Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | johnathan-jones |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 2 times |
What would we like to achieve today?
1. Your support for NUAG, its Vision, its Aims and its plans, based on a fuller understanding.
2. Your support for the key findings and recommendations of the review of current practice and future requirements.
3. A commitment to communicate positively NUAG’s Vision and Aims, and the key findings and recommendations of the review of current practice and future requirements.
4. An agreed feedback process.
Utilities are the UK’s Veins and Arteries …
CommunicationsGasOil/PetroleumSewerageRoad drainagePowerSteamWaterDistrict heatingStreet lightingTraffic control
An Overview
MAKING THE BEST OF WHAT
WE HAVE CURRENTLY
IMPROVED FUTURE
SURFACE-BASED TECHNIQUES
BELOW GROUND SURVEY
TECHNIQUES
FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
AND DEVELOPMENTS
Needs, best practice,Framework, models,
approaches
Opportunities for continuous
improvement Exchange of ideas
Exchange of ideas
Exchange of ideas
Needs, best practice, framework, models, approach
Opportunities for continuous improvement
Needs, best practice, framework, models, approach
Opportunities for radical, step-change improvement
The ‘Buried Assets Jigsaw’
VISTAMTU
TMA
ICE BSWGNUAG
Multi sensor technology to
find asset
A common container to hold and manipulate
in 3D
How to exchange in a
common manner
What should be made available: Who, what, where
Several initiatives working together to
a common goal
Driver for better data integration
Utility and Highways stakeholders
Trials and pilot systems
The UKWIR Programme
ICE/ICES Buried ServicesWorking Group (BSWG)
Mapping the Underworld (MTU)
NJUG Ltd, HAUC reports & recommendations
European ProjectsGIGA, ORFEUS…
VISTA
Smart Pipes GPR in Sewers
Department for Transport AMTEC report and TMA working groups
Initiatives working together to a common goal
The ‘Missing Piece’
VISTAMTU
TMA
ICE BSWGNUAG
Multi sensor technology to
find asset
A common container to hold and manipulate
in 3D
How to exchange in a
common manner
What should be made available: Who, what, where
Several initiatives working together to
a common goal
Driver for better data integration
Context
NUAG HAUC
Working Groups
Working Groups
DfTVision
StandardsTechnical Expertise
Code of PracticeRegulations
NUAG – Our Aims
The aims of the Group are:
To support the Department for Transport in achieving the relevant Traffic Management Act targets by:
Delivering agreed data definitions, data standards, protocols and processes, and a timetable for their implementation, leading to the most effective and efficient means of recording, storing, sharing and displaying information on underground assets, and appropriate associated above ground assets.
Ensuring that everything is in place to enable the successful delivery of the Vision.
To inform and represent the wider stakeholder community.
NUAG Members
James BrayshawInstitution of Civil Engineers
Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors
Mike Farrimond UK Water Industry Research
Ray Gercans Department for Transport
Les Guest National Joint Utilities Group
Marc Hobell Ordnance Survey
Nigel Mason Association for Geographical Information
Frank O’Dwyer County Surveyors’ Society
Dave Turnbull Highways Authorities & Utilities Committee
Andrew Jackson Pipeline Industries Guild
All information on underground assets, and appropriate associated above ground assets, will be shared between
stakeholders in a consistent way, on demand.
R Harvey, ESW; D Capon, SCC; H Pendleton, HAUC; R Mann, AGI
UTILITY 1 HIGHWAYAUTHORITY
UTILITY 2…n
OTHER PIPELINES & CABLES
EToNPLUS POLYGONS
ROADWORKSNOTIFICATIONPLUS POLYGONS
UTILITIES 2….
UTILITY 1RECORDS
UTILITIES 2…nRECORDS
UTILITIES 1…nRECORDS
WEB SERVICE
THE NUAG VISION
CAPTURE ASSET DATA
RECORD ASSET DATA
STORE ASSET DATA
SHARE ASSET DATA
DISPLAY ASSET INFORMATION
USE ASSET INFORMATION
SCOPE OF THE WORK
A two phase approach
Phase Aim Deliverables
1
Develop methodologies, standards and best practices that address the short-term standardisation needs to 2008, which will subsequently enable the vision to be delivered through technology-based solutions.
