2010 user forum presentations combined

8/8/2019 2010 User Forum Presentations Combined

1/88

Welcome


2/88

Progress made on user s questions fromprevious User Forum

(Susiephone)


3/88

Questions & Comments from UserForum breakout sessions.

Reviewed by SRWR Management group& Symology

Relevant Action taken


4/88

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.


5/88

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 tocomplete.

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.

Cant store photographs with FPNs.

Cant tell when an inspection against a notice has an attachment without opening up thatinspection.

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.


6/88

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 unwillingto accept responsibility for such works even when the evidence of ownership is overwhelminglyagainst them. Delegates suggested that utilities would delay providing information within thefirst 60 days from when the issue was raised, thereby ensuring that an FPN could not beissued.


7/88

Errors sometimes cannot be rectified in notices.Unforgiving with mistakes

Error Correction, Works Status Correction and USRN change wereall 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 recordedagainst the wrong notice this cannot currently be corrected. Acancel/rollback solution to this problem is a planned upgrade tobe 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)


8/88

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 trainingwas offered.

Training can be provided at users 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 nextrelease of the SRWR planned for early October (version 3.2).


9/88

Works Management Interface would be better if real time rather thanbatch

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

Undertakers are not accepting responsibility for Unattributed worksin a timeous manner.

The Policy Development group is working to increase the 60 day deadline onFPNs to 91 days.

An advice note is being produced to describe the process both RAs andUndertakers should be following.

Cannot search for FPNs except for LA Ref.

There are plans to introduce FPN enquiry using the FPN Number. Hopefully this willbe included in the release planned for early 2011(version 3.3)


10/88

Mapping getting cluttered in some areas.

There are filtering facilities which can be used to reduce the amount of clutterdisplayed.

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 viathe Area RAUC meetings.

Communication of changes to operators

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


11/88

Please make use of the breakoutsessions today

Feedback is important

Action will be taken on issues raised


12/88

Desc rip tion of the Commissioners Ind ic a torreports and Report Cards

(Commissioner s Offic e)


13/88

PERFORMANCE REVIEWS


14/88


15/88

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]

1.0 Noticing Activity & FPNs

1.1 Noticing Activity

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

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

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Actual FPNs given Report 1 * 12 45 112 87

Summary1.1 Noticing Activity

1.2 Potential Noticing Offences

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

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.

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.

2008 2009

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.

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.

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.

The Commissioner wishes to keep under review the number of Fixed Penalty

Notices given to each undertaker. However, given that the issue of Fixed PenaltyNotices 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.


16/88

Performance Review for A Utility

The Performance Review below sets out Indicator data foryour organisation for the last four quarters. All undertakersare encouraged to review the overall suite of Indicators

placed on the SRWR and on the Commissioner's website tobenchmark their performance against similar organisations.


17/88

Noticing Activity

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2





The Commissioner wishes to determine if undertakers are meeting their duty toenter notices for all of their works on SRWR. This is being done by measuring



There is significant variation between the number of actual start andcompletion notices entered onto SRWR. Notwithstanding that the workscan straddle the ends of quarters the variation is significant. I wouldwelcome your comments on the reasons for this.


18/88

Potential Noticing Offences

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2











19/88

Noticing Activity

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2





The Commissioner wishes to determine if undertakers are meeting their duty toenter notices for all of their works on SRWR. This is being done by measuring



There is significant variation between the number of actual start andcompletion notices entered onto SRWR. Notwithstanding that the workscan straddle the ends of quarters the variation is significant. I wouldwelcome your comments on the reasons for this.


20/88

Potential Noticing Offences

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2










The number of potential noticing offences appears to be increasing againafter a big drop in Q4. A noticing failure is considered to be a breach ofduty under various sections of The New Roads and Street Works Act1991.


21/88

Fixed Penalty Notices Given

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Actual FPNs given Report 1 * 12 45 112 87

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.


22/88

2.0 Management & Timing of Works

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 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.

2008 2009

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 themoment give cause for concern. We will continue to review these on aquarterly basis The number of works awaiting closure or registration does not at the

moment give cause for concern.


23/88

3.0 Interim Reinstatements

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 Commissioner wishes to keep the use of interim reinstatements under review

and to ensure that the timescales for completion are being met.

2008 2009

The number of interim reinstatements over 6 months is relatively smalland does not provide any cause for concern at this time.


24/88

4.0 Coring of Undertaker Works

60% Pass 10% Fail - Monitor 30% Fail - Replace

National Ave 64% Pass 9% Fail - Monitor 26% Fail - Replace

The Commissioner wishes to ensure that undertaker reinstatements comply with

the prescribed requirements.

The failure rate for reinstatements stands at a very high level. This isdeemed to be a breach of duty under section 130 of the New Roads andStreet Works Act 1991.


