Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP)



Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP)

Group 1 – Operational Service Delivery – Asset Management

Work Package 6 – To develop a best practice software toolkit for asset management lifecycle planning

1. What is the problem the workstream is trying to resolve?

Focusing maintenance on the worst roads first may not be the best approach to managing with less funding. Councils may need to be tougher in prioritising long-term demands over short-term demands to minimise costs and deliver value for money. In order to do this they need appropriate tools to support and justify these decisions.

The aim of this work stream is to provide LHAs with a decision making toolkit for highway maintenance both at a strategic and scheme levels. The tool should be flexible enabling authorities to plan funding scenarios and demonstrate the efficiency benefits of a preventative maintenance approach, following the principles of asset management.

There is clear evident that applying asset management principles will help LHAs to resist reaching to short-term pressures in favour of a road maintenance strategy that is forward looking. There is evidence that following asset management principles can help LHAs to make decisions which are:

• Cost effective, by minimising whole-life costs and maximising value for money

• Timely, so that they can react to competing and changing service demands

• Transparent, to justify spending decisions (particularly when resisting short-term demands)

Although asset management has been promoted by the government and professional bodies, LHAs are often sceptical about its implementation. Many struggle with transferring asset management principles to roads, not least because roads are an atypical asset: they cannot be sold, nor do they yield an income stream. Rather they consume resources, so it is not surprising that some councils see roads as a liability rather than an asset.

The key to improving the value for money of road maintenance is knowing and understanding when and how to intervene and the implications of these decisions on the long term performance of the network. By considering an asset over a whole life cycle, it is possible to select the optimum point to intervene with the optimum treatment. This will maintain the road condition at a defined serviceability level and preserve the asset in the most efficient way. Work undertaken by Birmingham University clearly shows the benefits of this approach.

2. What objective is being set to resolve the problem?

The objective of the project is to develop a flexible lifecycle planning toolkit based on a range of datasets for use by all LHAs. It will allow the user to calibrate service lives dependent on experience or factual data and the choice of maintenance treatment they wish to adopt. Guidance on the use of the toolkit will be provided in a user manual. This will enable the efficiency of lifecycle planning to be delivered at a local level. Use of the tool will support a greater understanding of the efficiency benefits of lifecycle planning amongst the LHA community.

3. What are the outputs from the workstream?

A toolkit that allows the user to calibrate locally through a free range of input values based on data collected. Alternatively, LHAs may use default values to enable them to undertake lifecycle planning of assets. This toolkit is anticipated to be spreadsheet based or an alternative software system that will be a viable solution for a network based tool and made available to all authorities at no cost. The toolkit will comprise the following:

• A strategy tool to select the preferred maintenance solution and intervention timing. This tool will determine appropriate maintenance treatment to deliver the lowest whole life cost. This will enable LHAs to select their lifecycle policy depending on road, construction and traffic levels.

• A network tool to enable LHAs to make decisions regarding timing of future maintenance activities across the network in order to determine the most cost effective timing of treatments to deliver the benefits of asset management.

• A costing tool that will be flexible enough to cost maintenance treatments to be selected locally. There will also be a default set of construction costs for LHAs.

The project will be delivered in two parts. Part 1 will be based on simple “deterministic” models. Part 2 will then re-programme the models based on the deterioration models delivered as part of WP11.

4. What are the outcomes from the workstream?

• Innovation, efficiencies and service improvement through improved maintenance treatment selection based on the principles of asset management.

• The ability to understand the long term cost of maintenance decisions and create efficiency around selection the right treatments at the right time.

• A flexible lifecycle decision making tool that will enable greater understanding by LHAs of the efficiencies that can be generated around lifecycle planning.

• Ability to make efficient decisions regarding investment in the asset.

• Improve transparency of decision making for the public.

