Programme Manager: Alexandra Ostroumoff-Croucher
T: 07879 435756
E: alexandra.ostroumoff-croucher@improvementservice.org.uk
Business Analyst: William McKee
T: 07789 271434
E: william.mckee@improvmentservice.org.uk
Roads Collaboration Event
19th February 2014
Event Summary Report: Appendices
Appendix A: Seminar Summary Outputs
Delegate Breakout Session 1: Reducing Costs through Sharing
Facilitators: Scott Allan, SCOTS, Martin McLaughlin, Transport Scotland
Summary:
Scott Allan and Martin McLaughlin led a discussion on the group’s views on the potential to reduce costs
via collaborative working, discussing the collaborative work already undertaken in RAMPs and the
potential to continue this relationship going forward.
Discussion Points:
What follows is summary of discussion points as noted by Scott Allan.
General

Regional RAMPS may be a possibility, implying regional centres of expertise. Would work best with
common levels of service across partners (ie partner Councils likely to apply differing funding levels
to recovering road condition). Drivers as end users of roads not concerned about boundaries – want
a consistent service

Potential resilience benefits through Councils collaborating on RAMP inputs (ie specialist staff
assisting a number of LAs)

Varying levels of Leadership across LAs at senior level with respect to RAMPS leading to differing
levels of ‘buy in’, Leadership at Chief Officer level needs to be consistent,
1

We need to get our maintenance procedures, technical specifications and policies consistent across
partnerships, (significant variations at present over how roads authorities do things). Consistency in
application of material specifications will assist in making prices more value for money,

Mis - match between local authorities and trunk roads such as urban areas where adjacent streets
can be the responsibility of different roads authorities – again customer looks for consistency in
service in the same route hierarchy designation,

Straw poll suggested that one third of Councils in session were investing to improve roads, two
thirds were not BUT almost all Councils were able to present an informed plan for future roads
investment,

Most (all) participants agreed that collaboration brought benefits whether working to a budget of
steady state or network improvement,

Collaborating on procurement to spend capital budgets to improve the network offered the
potential of more ‘bang for buck’

Concern over technical resilience within Roads Authorities to deliver best value on increased roads
investment (ie lack of skills/experience with investing capital budget wisely), Collaboration and
development of a plan that ensures future skills will be available could assist with this.

Collaboration on Procurement may offer significant efficiencies (provided we get specifications
right),

Culture within Councils of driving savings on revenue budgets but perhaps paying less attention to
driving efficiencies on capital budgets,

Need to recognise that achieving best value from capital expenditure can reduce future revenue
spend,

Geographical constraints to collaboration ie rural areas.

Roads services in many LAs are integrated within wider service areas.
Key Points

Increased resilience may be strongest driver for collaboration (for most councils),

Potential for revenue savings through collaboration, perhaps more significant benefits to road
maintenance capital investment with largest savings likely to be through procurement,

Skills and training and across the industry would benefit from collaboration,

LAs need to work to consistent policies, technical specifications and standards (building on
consistent approach to RAMPS)

All LAs need to set a ‘Level of Service’ in their RAMPS based on affordability, risk, legislative
requirements, etc. Scope may exist for collaboration on this (possibly including Trunk Roads).
Milestones
2

Service Leaders need to actively promote roads asset management planning and energise debate on
collaboration,

We need to take stock from debate within this FORUM and through SCOTS
Resources

We are short of skilled people but can we can develop and make better use of our skilled workforce
through collaboration,

We can improve outcomes through technical consistency and sharing innovation,

Combined budgets can reduce costs or achieve more on the ground.
Leadership

SCOTS has shown what we can achieve from collaboration and we need to build on this,