25/88

5.0 Traffic Management

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Substandard Traffic Management from Inspections Report 19 45 55 39 29

The Commissioner wishes to keep under review the standard of traffic

management.

2008 2009

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.


26/88

6.0 Undue Delay in Works (S125)

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2Undue Delay in Works (S125) Report 13 10 8 5 7

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.

2008 2009

Although the numbers are relatively low the Commissioner would wish to

see the number reduced.


27/88

7.0 Attendance at Area RAUC(S)

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

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.

Attendance at Area RAUC(S) has been satisfactory


28/88

WHAT NEXT?

NEXT REVIEW PERIODOCTOBER 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2010

2ND

ROUND OF REVIEWSNOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2010


29/88

ORGANISATIONS WHICHHAVE NOT IMPROVED

COMMISSIONER WILLCONSIDER PENALTIES


30/88

Please be bac k by 10:40


31/88

Overview of the upc oming c hanges to theCo-ord ina tion Code of Prac tic e

(Commissioner's Office)


32/88

COORDINATION

CODE OF PRACTICEREVIEW


33/88

Terms of Reference

To review and recommend amendments to update

and improve the procedures contained within theCo-ordination Code of Practice and Related Matters


34/88

IN OTHER WORDS HOW CAN WE IMPROVETHE CODE AND MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE,

READABLE AND USER FRIENDLY


35/88

Work Programme

Identify the particular issues within the current codewhich are causing concern.

Identify from the community, issues of concern not

covered by the current code which require to beaddressed. 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 bydiagrams or tables and produce such diagrams ortables.

Agree the most appropriate format for the Code -electronic with embedded links or print.


36/88

Timescales

Final draft of the Code completed by theend of August 2011.

Allows September and October for aconsultation 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.


37/88

WORK UNDERTAKEN

community informed of the

commencement of the Working Groupand 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.


38/88

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


39/88

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


40/88

KEY AUDIENCE FOR THE CODE

YOUTHOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

INPUTTING OF NOTICES ONTO SRWR


41/88

THE FEEDBACK FROM TODAY ON ASPECTS

OF THE CODE WHICH ARE NOT WORKINGWILL BE FED BACK TO THEWORKING GROUP


42/88

Changes to the Inspec tions Code o f Prac tic eand Impac t these have on SRWR

(RAUCS & Symology)


43/88

New Road and Street Works Act 1991

Code of Practice for Inspections

Effective from 1st Oct 2010


44/88

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 whichis currently being prepared by Scottish Government but

will not be available until at least April 2011.

RAUC Scotland approved the introduction of the newcode at its Sept 2010 meeting to take effect from 1st Octwith the exception of the new method of calculatinginspections, which will start 1st April 2011.


45/88

Some Highlights 1?

Firstly it has gone from 37 pages to 59 pages.

The RAUCs Defective Apparatus Advice Note 11 hasbeen incorporated into the code.

The method of calculating Inspection Units has beenchanged to a duration of works basis.

The various types of inspections have been clarified.


46/88

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.

Some Highlights 2?


47/88

Lets see some detail Chapter 2

2.1.1 - Undertakers will be able to record inspectionsagainst their own works on the SRWR.

2.1.6 Road Works Authorities should also checkHAUC 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 ofworks defined.

2.2.7 Abortive Inspections defined.

2 3 2 2 A it f i ti i d fi d


48/88

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 inspectionunits.

Each notice may, by agreement, be extended past its initialduration by use of a works extension and the inspection units forthe works recalculated to reflect the actual duration. Works whichare extended for an unreasonably long period may be subject to a

S125 notice.Remedial works are separate works in their own right and will notcontribute to the inspection units of the initial work.


49/88

Defective Apparatus


50/88


51/88

Chapter 4 Investigatory Works

Investigatory works defined to include physical workover and above a visual inspection, i.e. coring, materialsampling, excavations, etc

Investigatory works do not apply to S, L & G.

R i D f Ch 5


52/88

Reinstatement Defects Chapter 5

5.2.2 Reinstatements not causing danger.

The undertaker contacts the road works authority by theend of the next day following receipt of the report. Within24 hrs of receipt of the report the Undertaker must informthe road works authority that the defect is beinginvestigated and place a response on the SRWR to that

effect. The undertaker must then contact the road worksauthority to arrange a date for the joint inspection of thedefect. The joint inspection will take place within 10 daysof initial notification of the defect, unless both parties agreethat a meeting is not required and the undertaker agrees to

abide by the road works authoritys assessment of thedefect and the remedial works required.


53/88

If, by the seventeenth day after the initial acceptanceof the inspection referred to above, the undertakerfails to take any of the necessary actions, the road

works authority may revisit the site and charge aninspection fee as set out in paragraph 2.4.2. of thisCode.

