RA to arrange

an agreement meeting.
Meeting must be arranged with
all reasonable dispatch
Appendices A & B sent
electronically to designated
SU Contact

No
Meeting held?
All Failures
Yes accepted within
20 working days?
Yes

All agreed results, pass or

Final agreement
fail are entered on the
Yes reached for
SRWR within two weeks
failures?
of final agreement

No
Items not under dispute
No
to be issued on SRWR.
SU proposes to carry
Inspection entered as out independent
a Local or National National Agreed
coring inspection. Testing? (NAT)
Date of inspection will
Lead Authority must be made
be date core taken
aware of remaining disputes.
Area Coring Group will then No
consider the issue(s)
Yes

All Failures must be

rectified within 90
Final agreement NAT Carried out RA/
days of the inspection Yes
reached? SU must accept result
being entered on the
SRWR

No

After the initial 90 day Dispute(s) escalated to RAUC(S)

period, non-rectified Coring Working Group. The
failures are re- RCWG’s decision is final.
inspected as any
other reinstatement
failure

Result of NAT/RCWG review

entered/not entered on
SRWR as appropriate Failures now
On final acceptance, a
accepted by default.
D3 Pass must be
No further objections
entered. can be raised
Defect now resolved
 And Now the Quiz
1. When will the new code of Practice come in to force?
2. What part of the code will not be introduced until next
year?
3. What advice note has been incorporated into the
code?
4. If a works initially lasts 12 days and is in interim and
the permanent reinstatement takes a total of 2 days
how many inspection units will this be?
5. If the above works require remedial action which
involves taking a further 3 days does this count as
additional time to the works? i.e. have the total works
now taken 17days?
 Some More Questions
6. If a works takes 6 months to complete how many
inspection units will this incur?
7. Which iron work defect had the phone number on it?
8. If you carry out the three phased defect inspection
regime on a third party reported defect what will the
cost be to the undertaker?
9. Apart from meeting the 90% compliance with the
sampling regime what other failure can now instigate
an Improvement plan and what is the compliance
level?
10.If a works has the correct signs on site but these are
not correctly laid out is this a defect or an inadequacy?
And Finally
INTEGRATION - INNOVATION – INTEGRITY

Scottish Road Works Register

New SRWR Inspections System

and
Plans for Version 3.3

PRESENTED BY Ken Hickson

PARTNER FOR THE DEPRESSED MANHOLE
“A Demented Computer”
 NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM
Major Areas of Change

Inspection Units based on duration

Enhanced Inspection Sampling
User-Definable Sample Inspection Levels
Method of Allocating samples
Other Inspection Issues
Follow-up Procedures for Reinstatement Defects
Improved Defective Apparatus follow-up
Performance Inspections
General Improvement Areas
 NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM
Inspection Units & Inspection Sampling
Inspection Units now based on Works Duration,
with automatic calculation in SRWR
Duration covers all phases up to Works Closed
Additional units added for remedial works
Assigned to Inspection Year, based on Perm date
Clarification needed on transition strategy
- units for closed works remain unchanged
- proposed/in progress works – adopt new system
- remedial works – add units on all works

3-year rolling average, with user over-ride option,

as before
 NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM
Methods of allocating samples
No of chargeable inspections calculated, based on
30% of Estimated Units for Year
Identify which inspections are statutory samples

User may change allocation for each category,

subject to total remaining unchanged, and
appropriate validation rules
Number of chargeable inspections and category
allocation is held as quantity, not %
 NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM
Other Inspection Issues
Prevent prompting/recording more than the “S”
allocation
“Target” inspections (T/A, T/B, T/C) parallel “S”
inspections, and become the only way to record
additional percentage samples
Comprehensive audit trail on random sampling,
user over-rides, deleting prompted inspections, etc