Stage 1 – To identify current best practice in highway asset management and from this work define user requirements including condition data requirements, serviceability requirements, treatment lifecycles and costs and outputs. (All these will be user defined in the model). These should be agreed at the start of the project. At the same time, the benefits to be achieved from the toolkit should be defined, together with a framework for the toolkit showing the interdependencies between models and the outputs. To either confirm the use of spreadsheets and visual basic as the software system for the toolkit or to propose alternative software system architecture for the development of the toolkit that would be a viable solution for a network based tool.

Stage 2 – Develop the framework into a suite of software tools (based on the agreed software system)

Stage 3 – Carry out user acceptance testing of the tool with designated end users and finalise. In doing so, confirmation of user benefits defined at the start of the project should be confirmed.

Stage 4 – Develop user manual and guidance notes for use by authorities.

Stage 5 – Re- programme the model to incorporate the deterioration models developed in WP11 carry out acceptance testing and update user manuals accordingly.

Stage 6 – Arrange forums and workshops to promote the use of the toolkit.

5. Who will lead on the workstream and who will shadow the lead?

Project Manager appointed to the project supported by a Steering Group to include a deputy.

6. What work has already been done/is already being undertaken in this area

Many local authorities have spreadsheet models and lifecycle planning tools that have been developed in house or by consultants, based on UKPMS analysis. In particular consideration should be given to the work undertaken for the latest highway maintenance PFI contracts.

The UK Roads Board has published guidance on the development of lifecycle models this provides a useful basis for treatment selection.

The investigation work as part of this brief shall look to build on these existing approaches.

7. Which partners will be collaborating on the delivery of the objective?

UK Roads Board, Highway Asset Management Group, HAMFIG

HTMA, CIPFA, IAM.

8. Identify the other workstreams which can support this workstream

Group 1 Work Packages 6 to 11.

9. What is the approximate cost of delivering the required objective?

|Activity |Investment £k |Timing of investment |

|Stage 1 | |July - Aug 2011 |

|Stage 2 | |Sept - Nov 2011 |

|Stage 3 | |Dec 2011 – Jan 2012 |

|Stage 4 | |Feb - March 2012 |

|Stage 5 | |When available |

|Stage 6 | |One month after completion of Stage 5 |

|Total estimate = | | |

10. What is the timescale for delivery of the solution(s)?

Commence in May 2011 for completion by end of March 2013; above timing of investment allows 1 month float.

11. Identify risks associated with delivery of this workstream

|Risk No |Summary of risk |Probabilit|Impact |Importance|Containment |

| | |y | | | |

|1 |Software development takes longer |M |H |H |Realistic time estimate; good |

| |than planned | | | |project management |

|2 |Adoption of lifecycle planning |H |H |H |Use networks, newsletter and |

| |methodology is slow | | | |conferences to promote best practice|

|3 |Insufficient expertise within |M |H |M |Comprehensive user training and |

| |Highway Authorities to maximise | | | |guidance tools. Employ relevant |

| |benefit | | | |expertise. |

|4 |Lack of input data |H |L |L |Collect data |

12. Describe how the workstream will be evaluated

• Benefits will accrue as soon as individual Authorities invest and develop a lifecycle strategy.

• Cashable savings can be calculated by determining the cost of any one Authority undertaking individual development of their own system.

• Use of standard software tool will provide transparency for comparison of Authorities.

• Tool likely to support Whole of Governement Accounts returns which will, in turn, be subject to audit scrutiny in future years, further encouraging adoption of good practice and benchmarking between authorities

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP)

Group 1 – Operational Service Delivery (Highway Asset Management)

Work Package 8 – To further increase the sector’s knowledge base of the benefits of Asset Management by producing accredited practitioner training

1 What is the problem the workstream is trying to solve?

“Councils must find a strategy to deliver road maintenance that balances growing service demands with reducing resources. Applying asset management principles will help councils to achieve value for money and resist expensive, short-term interventions”. (Source – Audit Commission Study - Going the distance, achieving better value for money in asset management)