Financial Arrangements Chapter 7


54/88

Financial Arrangements - Chapter 7 7.7.3 - DEFECT INSPECTION FEES

A fee for each chargeable defect inspection is payableto the road works authority. RAUC Scotlandrecommends that this fee be the same as the SampleInspection fee.

7.7.1 -The actual number of inspections carried outwill 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


55/88

Performance - Chapter 8

8.2 - Copies of the quarterly and annual performance reports shouldbe forwarded to the appropriate Area RAUC for review and

discussion. In the interests of comparing the results from differentareas, these reports should include the results of sampleinspections, routine inspections, third party inspections andinvestigatory works.

8.3.3 - A Notice of Failure to Achieve Performance or an

Improvement Notice may also be issued for coring failure at or below80% compliance in any measured area.

8.3.5 - In deciding whether to issue an improvement notice forinadequate measures for signing, lighting and guarding, the roadworks authority should take into account whether the equipment is

adequate. If it is, only failure to respond to an inadequacy within thetime scale is counted as a defect.


56/88

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 planshould be sent to the office of the SRWC.


57/88

Appendixes

New Notification Forms Appendix B

New Explanatory Diagrams Life Cycle of Inspections


58/88

Sample CategoryA

Initial InspectionJoint Inspection

(D/1)

During RemedialWork(D/2)

Pass Abortive Visit

None

Dangerous

(2 Hours)

Dangerous

(4 Hours) Non-Dangerous

Works Stopped(Pending compliance

with Safe Working

Practices)

Progress

Inspection

Category

Result

Remedial

Act

ion

Sample Cat A

Appendix G Typical Lifecycle of National/Local Coring Failure


59/88

Core sites agreedas per S2.5 of Advice

Note 3

Cores taken byaccredited Coring

Contractor

Appendices A & B sentelectronically t o designated

SU Contact

All Failuresaccepted within

20 working days?

No

Yes

SU must contact RA to arrangean agreement meeting.

Meeting must be arranged withall reasonable dispatch

Final agreementreached for

failures?

Failures now

accepted by default.No f urther objections

can be raised

Yes

SU proposes to carryout independentNational AgreedTesting? (NAT)

Yes

No

Lead Authority must be madeaware of remaining disputes.Area Coring Group will then

consider the issue(s)

Final agreementreached?

Dispute(s) escalated to RAUC(S)Coring Working Group. TheRCWGs decision is final.

All agreed results, pass orfail are entered on the

SRWR within two weeksof final agreement

Items not under dispute

to be issued on SRWR.

No

Inspection entered asa Local or Nationalcoring inspection.

Date of inspection willbe date core taken

Result of NAT/RCWG reviewentered/not entered onSRWR as appropriate

Meeting held?

Yes

No

NAT Carried out RA/SU must accept result

No

On final acceptance, aD3 Pass must be

entered.Defect now resolved

All Failures must berectified within 90

days of the inspectionbeing entered on the

SRWR

After the initial 90 dayperiod, non-rectified

failures are re-inspected as any

other reinstatement

failure

Appendix G - Typical Lifecycle of National/Local Coring Failure

Yes

And Now the Quiz


60/88

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 nextyear?

3. What advice note has been incorporated into thecode?

4. If a works initially lasts 12 days and is in interim andthe permanent reinstatement takes a total of 2 dayshow many inspection units will this be?

5. If the above works require remedial action which

involves taking a further 3 days does this count asadditional time to the works? i.e. have the total worksnow taken 17days?

S M Q ti


61/88

Some More Questions

6. If a works takes 6 months to complete how manyinspection units will this incur?

7. Which iron work defect had the phone number on it?

8. If you carry out the three phased defect inspectionregime on a third party reported defect what will thecost be to the undertaker?

9. Apart from meeting the 90% compliance with thesampling regime what other failure can now instigatean Improvement plan and what is the compliancelevel?

10.If a works has the correct signs on site but these are

not correctly laid out is this a defect or an inadequacy?


