Head of Technical Standards Safety, Engineering and Standards Updating the DMRB Steve Davy Head of Technical Standards Safety, Engineering and Standards Highways England

Contents Background to the Review of the DMRB The Recommendations Performance Based Approach Progress so far

Background to the Review of the DMRB

Context: Requirements of the Protocol The Protocol Agreement requires Highways England: “to undertake an initial review of the usability, structure and content of DMRB by March 2016 and depending on the conclusions of the review and advice from the Design Panel, develop a work programme to refresh the DMRB during the first Road Period so that it reflects the needs of its users.” “The review should involve a range of stakeholders” [section 8.3] and for this review to include consultation “with its main users, technical institutions, and other interested parties including devolved administrations” [section 8.8]. The Protocol Agreement requires that the review of the DMRB “must seek to reduce the number of prescriptive standards and increase the number of performance standards, in line with industry best practice” [section 8.8]. Furthermore, it states that the “results from the review will be implemented and brought in to force in relevant documents such as DMRB as quickly as practical over the course of the first Road Period unless the Secretary of State and Highways England agree that the scale of these changes represents a fundamental structural revision of how standards work” [section 8.8].

Context: The current approach is not sustainable

Key benefits of DMRB review Efficiency and Innovation in Design: DMRB is clearer and quicker & easier to use Fewer Standards Less inappropriate advice Less inappropriate solutions Fewer Departures from Standards Fewer Compensation Events under Clause 17.1 of the NEC for inconsistencies in the Works Information The “Strategic Review of the Efficiency Plan” paper that was accepted at the Executive Committee meeting on 17 February 2016, includes a range estimate of the efficiencies likely to be achievable through the “Review of Standards” of £25-50m.

Recommendations

Recommendations Following User and Stakeholder Consultation a number of Recommendations were developed and approved by the Highways England Executive Committee

Recommendations Set out the requirements to be used for the United Kingdom Motorway and All Purpose Trunk Road network. Implement more documents developed in partnership with other asset owners. Introduce National Application Annexes (NAA). Be and remain up-to-date. Support the Overseeing Organisations in fulfilling their obligations and controlling their risks. Have a consistent style and format, and be intuitive to use. Clearly define requirements to be fulfilled by supply chain designers. Be produced by Technical Specialists supported by Content Specialists. Place responsibility for design justification with the supply chain designers. Be future-proofed for advances in information technology. Provide a reduced volume of advice.

Performance Based Approach

Performance-based approach From the Protocol Agreement, Section 8.8: This [the initial review] must seek to reduce the number of prescriptive standards and increase the number of performance standards, in line with industry best practice, and thereby reduce the need for departures from standards.

Performance-based approach A performance-based approach requires technical provisions expressed in terms of outcomes or performance requirements, rather than methods.

Performance-based requirement (PBR) vs method requirement (MR) Example of MR: Reinforced concrete vehicle parapet panel walls shall have a minimum length of 2.0 m and a maximum length of 3.5 m. Example of pure PBR: Pavements shall be so designed and constructed to enable the safe movement of vehicles along the road.

Performance-based requirement (PBR) vs method requirement (MR) (Pure) Performance-based requirement (PBR) Rules, procedures, methods, formulae High-level objectives, e.g. network availability, design life

General approach to PBR To develop a PBR it is necessary to understand: What is the required level of performance? How will the compliance against the required performance level be evaluated and/or monitored? What are the consequences for failing to meet the required performance levels?

Challenges in developing PBR For a performance-based approach technical provisions should be expressed in a manner that makes the intended outcome or the performance requirements (or design objectives) clear to the designer. Developing a pure PBR (i.e. high level requirement) brings about several challenges including: Establishment of liability for a defect: Design interfaces Multiple design objectives Influence of maintenance on performance Means of recourse: Insurances Warranties Ability to enforce these means of recourse, particularly some years after the design is completed

Industry best practice on PBR Current industry best practice for performance-based design suggests that: Design requirements should, where possible, be associated with a performance level and should be clear on the performance expectations the requirement is seeking to address (without placing unreasonable liabilities on designers and risks on the Overseeing Organisations); Typically, a method should be provided as a means to meet the requirement, and the method should often be presented as advice (i.e. a recommendation or permissible approach).

Approach to PBR in the DMRB To overcome these challenges and considering current industry best practice, the performance requirements (or design objectives) should be accompanied by performance criteria and related limiting or threshold values (‘mixed’ PBR). The limiting or threshold values become the acceptability criteria to verify that the agreed performance objectives are met. MR ‘Mixed’ PBR ‘Pure’ PBR Procedures, methods, formulae High-level objectives High-level performance requirement with advisory method to satisfy requirement

Departures and design justification Technical provision Sub-category Requirement Statutory requirement (must) PBR or MR (shall) Advice Recommendation (should) Permissible option or approach (may) Clarification of a concept or statement of fact (can) Deviation is not permitted Deviation is permitted through the departure process Deviation is permitted through appropriate design justification

Progress So Far

Progress so far Appointment of 17 Technical Specialists and 2 Content Specialists Development of new templates, format rules including permitted verb forms Drafting training provided to over 200 staff and consultants

Progress so far Deployment of a new programming and work flow tool – JIRA Training of staff to use JIRA Development of a new Collaborative Authoring and Review System (CARS) Agile development of documents

Progress so far Several new DMRB documents ready for publication – Expected in April 2018

Progress so far Communication Plan developed Includes engagement with suppliers and bodies such as ADEPT, SCOTS, CSS Wales, HMEP etc. Includes articles in professional magazines Supply chain briefings

Questions