The benefits of applying an asset management approach to managing highway infrastructure is well recognised. (Ref CIPFA, Audit Commission on Road Maintenance Report 2011). Despite comprehensive guidance and over £32m pump priming from DfT many Local Highway Authorities (LHAs) have still to fully adopt asset management principles in managing their highway networks. Many LHAs lack in-house expertise and there is no accredited workplace (National Vocational Qualification) available in the sector. This proposal seeks to fill this gap by developing an accredited qualification. Examples of this type of scheme have recently been adopted by the Institute of Highways Engineers (IHE) for highway inspector training.

2 What objective is being set to resolve the problem?

To help all LHAs more fully embrace an asset management approach to managing their highway infrastructure.

3. What are the outputs from the workstream?

Stage 1

• A review of current practitioner training for highway asset management

• A review of the bodies which may consider accrediting and maintaining the new training syllabus on completion

Stage 2

• To produce an accredited NVQ for highway asset management

Stage 3

• To produce an on-line package

Stage 4

• To produce a complementary introductory training syllabus (with or without qualification)

Stage 5

• To disseminate

4 What are the outcomes from the workstream?

To enable LHA to fully adopt asset management approach and by so doing deliver a more efficient highway maintenance service

5 Who will lead the workstream and who will shadow the Lead?

Project manager for the workstream supported by a project board.

6 What work has already been done/is already being undertaken in this area?

Some unaccredited training is already available.

7 Which partners will be collaborating on the delivery of the objective?

UK Roads Board Highway Asset Management Group, HTMA, CIHT, ICE, IHE, Institute of Asset Management, CIPFA

8 Identify the other workstreams which are supporting this workstream

Group 1 Work Packages 6 to 11.

9 What is the approximate cost of delivery the required objectives?

|Activity |Investment £k |Timing of investment* |

|Stage 1 | | |

|Stage 2 | | |

|Stage 3 | | |

|Stage 4 | | |

|Stage 5 | | |

|Total | | |

*When invoice or grant payment will fall due.

10 What is the timescale for delivery of the solution?

To be determined.

11 Identify risks associated with delivery of this workstream

| | |Probabilit|Impact |Importance| |

|Risk |Summary of Risk |y | | |Containment |

|No | | | | | |

|1 |Reduction in training budgets |H |M |M |Communicate the training priority |

|2 |Not seen as important |H |M |M |Networks/Newsletters/Communication |

12. Describe how the workstream will be evaluated

Comparison can be made with those authorities that have the technical capability to enable them to fully embrace asset management to deliver improved value for money.

Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP)

Group 1 – Operational Service Delivery (Highway Asset Management)

Work Package 10 – To produce a revised comprehensive guidance document for highway asset management

1 What is the problem the workstream is trying to solve?

“Councils must find a strategy to deliver road maintenance that balances growing service demands with reducing resources. Applying asset management principles will help councils to achieve value for money and resist expensive, short-term interventions”. (Source – Audit Commission Study - Going the distance, achieving better value for money in asset management)

The CSS Framework for Highway Asset Management, published in 2004, gives an introduction to asset management based on international experience. It has proved highly successful, providing a common language, template and starting point for local authority transport asset management. It has become a principal document in supporting and driving forward development and implementation of transport asset management for many local authorities.

Transport asset management has developed significantly since the Framework was published: UKRLG has published Well-lit Highways (2004), Well-maintained Highways (2005) and Management of Highway Structures (2005), all of which contain varying amounts of asset management advice. The revised British Standards Institute (BSi) Publicly Available Standard (PAS) 55: Asset Management was published in 2008. New transport asset financial reporting requirements have been introduced and CIPFA has published on asset management and asset valuation.

Many authorities have made good progress with asset management since the launch of the Framework, with some authorities excelling in specific areas, e.g. data, service levels, deterioration modelling, TAMPs.