Roads and Transportation leaders need to be confident about where we take roads asset
management from here and how best to deliver.
Delegate Proposed Next Steps
The programme team should engage SCOTS further to discuss:
1.
2.
Further collaboration opportunities regarding RAMPS.
A potential piece of work to explore the standardization of specifications, processes and/or policies.
Delegate Breakout Session 2: Sharing Skills & Expertise
Facilitators: Ewan Wallace, SCOTS, Phil Cragg, Improvement Service
Summary:
Ewan Wallace led an open roundtable discussion on the group’s views on opportunities to share staff skills
and expertise.
Discussion Points:
What follows is summary of discussion points as noted by Phil Cragg:
Topic
Comments
Front line staff
Defect management. Minister mentioned potholes and public perception of roads
based on these. Inverclyde, Renfrewshire & East Renfrewshire have produced a report
on defect management to try and get some support, which will be further developed
over the next 12 months.
Reports completed have to be better shared across organisations. Need for an online
repository where information and case studies can be securely and conveniently
stored. Currently, Knowledge Hub exists for councils (facilitated by the Improvement
Reports/ case
studies
3
Service) but work is on-going to develop an alternative platform. Roadex is a free
website where there are international examples of work for best practice and sharing
of other knowledge etc. before being passed on to the wider community. Perhaps the
need for a better signposted section is needed. Clear opportunity for IS to assist SCOTS
in development work for a new improved web portal.
Information
A lot of information is out there, but nobody knows where to find it. There are
different levels of expertise for different areas across organisations and each council
has different needs etc. Could there be a central resource for some of the nonoperational services (e.g. WDM or ICT systems in general). Current work is happening
in silos and therefore the need to better combine and utilise the skills shortfalls and
abundances is growing as financial pressures increase.
SCOTS
Website is not fit for purpose. There needs to be something better to help facilitate
the knowledge sharing & increase the ‘community’ feel to the group. Mentioned that
SCOTS are perhaps not sharing best practice with the wider community, but this may
be a 2-way relationship as councils need to update SCOTS on their work programmes
& share docs rather than store them internally.
Standardisation Ayrshire Alliance has developed a programme for contract management, meaning that
all contracts have a standardised format. D&G and W. Lothian are attending a meeting
with A.A to see how this works. Group to follow up with Ewan & SCOTS community on
the success of this system
Procurement
Scotland Excel’s existing framework stands at approx. £70m in value, plans to expand
this to £700m over the next 15 months for roads materials and consultancy. Excel is
looking to make closer the relationships between councils, resulting in a 15 month and
a 3 year plan for procurement opportunities. Certain councils would like the
framework updated to reflect companies they now use but who aren’t on the
framework. The issue of trying to apply a national framework to a (largely) regional
service creates many difficulties for the smaller, local service providers.
Skills shortages Some of the smaller councils are struggling with getting the best people in there.
When there is a bit of better weather, the larger buying powers have more chance of
getting resources from a national framework, especially when resources are located in
the central belt. As there is limited knowledge of the marketplace, would this also be
possible to include in the website area?
Decriminalised 18 authorities who don’t have this yet could learn a lot from the ones who have
parking
already implemented it. The need for a back office function is perhaps not specific to
each council, as it may be possible to have one council host the back office work. An
example of one council, P&K, using an English authority’s back office and being
pleased with the service and the value delivered from it.
Sharing people There are a huge range of skills and experience needed for the organisations, but not
all of them are required all year round (with perhaps exceptions for the bigger
councils). Is there a way of joint resourcing and scheduling them across councils?
There also needs to be a more effective way of scheduling equipment deployment so
that efficiency rates are able to increase.
Talent
Graduate programmes in place in a couple of councils – how have they done this?
Management
Retaining skilled staff in certain councils is difficult due to private sector competitors
offering higher salaries. As financial pressures increase, how are we able to retain
knowledge and plan for the future service? Also an issue in terms of the training
options available for the industry using day release courses, the support received from
the professional institutions in developing such courses and recognising the needs of
the sector plus work with tertiary and secondary education to give work experience
opportunities
Capacity
Whilst some of the councils and organisations are willing to help out wherever
possible in the deployment of assets and personnel to other organisations, they very
often do not have the spare capacity required to do so. If there were a way of
4
releasing some of the required services from councils (i.e. transferring flooding to
SEPA in a similar manner to how the Environment Agency deal with issues in England).
Also an opportunity to assist SCOTS as a Society in the business support required to
run a collaborative organisation.
Delegate Proposed Next Steps
The programme team should review the themes/opportunities identified with a view to assessing and
prioritizing initiatives to take forward over the next 12 – 24 months.
Delegate Breakout Session 3: Sharing Geographically & Non-geographically
Facilitators: Hugh Murdoch, Aberdeen City Council, Angus Bodie, Transport Scotland
Summary:
Hugh Murdoch and Angus Bodie led a discussion on the group’s views on opportunities and barriers to
sharing based on geographical proximity and sharing with other authorities based on wider opportunities
where proximity may not be a factor.
The key opportunities identified for further scoping by the programme team in liaison with roads authority
colleagues included:











Research and development
Staff training
ICT
Roll out of the Ayrshire Minor Works Procurement Framework model to other authorities
Restructuring around pre-1996 structures – opportunity/risk assessment on whether this could work
and benefits of doing so.
Providing help to island authorities
Standardisation of documentation
Opportunities with contractors to benefit from economies of scale
More strategic approach to winter maintenance
Explore opportunity to extend scope to other services and/or organisations e.g. fleet
Enhanced economic opportunities e.g. tourism/travel
It was proposed by the group that SCOTS take a lead role in progressing these initiatives.
Discussion Points:
What follows is summary of discussion points as noted by Angus Bodie. The group considered the key
requirements in terms of resources, leadership, governance and risks to take the initiatives forward.
Key Steps

Determine desire to share in these areas up-front and get commitment to sharing – Board support
required.
5

Data gathering is required to build evidence base of what works, where value can be added and to
break the perception that no sharing is taking place in these areas now.
Resources

Dedicated business analyst to gather and review data

Programme Manager

Support from SCOTS
Leadership

Led on the ground by Programme team and SCOTS

Board support needed

Direction needed from SOLACE, to reach out geographically and to open conversation with Leaders

Role of COSLA must also be considered. Early elected member involvement essential
Governance

Formal governance necessary from the start

Opportunity to consider an RTP model

Initially led locally and could progress to regional/national.

Property hub model

Joint Committee best initially – possible to learn from Scotland Excel model

Need to be aware of possible necessity of splitting roads from wider service

Need to be strategic, not prescriptive
Risks/Blockers

Political barriers

Natural/physical barriers

Geographical differences. Need to identify synergies

Varying legal advice

Cost of change

Risk of over-complication. Needs to be as simple and straightforward as possible.

Capacity to deliver.

Alignment of existing contracts.

Perceived “take-over” by some authorities
6

Difficulties associated with “splitting” roads out of a wider service.

Need to bring back-officer services in from the start to avoid issues later.
Delegate Proposed Next Steps
1.
Further scoping work on the identified initiatives should be carried out by the programme team to
evaluate the steps required to initiate, deliver and implement the associated changes.
2.
More in-depth analysis of the data returned by roads authorities in the online survey should be
undertaken looking specifically at the opportunities identified during the breakout sessions and
what is already underway.
3.
Further engagement should be sought with SCOTS and the Programme Board to agree which
initiatives to progress in the first instance.
Delegate Breakout Session 4: Overcoming Perceived Legal Barriers
Facilitators: Stephen Phillips, Burness Paull & Alexandra Ostroumoff-Croucher, Improvement
Service
Summary:
Stephen Phillips led an open roundtable discussion on the group’s views on legal barriers preventing the
delivery of shared service initiatives in roads authorities. The discussion followed a presentation given by
Stephen in the morning where he discussed current EU procurement law and possible options for setting
up appropriate governance arrangements in a shared service that would present no legal obstacles under
procurement law. The resounding message from Burness Paull is that challenges and barriers are not as
perceived currently by local authority legal teams, and that there are flexible options, including a joint
committee or the creation of a more formal legal body which could be put in place.
Discussion Points:
What follows is summary of discussion points as noted by Alexandra Ostroumoff-Croucher.
Governance Models: Joint Committee

The costs involved in setting up a joint committee are much lower than for setting up a corporate
body; the key requirement is a Minute of Agreement (or equivalent) and standing orders.

Many case studies exist which demonstrate what can be achieved.

Too much detail in the Minute of Agreement can act as a barrier to flexibility in a shared service.