A common national standard. An agreed minimum of information. Consistent information exchange.
2 Develop an approach that delivers the vision through technology-based solutions.
Automatic real time intelligent data/information exchange using web-based technology to industry standards.
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 KEY DELIVERABLES Understand User
Requirements
An agreed specification that delivers to an agreed timescale a set of (consensus) user needs, with clear descriptions of costs, benefits and risks
Understand Current Practice
A clear and full review of current practice, across each sub-process, and how they are managed.
Develop Processes
Fully documented standards, protocols and processes that meet the agreed specification.
Develop future delivery approach
A fully developed and tested approach that meets the agreed specification, using the most appropriate technologies.
Deliver the Vision
Implement Processes
Development and delivery of a properly-resourced implementation plan, with a full post-implementation review.
Implement Future Delivery
Approach
Development and delivery of a properly-resourced implementation plan, with a full post-implementation review.
Manage
Processes
Robust ownership and ongoing management of the processes in use, including support, measurement and improvement.
Manage Future Delivery Approach
Robust ownership and ongoing management of the approach in use, including support, measurement and improvement. The longer-term exploitation of the approach is also included.
Manage Stakeholders
Key stakeholders managed effectively throughout, to ensure success.
Processes is used as a generic term to cover all definitions, standards, protocols and processes, with associated measurement and management systems, documentation, training material and support systems. Approach is used as a generic term to cover technologies, with associated measurement and management systems, documentation, training material and support systems.
Elements of a Plan to deliver
The Vision
Phase 1 Phase 2 Common to both Phases
A more technically skilled workforce
More effective technology
Methodologies, standards and best
practice
Improved communications and co-
operation
Better understanding of life cycle costs
COMPLETING THE JIGSAW…
Reduced disruption and delay
Reduced risk of third party damage
Reduced risk of abortive costs
Improved relations with regulators
More options for legislation to reduce
congestion
Reduced waste and reinstatement
LEADING TO… RESULTING IN
Reduced direct, indirect, social and environmental
costs
More sustainable construction
Improved health and safety
More economic maintenance
Improved image of organisations
Public confidence in a more effective street
works process
Proven methods and technologies to exploit in home and overseas
markets
Reduced airborneand noise pollution
Reduced congestion
WILL DELIVER…
Reduced time to locate underground assets
More effective data sharing
Increased use of no-dig and trenchless
technology
Reduced time to install or maintain underground
assets
Better understanding of costs and benefits of data collection and
sharing
More accurate records
Improved planning data
Capturing, recording, storing and sharing underground asset information
A review of current practice and future requirements
September 2006
Ian Ackerman Hampshire C.C. David Blyth EDF Energy Graham Cocksey The Clancy Group Jonathan Harrod Booth Highways Agency Martin Hobbs Highways Agency Roger Hunt Ordnance Survey Bob Lloyd Worcestershire C.C. Karen Mears National Grid Matthew Rowlatt Three Valleys Water Andrew Sherry Transport For London Alexandra Spence Leeds City Council Sue Taylor BT Fasar Zarif Network Rail Marc Hobell NUAG Convenor Chris Overton NUAG Facilitator
Working Group
Process
• Questionnaire based on 2003 DfT HAUC Code of Practice:– Qualitative element– Quantitative element
• Representative sample of utilities and highways
• Face-to-face interviews (wherever possible)
Current Practice – the headlines
• Significant variation between different organisations’ practices.
• Lack of a mandatory code a major cause of variation.
• Drainage records a particular challenge.
Future Plans – the headlines
• Variations in organisations’ future plans.
• Trend appears to be towards electronic GPS-based capture, electronic GIS-based storage and web-based sharing.