There is much to be learnt from this practical application of the Framework. However, it has been recognised that the Framework does not give sufficient guidance for all authorities wishing to start work on asset management. In some instances it lacks detail. To address some issues, in 2009 the UK Roads Board published four separate Quick Start guidance documents to supplement the Framework, namely Getting Started, Risk Assessment, Levels of Service, and Life Cycle Planning.

The profile of transport asset management continues to rise and there is a demand from within the industry for more detailed guidance to help local authorities interpret the requirements of asset management, share good practice, and make quick and consistent progress.

2 What objective is being set to resolve the problem?

To provide updated guidance to help LHAs fully embrace and implement the efficiency benefits of asset management.

3 What are the outputs from the workstream?

• To review all the highway asset management guidance published since 2004

• To produce a revised and consolidated highway asset management framework guidance within the context of the guidance hierarchy adopted by the UKRLG, shown below.

[pic]

The outputs will be delivered under four tasks:

Stage 1

• Desk Study to identify gaps where further guidance is needed, build on the latest thinking in the field, consolidate existing guidance and identify examples of good practice. This will include targeted consultation

Stage 2

• To provide a classification system that will define each asset type for commonality so LHAs can compare like with like when benchmarking

• Produce draft revised framework for highway asset management.

Stage 3

• Carry out wider stakeholder consultation to ensure that the draft guidance meets the requirements of local authorities.

Stage 4

• Finalise revised framework for highway asset management.

Stage 5

• Develop on-line guidance for the non-practitioners eg maintaining the vital asset.

Stage 6

• To disseminate

4 What are the outcomes from the workstream?

Clarity in guidance and advice, leading to greater LHA take up of highway asset management which will deliver more efficient and effective management of the highway network and support requirements for financial reporting.

5 Who will lead the workstream and who will shadow the Lead?

Project manager for the workstream supported by a project board.

6 What work has already been done/is already being undertaken in this area?

• CIPFA

• HAMFIG

• UKRLG

7 Which partners will be collaborating on the delivery of the objective?

UK Roads Board Asset Management Group, HAMFIG, HTMA, IAM.

8 Identify the other workstreams which are supporting this workstream

Group 1 Work Packages 6 to 11.

9 What is the approximate cost of delivery the required objectives?

|Activity |Investment £k |Timing of investment* |

|Stage 1 | |1 month |

|Stage 2 | |5 months |

|Stage 3 | |1 month |

|Stage 4 | |2 months |

|Stage 5 | | |

|Stage 6 | | |

|Total | | |

*When invoice or grant payment will fall due.

10 What is the timescale for delivery of the solution?

The work of this workstream will be completed in 9 months from the start of task 1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asset Management Working Group

– Terms of Reference

Project objectives and scope

The Highways Maintenance Efficiencies Programme (HMEP) is part of a DfT initiative to look at improvements in the way highway maintenance services are undertaken and procured to drive down costs and drive up efficiencies.  The project was launched at the Highways Term Maintenance Association (HTMA) on Wednesday 6th April 2011. Norman Baker MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport has allocated funds to develop a comprehensive and long term efficiency programme aimed at supporting English local highway authorities.  Over the coming years, HMEP will provide practical and adaptable efficiency solutions.  It will allow authorities to make more informed local investment decisions to support its local community and economy.  For further details, please see the DfT website .

There are a number of unique selling points for this programme:

• It will be sector led - its scope and shape, and the emerging efficiency solutions, will be developed by the private and public sectors working in partnership.

• It is a change programme.  Senior local authority personnel will be engaged, provided with opportunities to improve delivery and maximise investment, and it will be them who will lead and embed efficiency in their organisations.

• It will provide a gateway to the best efficiency research and practice from the whole sector.  This will include case studies, tool kits and guidance.

• The ownership and running of the programme will transfer to the sector from 2013.