A Lead Authority must feature in this model, unless there are only two or three participating
authorities. However that is not to say there cannot be equality of partners and the governance set
up in such a way to spread the liability for particular assets among partners.
7

Having, or not having, the Lead Authority role has the potential to influence an authority’s mindset
(since they are then first target in the event of third party claims) and can change their real or
perceived level of influence. This often creates sensitivities and reaching agreement on the lead
authority can hinder progress at set up stage.

Two thirds of the committee must be made up of elected members to comply with the legislation.

A joint committee can be a good starting point when setting up governance, as local authorities are
very familiar with this model.

There is always the option to progress from operating as a joint committee to a more formal legal
body later.

EU case law previously had a 10% threshold for the amount of work that could be carried out for
bodies out with the participating authorities. A new directive will increase that to 20%, allowing for
much more flexibility – but there are other principles (e.g. state aid and commercial services
income) which need to be addressed if that is going to be a feature of the arrangements.
Governance Models: Legal Body (Limited Liability Partnership, Joint Board, Limited Company etc.)

Setting up a more formal legal body rather than joint committee removes issues often encountered
regarding leadership and accountability.

However issues can be experienced as partners may feel they lose direct control and oversight of
their individual asset s/investment. Having said that, the is no reason why the body would have to
take over all assets – it could hold certain assets (e.g. new plant purchased by the body) and just
coordinate use of assets that continue to be held by the participating authorities

Rather than having a named authority liable in relation to e.g. contracts with a private sector service
provider, in a legal body, the body itself is the contracting party. The same point applies in relation
to any staff which the body may employ.

Scottish Government must legislate to create a joint board. Prioritization within Scottish
Government can therefore be an issue in terms of the length of time it may take to pass the
necessary legislation while competing priorities on the Scottish Government’s agenda may take
precedence.

These models create a different dynamic to managing risk and taking joint decisions.

In an LLP, authorities would be the members (i.e. partners) of the LLP, sharing any profits.

In an LLP the board could be made up of members and/or officers plus (if wanted) people from the
private sector. Members do not need to feature on the board. It is not a statutory body and Scottish
Government does not need to be involved.

An LLP could be considered a “neater pot” i.e. it is easier to capture the concept of authorities
contributing to a joint fund to meet expenditure, acquiring joint assets etc.

In an LLP, partners pay tax, not the legal body itself. However, local authorities do not pay tax, which
makes this model very tax-efficient.

An LLP with solely local authority members is deemed to be a contracting authority and must
therefore comply with EU procurement law where it engages private sector contractors etc; subject
to that, it can develop its own procurement approach.
8

To avoid procurement law issues, an LLP must be controlled by the same authorities who
commission work from the LLP.

Does a joint board enable an authority to collaborate over a wider geographical area, or would an
LLP be preferable?

What can be learned from Glasgow’s LLPs?
Inclusion of Private Sector Partners

Extending an existing joint venture with a private sector partner so that the joint venture could
service other authorities working under a collaboration framework could be an issue from a
procurement law point of view; a key issue would be how the scope of work for the private sector
partner was described in the initial procurement process.

Going forward, any future procurement process for a private sector partner could allow the future
option of extending those partnership arrangements to additional authorities working under a
collaborative arrangement.

A statement in the original procurement process stating that the partnership with the private sector
partner would extend to a “successor” to the original authority is unlikely to be seen as sufficient to
cover a new collaborative body given that that body will involve much greater volumes of work.
Regional Transport Partnerships

Is there an opportunity to use the basis of an existing RTP to become the governing body of a shared
service? This could depend on the nature of the relationship between the RTP and the authorities.

Statutory obligations and accountability would need to be explored; a key issue would be the
detailed wording of the statutory functions and powers given to RTPs in the legislation.

Need to review original RTP legislation to understand the options and opportunities.
Risks

Authorities must bear in mind the risk of roads collaborative bodies competing in the market place
and the likely impact on the culture of sharing and co-operation within roads services.

In an LLP, the risk of partner “fall-out” must be mitigated by having some kind of “exit strategy”
agreed. However the issue of the participating authorities (taken as a whole) falling out with the
board of the LLP is unlikely to be a problem in practice; it must be remembered that in an LLP, the
partners (acting together) can direct the board and have the power to remove all the board
members at any time.. There are no time constraints in “folding” an LLP – the issues would relate to
the practicalities of taking assets etc back in to the respective authorities (and with various possible
outcomes, regarding staff).