Option for Utility to record their own inspections to

parallel Authority – but without follow-up rules
 NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM
Follow-up of Defects
A new generalised follow-up process:
Options for PASS, FAIL1, FAIL2, etc., with user-
defined wording, and user-defined action message,
to overcome current anomalies
Default follow-up rules for each case, e.g. D/1;
also charging policy for each case
Prompted accept/decline from the promoter, with
“accept” changing follow-up inspection, e.g. to D/2
Chasing list for promoters and authorities, i.e.
O/S defects
Automatic updating to follow-up processes as a
result of remedial works notices
 NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM
General Improvement Areas
All percentages, values, timescales user-defined
Separate inspection statistics from OD screens
Separate statistics for utility and HA works
Separate statistics for utility and HA inspections
Tie due index records to follow-up processes
Full audit trail, including user parameter settings,
adjusting Units and allocation of units, automatic
sampling, user inspection prompting
Improved cancellation/withdrawal facility for errors
Improved ACCEPTABLE/UNSEEN defaults
History of previous inspection details on inspection
checklist
 NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM
General Improvement Areas
Organisation-level sampling only
100% samples for non-statutory undertakers
Inspection invoicing:
- Ensure sample percentage not exceeded
- Ensure “held” facility is available for charges
accommodates “hold until final inspection”
however, be aware of administrative overhead
- Option to charge reasonable costs to undertakers
Additional reports to be provided
 VERSION 3.3 OVERVIEW

Other enhancements include:

- improved Defective Apparatus follow-up
- improved Unattributable Works follow-up
- FPNs for Roads (Scotland) Act and Section 109s
- payment allocation, enhanced follow-up
Version 3.3 Release dates:
- planned release to SAT – January 2011
- used for bulk training programme
- live implementation – 1 April 2011
Note: Changes to Charge levels implemented in
current version – 1 October 2010
 VERSION 3.3 OVERVIEW

Our overall objective is to avoid:

 Symology
®

http://www.symology.co.uk
Please be back by 13:00
Overview of upcoming release v3.2 and
future enhancements to the register
(Symology)
INTEGRATION - INNOVATION - INTEGRITY

Scottish Road Works Register

SRWR User Forum 2010

Version 3.2 Implementation

PRESENTED BY: Ken Hickson

 Version 3.2 Implementation
Project Plan

8 July – SAT training and testing

9 July onwards – UAT testing available

2/3 October – Version 3.2 Upgrade

SRWR not available over weekend

4 October – Version 3.2 live operation

 Version 3.2 Implementation
Contents of Release – SRWR
Task Summary List “Dashboard”
Grid screens “highlighting expert”
User-definable Charge Enquiry screen
Message Audit Trail improvements
Recording of Payments for Charges
“One Scotland” Gazetteer changes
Address look-up window
Unattributable Works – LA x-reference
Closed road warning when creating works
Additional data fields available on grids,
e.g. Site Length/Width
 Version 3.2 Implementation
Contents of Release – Licences

Multiple Street activities, e.g. marches

“Linked Licences” function
Replicate function for recurring events
Recording additional coordination
locations, e.g. Diversion routes
Extended SRWR conflict checking to
accommodate all the above
Latest Approval/Refusal Reprint
 Version 3.2 Implementation
Contents of Release – Mobile Options

Roads Authority Inspections

Inspection prompting & recording
Viewing details and history of works
Inspector Patch area definition
Automatic SRWR data interchange
Full mapping facilities
GPS Tracking on the map
Photographs with automatic SRWR
linking
 Version 3.2 Implementation
Contents of Release – Mobile Options

Software and Infrastructure at SRWR

hosting site pre-installed and provided
as part of new contract
Fixed set-up charge and annual charge
for each mobile user, to provide and
update mobile software and mapping
Users acquire their own mobile hardware
from an approved list of devices
 Symology
®

http://www.symology.co.uk
Please be back by 14:15
Tips on efficient use of the SRWR, Hotkeys,
shortcuts and seldom used functionality
(Symology)
INTEGRATION - INNOVATION - INTEGRITY

Scottish Road Works Register

SRWR User Forum 2010

How Do You Do That?

PRESENTED BY: Ken Hickson

 How Do You Do That?

Maintaining Correspondents
Inspections Invoicing
Multiple Alternative Grid Layouts
Rules/Guidelines for GIS Plotting
Mapping Hot Layers & Transparency
Adding Temporary Text to Map
Select by Polygon on the map
Measuring Tool
Map Info includes Traffic Management
Output print file for Stored Objects
User can establish a default screen to be
set on entry to SRWR
 End of presentations