Finally, and crucially, the efficiency measures produced by the Programme will be an offer to local authorities.  The Programme will make the case for efficiency as compelling as possible, but ultimately it is the choice of local authority senior personnel who know the best way to meet local challenges and whether to adopt the tried and tested efficiency opportunities being offered.

Part of the Programme looks at how efficiencies can be achieved in the field of Asset Management. The Programme Board has let a number of work packages to deliver various outputs as detailed below. The scope of these is to identify, rationalise, provide the tools to realise and to implement efficiency improvements within local highway authorities with the aim of reducing the cost of highway maintenance services while at the same time making the most of limited financial resource.

However, industry engagement will be essential to delivering the right products and tools so that they will be favourably received and implemented by Local Highway Authorities (LHAs). The UK Roads Liaison Board (UKRLB), primarily the UK Roads Board membership, and Highway Asset Management Financial Information Group (HAMFIG) have been identified as key groups that can influence the asset management related products produced by the Programme and it is intended to create a working group to engage with members of each group throughout the development of the products. The following work packages have been commissioned by the HMEP Programme Board from the companies identified and details can be found by following the links below: -

Work Package 6 – Asset Management Lifecycle Planning Tool – Atkins



Work Package 7 – Not commissioned

Work Package 8 – Accredited Asset Management Practitioner Training - (currently on hold)



Work package 9 – Guidance on the Management and Maintenance of Highway Drainage Assets

– URS Scott Wilson



Work Package 10 – A review of current Asset Management Guidance Documents – Atkins



Work Package 11 – Standard Deterioration Model (for bituminous pavements)* – Atkins



* to be incorporated in the lifecycle planning tool in Work Package 6

Board membership

HMEP has different tiers of management and decision making responsibilities. As mentioned, a Programme Board has been established comprising the lead sponsor, DfT, the chairs of the four Workstream Groups, Quality Assurance and Programme Management. This Board decides the type of products to be produced and the method by which industry shall be engaged/enabled to receive the products and realise the efficiency savings. The role of the Quality Assurance Group is yet to be determined but is likely to comprise product compliance to the acceptance criteria and benefits realisation. The Programme Management responsibility is being undertaken a specialist provider, Atkins. The Programme Board meets monthly to review progress and to approve plans for product development.

Elements of the Programme are being procured by different organisations from the sector. The asset management work is being undertaken as part of Workstream Group 1: Operational Service Delivery. The DfT have not stated the methods of engagement that each Chair may use to progress the work packages or how they should be managed, leaving this to the discretion of each chair’s employer’s procurement rules. The chair for this Group, Matthew Lugg (Director of Environment and Transportation, Leicestershire County Council), has determined that he will follow his County Council’s procedures for managing change programmes, using Prince 2 tailored to suit this particular project. Two Project Boards have been established to oversee the delivery of the products as part of this workstream. One Project Board is overseeing the delivery of the main programme while another is managing a separate piece of work relating to a Review of Pothole Damage to local highways following the last three successive bad winters. Each Board has members of different industry groups to guide the development of the products. The Boards are chaired by the Workstream Group Lead, Matthew Lugg. The Board membership advises the Chair as to the appropriateness of the products to meet the specified goals and to comment/make recommendations as to how the package is to develop. Matthew though acts as the Executive decision maker and is ultimately responsible for the success of the products produced through his workstream.

Matthew is supported by a dedicated Project Manager, Gary Thompson, whose responsibility is to administer the project, facilitate the development of the products and to support the chair/various work package managers. Gary’s main responsibilities comprise benefits realisation criteria and assessment, maintaining an issues log, risk register, daily log, various registers, updating the Project Boards and Programme Board on progress, presenting information on the programme and its objectives and to interface with the Board and Work Package managers as required.