When does liability lie with a lead authority in a joint committee model e.g. if a member of staff
made a serious mistake and that caused loss to one of the other participating authorities? In
principle, the legal documentation could allocate responsibility for risks of this kind, but a wider
perspective might be appropriate i.e. viewing the staff team as a joint resource, with the sharing of
liabilities and risk.
Information Gap on Legal Barriers

Why does a gap exist whereby Burness Paull are providing advice that differs from local authority
9
legal teams and how do we overcome this?

Should we look at opportunities for Burness Paull to engage local authority legal teams through
SOLAR?

Is it simply the case that local authority legal teams are particularly risk averse?

An event involving in-house legal teams might be helpful to understand concerns and break down
misconceptions regarding the barriers and risks of sharing services.

There will never be a 0% risk. The question is when does that risk become acceptable for local
authorities to pursue collaboration – and bearing in mind the very real risks of continuing to apply
the current arrangements.
Delegate Proposed Next Steps
Further engagement needed with Burness Paull:
1.
A research summary report on legal barriers towards creating a shared service is desirable,
discussing in greater detail the types of governance models available, the risks and benefits of each
and the steps required to set up the model.
2.
It would be beneficial for Burness Paull to engage local authority legal teams to ensure a common
understanding of what can be achieved in terms of governance.
3.
The Roads Collaboration Programme team should engage with roads authorities seeking to set up
governance to deliver future shared service initiatives, utilizing the findings of the Burness Paull
report, and where required additional input from them.
Delegate Breakout Session 5: The Politics of Sharing
Facilitators: Colin Mair, Improvement Service, Hannah Derbyshire, Improvement Service
Summary:
Colin Mair led an open roundtable discussion on the group’s views on political factors which must be taken
into account when developing a shared service, both in terms of how and when elected members should
be engaged, and also in terms of real or perceived political barriers which may prevent the sharing of
services. The first workshop was held for elected members only, with a second open to officers.
Discussion Points:
What follows is summary of discussion points as noted by Hannah Derbyshire.
First Workshop – Elected Members
Overall, there was general concern that as budgets decrease roads may become an easy target for cuts.
This is due to other statutory obligations and areas with limited ability for changes (the example of the
inability to close rural schools was highlighted).
10
Challenges to sharing

Complicated Governance structures – members were concerned of becoming too ‘bogged down’ in
governance with complicated, bureaucratic frameworks.

Parochial vision – need a culture of sharing amongst officers.

Perception and concern that one council may benefit over the other – for example, partnering
councils not having spent the same on their roads or not doing their ‘fair share’ in the service.

Maintaining momentum – reduce risk of ‘running into the sand’

Councilors and officers are busy with day-to-day tasks and challenges, therefore, reluctant to take
the time to proceed with shared services without knowing the end result. Suggestions were made
that politicians focus on too short a time-span.

Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City already have a tendency to share and do not see any significant
political challenges.
Benefits of and potential for Sharing

Shared resources - both human and equipment – the members agreed that concentration should be
on resources as opposed to budgets.

Bigger contracts can equal better service – for example the painting of white lines on rural roads.

Resilience and shared expertise.
Requirements for sharing

Common starting point and ground

Ability to identify the benefits of sharing

Local development and delivery – sharing only works where there is good reason, such as with
roads. There are different drivers for sharing in different parts of Britain, due to different needs and
interest (Health and Social Care integration was mentioned in a negative light on several accounts).

Suggestions were made that simple shared services on a project-by-project basis may be more
successful than large-scale, complicated structures.

Need long-term agenda with investment for the future.

Avoid complications and keep it simple.
Suggestions where assistance may be required

Creation of a simple, generic governance template for shared services.

Keeping record of informal sharing and collaboration currently taking place – several elected
members mentioned informal shared services currently in action that are not recognised as such.
Capturing this could help share best practice, identify potential and share knowledge.
11

Suggestions/examples of how to deliver simple shared service projects.

Assistance organising the formal side to shared service arrangements.