Conclusions
1. Significant variations exist in practices, approaches, attitudes and emphases, within and between utilities and highways, for the recording, storing and sharing of underground asset information, leading to, inter alia: variable accuracy; incomplete records; a wide range of map bases; excessive timescales and inconsistent approaches to third party and legacy data.
2. The lack of a statutory-based Code of Practice is seen as a key contributor to the current position.
3. There is strong support across utilities and highways sectors for a change to a more effective standardised approach and mandatory Code of Practice.
4. There are likely to be cost and resource issues associated with the deployment of a new Code.
Conclusions
5. Unless a more consistent and compatible approach is employed to recording, storing and sharing asset record information, the possibility of achieving any future anticipated benefits of new technology will be threatened, and the technology-based aspirations of the Traffic Management Act are likely to be compromised.
Conclusions
1. A revised Records Code of Practice must be developed and deployed on a mandatory basis.
2. A mandatory national standard high-level framework, with effective ownership and management, for capturing, recording, storing and sharing buried asset information must be in place to enable the effective deployment of the revised Records Code of Practice.
To achieve the targets set out in the Traffic Management Act, NUAG recommends that:
3. Each utility and highways organisation must have clearly-defined processes compatible with the national standard framework, with effective ownership and management, for the implementation and use of revised Records Code, and achievement of the Code’s standards.
4. The revised Code of Practice must include a set of
minimum standards to be achieved, as follows:
a. All below ground assets must be recorded, together with associated above ground assets.
b. Asset data must be captured during all types of work: planned, urgent and emergency. (Planned and immediate).
c. Data must be captured and recorded for assets in any location.
d. Data must be recorded for all new, replacement, amended or abandoned assets.
4. The revised Code of Practice must include a set of
minimum standards to be achieved, as follows:
e. All previously-unrecorded existing assets, belonging to the organisation carrying out the work, should be recorded if found during work.
f. Any unidentified third party asset found in the course of work must be captured, and recorded as an Unidentified Buried Object (UBO), by the organisation finding it.
g. Any historical discrepancies between recorded and actual data found during work should be reported to the asset’s owner, including third parties.
4. The revised Code of Practice must include a set of
minimum standards to be achieved, as follows:
h. Attributes that must be captured are: location (x and y); top of asset (z); diameter (including any changes); material (including any changes), and pipe or cable run.
i. Asset data must be captured and recorded at a minimum standard of accuracy of +/- 100 mm in x, y and z dimensions.
j. Location data must be recorded using relative and absolute referencing.
k. All geospatial data must be recorded using an agreed framework and agreed scales (DNF).
4. The revised Code of Practice must include a set
of minimum standards to be achieved, as follows:
l. Asset data must be available for external inspection within one month of capture.
m. Record information must be made available in electronic form through a web-based service.
n. Each organisation is responsible for managing their responses to requests for record information.
5. The revised Code of Practice must include standard data definitions and data standards.
6. There must be an annual review process to measure performance against the Code’s standards, leading to the deployment of appropriate improved minimum standards.
7. Any resource and cost implications associated with the new Code must be managed effectively to ensure a successful deployment.
8. The national high level standard framework and the revised Records Code must be fully implemented within a mandatory timetable.
R Harvey, ESW; D Capon, SCC; H Pendleton, HAUC; R Mann, AGI
UTILITY 1 HIGHWAYAUTHORITY
UTILITY 2…n
OTHER PIPELINES & CABLES
EToNPLUS POLYGONS
ROADWORKSNOTIFICATIONPLUS POLYGONS
UTILITIES 2….
UTILITY 1RECORDS
UTILITIES 2…nRECORDS
UTILITIES 1…nRECORDS
WEB SERVICE
We need a road map to get us from where we are now …
…to where we want to be
Our recommendations will help us start the
journeyNOW
And finally:
• We believe there is a clear need to change the way we do things
• We believe there are major benefits available • We believe that successful implementation of our
recommendations will help to enable change• We recognise that change will not happen
overnight• We need the active support of everyone involved