Asset Management Work Packages

Individual work packages have been procured through each Project Board. The asset management packages are one of the groups of projects currently underway. Consultants have been engaged using the procurement routes available to Leicestershire County Council. Some of the work packages have been procured through the Midlands Highways Alliance Professional Services Contract while others have been procured through a mini-tender under an ESPO contract, both available to the County Council. The work package managers are responsible for managing the delivery process associated with their work package, reporting progress as to the various stages achieved, risks encountered and any issues to the Board via the project manager. They are ultimately responsible for the delivery of the end products.

These Terms of Reference relate to the Working Group to be established to support the development of the asset management work packages. The Working Group will be chaired by Matthew Lugg, with support from Gary Thompson, and is likely to comprise members from UK Roads Board (UKRB) and HAMFIG as outlined below: -

UKRB Representatives

David Yeoell Westminster City Council

Paul Boss Staffordshire County Council

Philip Moore Medway Council

Andy Stevenson Cornwall County Council

Gary Sterritt Transport fro London

HAMFIG Representative

Chris Allen-Smith Hertfordshire County Council

Work Package Managers

Lila Tachtsi Atkins

Alan Taggart Atkins

Will Rogers URS Scott Wilson

John Paterson Atkins

Highways Agency Representative

To be confirmed

Industry Representative

To be confirmed

The Working Group will assist the work package managers developing the various work packages to give their perspective as to the direction of the package development to ensure maximum uptake by the sector on completion. Membership of the Working Group will be on a non-remunerated basis, in respect of time and travel expenses in recognition of their organisations’ support in developing a national change programme. It is proposed that the Working Group will meet in London at the DfT offices at Great Minster House in order to keep time and travel costs to a minimum and for ease of access. It is anticipated that the meetings will initially take place monthly, recognising the level of participation required to start up the project, but then revert to a longer frequency when the Group is comfortable that the product development is proceeding at the required pace.

The diagram below summarises the composition of the Project Board. A detailed description of roles and responsibilities is shown in Appendix 1. The further considerations are as follows: -

• Additional attendees may be invited when particular issues are under consideration and they need to report on progress or answer questions.

• In general, the practice of attending group meetings merely to be ‘kept in the loop’ should be discouraged as this can lead to each meeting having an unwieldy number of attendees and the focus on proper progress management being diverted into more generic discussion. Those present at a Group meeting should be there either to report progress, answer questions or make decisions.

Group responsibilities

The Working Group will act as the key guidance and knowledge database for the development of each work package by:

• Giving technical advice in relation to the asset management products in production;

• Monitoring progress against the work package objectives and outputs;

• Agreeing/quality assuring the key products will meet the sectors needs given the scope of the brief;

• Identifying and advising on the Project-level risks to the work package manager;

• Identifying and advising on the Project-level issues to the work package manager;

• Identifying and advising on the dependencies between the Projects that constitute the Programme to the work package manager.

Tolerance management

Not applicable

Reporting arrangements

There are numerous reporting lines for this project. (This relates to actual reporting of progress, risks, issues etc rather than general provision of information to Board members.)

1. Asset Management Working Group

• To report directly to work package managers or the chair for the asset management Working Group. (See ‘Meeting Frequency’ below.)

2. Work Package Manager to the Project Manager

• Reports formally to the Project Manager via Checkpoint Reports at pre-defined intervals when working within a stage

• Raises issues and risks to the project as required with the Project Manager escalating the risks to the Project Board as necessary

• Reports directly to the Project Board when presenting end stage reports for signing off and presenting the plan for the following stage.

3. Workstream Group to the Project Board

• Reports formally to the Project Board via the Chair (when the Project Board meets)

4. Project Manager to Project Board

• Summarises the Checkpoint Reports from each work package manager for presentation to the Project Board.

• Reports progress, issues and risks on an ‘as required’ basis to the Executive officer (Matthew Lugg).

5. Project Board(s) to Programme Manager

• The Project Board Executive will report to the Programme Manager on behalf of the Project Board.

• Submits formal status reports in advance of each Programme Board meeting.