62/88

And Finally


63/88

Scottish Road Works Register

PRESENTED BY Ken Hickson

New SRWR Inspections Systemand

Plans for Version 3.3

INTEGRATION - INNOVATION INTEGRITY

PARTNER FOR THE DEPRESSED MANHOLE


64/88

A Demented Computer

NEW SRWR INSPECTIONS SYSTEM


65/88

User-Definable Sample Inspection LevelsEnhanced Inspection SamplingInspection Units based on duration

Major Areas of Change

Follow-up Procedures for Reinstatement DefectsImproved Defective Apparatus follow-upPerformance InspectionsGeneral Improvement Areas

Method of Allocating samples

Other Inspection Issues



66/88

Duration covers all phases up to Works Closed

Inspection Units now based on Works Duration,

with automatic calculation in SRWR

Inspection Units & Inspection Sampling

Assigned to Inspection Year, based on Perm date

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

Additional units added for remedial works

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



67/88

No of chargeable inspections calculated, based on

30% of Estimated Units for Year

Methods of allocating samples

Number of chargeable inspections and categoryallocation is held as quantity, not %

User may change allocation for each category,

subject to total remaining unchanged, andappropriate validation rules

Identify which inspections are statutory samples



68/88

Other Inspection Issues

Target inspections (T/A, T/B, T/C) parallel Sinspections, and become the only way to recordadditional percentage samples

Option for Utility to record their own inspections toparallel Authority but without follow-up rules

Prevent prompting/recording more than the S

allocation

Comprehensive audit trail on random sampling,user over-rides, deleting prompted inspections, etc



69/88

Follow-up of Defects

Options for PASS, FAIL1, FAIL2, etc., with user-defined wording, and user-defined action message,to overcome current anomalies

Automatic updating to follow-up processes as aresult of remedial works notices

A new generalised follow-up process:

Prompted accept/decline from the promoter, withaccept changing follow-up inspection, e.g. to D/2

Default follow-up rules for each case, e.g. D/1;also charging policy for each case

Chasing list for promoters and authorities, i.e.O/S defects



70/88

Separate statistics for utility and HA worksSeparate inspection statistics from OD screensAll percentages, values, timescales user-defined

Tie due index records to follow-up processes

Improved cancellation/withdrawal facility for errors

Separate statistics for utility and HA inspections

Improved ACCEPTABLE/UNSEEN defaults

Full audit trail, including user parameter settings,adjusting Units and allocation of units, automaticsampling, user inspection prompting

History of previous inspection details on inspectionchecklist

General Improvement Areas



71/88

Organisation-level sampling only

100% samples for non-statutory undertakersInspection invoicing:- Ensure sample percentage not exceeded- Ensure held facility is available for charges

accommodates hold until final inspectionhowever, be aware of administrative overhead- Option to charge reasonable costs to undertakers

General Improvement Areas

Additional reports to be provided

VERSION 3.3 OVERVIEW


72/88

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 incurrent version 1 October 2010

VERSION 3.3 OVERVIEW


73/88

Our overall objective is to avoid:


74/88

http://www.symology.co.uk

Symology


75/88



76/88

Overview o f upc oming release v3.2 andfuture enhanc ements to the reg ister

(Symology)


77/88


PRESENTED BY: Ken Hickson

Version 3.2 Implementation

INTEGRATION - INNOVATION - INTEGRITY

SRWR User Forum 2010



78/88

Project Plan

8 July SAT training and testing

2/3 October Version 3.2 UpgradeSRWR not available over weekend

9 July onwards UAT testing available

4 October Version 3.2 live operation



79/88

Contents of Release SRWR

Task Summary List Dashboard

Grid screens highlighting expertUser-definable Charge Enquiry screenMessage Audit Trail improvements

Unattributable Works LA x-reference

One Scotland Gazetteer changes

Closed road warning when creating works

Recording of Payments for Charges

Address look-up window

Additional data fields available on grids,e.g. Site Length/Width


80/88



81/88

Contents of Release Mobile Options

Roads Authority InspectionsInspection prompting & recording

Inspector Patch area definition

Automatic SRWR data interchangeFull mapping facilitiesGPS Tracking on the map

Photographs with automatic SRWRlinking

Viewing details and history of works



82/88

Contents of Release Mobile Options

Software and Infrastructure at SRWRhosting site pre-installed and providedas part of new contract

Fixed set-up charge and annual chargefor each mobile user, to provide andupdate mobile software and mapping

Users acquire their own mobile hardwarefrom an approved list of devices

S l


83/88

http://www.symology.co.uk

Symology


84/88



85/88

Tips on e ffic ient use of the SRWR, Hotkeys,shortc uts and seldom used func tiona lity

(Symology)


86/88


PRESENTED BY: Ken Hickson

How Do You Do That?

INTEGRATION - INNOVATION - INTEGRITY

SRWR User Forum 2010

How Do You Do That?


87/88

Maintaining Correspondents

Inspections InvoicingMultiple Alternative Grid LayoutsRules/Guidelines for GIS Plotting

Adding Temporary Text to Map

Mapping Hot Layers & Transparency

Select by Polygon on the mapMeasuring ToolMap Info includes Traffic ManagementOutput print file for Stored ObjectsUser can establish a default screen to be

set on entry to SRWR


88/88

End of p resenta tions

2010 user forum presentations combined

Documents