• All reporting to the Programme Board will be carried out via the Programme Manager or by the Executive in person.

Meeting frequency

• Working Group meetings will initially occur on a monthly basis and will be reviewed as and when the work packages develop.

• Meetings will take place at the DfT offices at Great Minster House, London.

• Where the need arises, meetings may be called more regularly.

• In the longer term the Group will meet only when key decisions are required.

Appendix 1 – Project Board Roles and Responsibilities

Project Sponsor (PS)

The PS (Matthew Lugg) is ultimately accountable for the success of the project. Responsibilities include:

• Owning the overall vision and strategy for the project;

• Acting as the project ‘champion’ providing clear leadership and direction for the duration of the project;

• Securing investment required to set up and run the project;

• Accountability for the governance arrangements of the project;

• Owning and ultimately delivering key information such as the project objectives and business case;

• Managing the interface with key senior stakeholders;

• Managing strategic risks;

• Ensuring the project remains aligned with the strategic direction of the Department and Council;

• Commissioning and ownership of reviews to establish the project’s continued alignment to objectives, capability to deliver and realisation of benefits; and

• Managing and supporting the Project Manager.

Senior Suppliers (Board and Working Group Membership)

This role is accountable for the quality of the products delivered by the project teams. They must have authority to commit or acquire supplier resources as required. Responsibilities include:

• Agree objectives for work stream activities

• Promote and maintain focus on the desired project outcome from the point of view of their Department

• Ensure that the supplier resources required for the project are made available

• Resolve supplier requirements and priority conflicts

• Approve product descriptions for supplier products and sign-off once complete

• Contribute to Project Board decision making as an SME from their specific area

• Brief non-technical management on supplier aspects of the project

Senior Users (Board and Working Group Membership)

This role is responsible for specifying the needs of those who will use the final product(s), for user liaison with the project team and for monitoring products against requirements. They must have authority to commit or acquire user resources as required from their own user groups on a non-reimbursement basis. Responsibilities include:

• Ensure desired outcome of the project is specified

• Promote and maintain focus on the desired project outcome from the point of view of their sector /membership

• Ensure that the user needs and aspirations will be met by the end products

• Resolve user requirements and priority conflicts

• Approve product descriptions for user products and sign-off once complete

• Contribute to Project Board decision making from their specific area

• Provide the user view on follow-on action recommendations

• Brief and advise user management on user aspects of the project

Project Assurance (Pail Bird – Essex County Council)

The Project Assurance role is primarily to monitor all aspects of the project’s performance and products independently. Responsibilities include:

• Definition and identification of the impact of the project on other aspects of the Change Programme and vice-versa;

• Ensuring that the project continues to meet its specification, the required quality standards and the business case.

• Validation of programme objectives, projects, deliverables and benefits;

• Ensuring the project scope changes, if any, follows agreed standards and procedures

• Ensuring that the risks are controlled and the communications are working

• Constructive challenge to the Project;

• Support and guidance to the Project Manager;

Programme Manager (Chris Mulligan – Atkins)

The Programme Manager is responsible for the overall integrity and coherence of the programme and the support of component projects. Responsibilities include:

• Planning, designing and monitoring progress of the programme, resolving issues and implementing corrective action as required;

• Defining governance arrangements;

• Acting as interface to other dependent programmes;

• Managing the programme’s budget;

• Monitoring the delivery of the programme against the business case;

• Directing the appointment of staff to project teams;

• Managing the allocation and usage of resources across the programme;

• Managing programme communications and delivering the communications plan; and

• Reporting progress to the Programme SRO and Programme Board.

Project Manager (Gary Thompson, Leicestershire County Council)

The Project Manager’s key responsibilities are to:

• Routinely engage with the Project Board (and Programme Manager as required) to provide an update of project progress, risks and issues;

• Ensure the successful execution of the project as defined in this document;

• Create and maintain a detailed work plan and project schedule including metrics and report variances to the project board;

• Assign responsibilities to each team member;

• Secure resources for the project as required to meet the overall timeline and scope of the project;

• Ensure team members are spending the time they originally pledged to the team;

• Ensure change control procedure followed and communicate changes in project scope to the project board;

• Own project related documentation;

• Prepare status reports for presentation to the project board;

• Determine contingencies for key project components;

• Maintain issues & risks logs;

• Facilitate the review and resolution of key issues and risks;

• Sign off project deliverables; and

• Assist Workstream Leads to plan and arrange team training requirements.

Project and Programme Board Structure

[pic]

AGENDA

|Project: |Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme |

|Subject: |Agenda for Asset Management Working Group Meeting |

|Date and time: |29 Nov 2011, 10:00 to 13:00 |Meeting no: |001 |

|Meeting place: | Great Minster House, London (DfT) |Minutes by: | Emma Whigham |

|Attendees: |Chris Allen-Smith |Representing: |Hertfordshire CC |

| |Steve Berry | |Department for Transport |

| |Paul Boss | |Staffordshire CC |

| |Mathew Lugg | |HMEP Programme Team |

| |Francis Miskelly | |Northern Ireland Road Services |

| |Will Rogers | |URS Project Team |

| |Gary Sterritt | |Transport for London |

| |Andy Stevenson | |Cornwall CC |

| |Lila Tachtsi | |Atkins Project Team |

| |Alan Taggart | |Atkins Project Team |

| |Lester Willmington | |Devon CC |

| |Emma Whigham | |Atkins Project Team |

| |David Yeoll | |Westminster City Council |

|ITEM |DESCRIPTION |RESPONSIBLE |

|1 |Introductions |Mathew Lugg |

|2 |HMEP |Mathew Lugg |

|3 |Membership of the Group |Mathew Lugg |

|4 |Terms of Reference |Mathew Lugg |

|5 |WP10 – Asset Management Guidance |Lila Tachtsi |

| |Scope | |

| |Proposed approach | |

| |Progress to date | |

|6 |WP11 – Deterioration Modelling |Alan Taggart |

| |Scope | |

| |Proposed approach | |

| |HAMFIG view | |

|7 |WP6 – Lifecycle Planning Toolkit |Lila Tachtsi |

| |Scope | |

| |Proposed approach | |

| |HAMFIG view | |

|8 |WP8 – Drainage |Will Rogers |

| |Scope | |

| |Proposed Approach | |

|8 |Meeting frequency |Mathew Lugg |

|9 |AOB |Mathew Lugg |

-----------------------

Codes of Practice

Highways ITS

Transport AM Guidance

LTP

Guidance

Financial Reporting Guidance

Highways

Street Lighting

Structures

HMEP Chair: Mostaque Ahmed

DfT

Chair Workstream Group 1:

Matthew Lugg

Director if Environment and Transport (Leicestershire County Council)

Senior User(s):

Anthony Radford-Foley (TAG)

Tony Gates

(HTMA)

John Ionnou

(Cabinet Office)

Peter Higgins

(ICE)

Steven Dennis

(TLH)

Susan Housley

(Highways Agency)

Jim Stevens

(ADEPT)

Martin Duffy

(CIHT)

Kevin Melling

(APSE)

Trevor Collett

(LoTAG)

Senior Supplier(s):

Workstream 1: Procurement Route Choices

Workstream 2: Collaborative Alliances

Workstream 3: Shared Services

Workstream 4: Standardisation

Workstream 5: Asset Management

Executive Assistant:

Peter Barclay

Interim Project Manager:

Gary Thompson (LCC)

Individual Team Managers:

Other Workgroups

Programme Board

Project Board

Supply Chain

HMEP Champion

Andrew Smith OBE

Project Assurance

Asset Management Working Group

HAMFIG, UKRLG, Work Package Managers

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download