Enlighten and promote shared services to other elected members to highlight the importance and
necessity of sharing – as mentioned, many are very busy with day-to-day tasks and currently don’t
prioritise their time to collaborate with other councils.
Second Workshop – Officers
The officers also fear that roads are at risk as budgets decrease.
Challenges to sharing

Segregation of Budgets

Fear of losing control of the service.
Both Tayside and Ayrshire expressed in relation to their current shared service arrangements that elected
members are still happy because have maintained control and shared services are not seen as political.
Requirements for shared services

Clear definition between delivery role and politics – sharing is a delivery mechanism for improved
service and efficiency but does not mean losing political autonomy.

Understanding and trust between bodies and engagement with elected members.

Bottom-up approaches

Higher recognition of the priority of roads.

Higher sense of urgency – there was some discussion that there should be a higher sense of urgency
for the need to change and share services. All need to be aware of the dramatic budget decline and
the real implications of this.
Delegate Proposed Next Steps
The programme team should follow up on the discussion points as follows:
1.
Explore standard shared service governance structure(s), including outline model of how partner
arrangements could be set out. (This also ties in with a recommended next step of the breakout
session discussing legal barriers.)
2.
Hold discussions with roads authority officers to understand drivers for change at a local level.
3.
Build a portfolio of shared services projects which can be delivered under governance umbrella(s).
4.
Develop work already undertaken via the online survey to capture current and planned
collaboration. (This links to the recommendation to develop a collaboration space/toolkit, where this
information could be hosted and updated).
5.
Develop shared services case studies (again linking to collaboration space/toolkit project).
12
6.
Engage elected members further in the coming months to enlighten and promote shared services to
the wider elected member audience to highlight the importance and necessity of sharing. This will
be built into a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy and Communication Plan.
Delegate Breakout Session 6: Collaboration and Toolkit
Facilitators: William McKee, Improvement Service, Emily Lynch, Improvement Service
Summary:
William McKee and Emily Lynch led a discussion to discover the group’s views on the types of tools and
resources might be most usefully made available to the roads community in order to facilitate sharing.
Discussion Points:
What follows is a copy of the key discussion points as noted by William McKee and Emily Lynch:
Collaborative Forum Opportunity
The group identified the need for a collaborative space to allow like-minded individuals to communicate.
This was envisioned as:

A single ‘go to’ place for resources.

A ‘share point’ for the roads community covering: contacts looking to be let, contracts which could
be joined or made use of, service delivery, knowledge transfer and design services offered.

A place to find case studies which show real results and contacts that can be followed up with.
Support Tools
In terms of tools (which could be accessed through the collaborative space) the following possibilities were
identified:

A method for identifying and understanding synergies between authorizes.

A tool which identifies opportunities chronologically - quick wins, medium term projects and long
term changes.

A way of benchmarking the current situation to identify scope for improvement.

How to capture benefits from sharing initiatives in tangible (cashable) terms.
Delegate Proposed Next Steps
The programme team should scope out a project to consider how the different support requirements
inclusive of tools and collaboration space could be designed and facilitated.
13
Appendix B: Digi-voting Results
Thirty two Roads Authorities and Trunk Road Authority is
the best way to manage the road network?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
We are confident Roads Asset Management Plans (RAMPs)
can be resourced and delivered by Roads Authorities?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Individual internal changes can achieve the same efficiency
gains as sharing service delivery?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Political buy-in for service sharing readily exists?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
14
Legal and Procurement technicalities prevent shared
service initiatives?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Sharing enables better strategic decision making?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Sharing makes better use of staff skills and development
opportunities ?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
There are many different ways of governing shared
services?
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Afternoon
Agree
Morning
Strongly Agree
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
15
The Roads Collaboration Programme could most support us
with:
Support in implementing change already underway
Writing business cases
Overcoming obstacles (including procurement,…
Identifying opportunities for sharing
Sourcing and/or improving data
Project management
0%
5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
16
Appendix C: Event Agenda
Wednesday 19th February 2014, COSLA Verity House
10:00
Registration & Refreshments
10:30
Welcome & Event Overview
Colin Mair, CEO, IS
Keynote Address
Cllr. Stephen Hagan, Orkney Islands Council
Digi-voting Session
William McKee, Business Analyst, IS
10:45
Roads Collaboration Board – Sharing as Default?
Colin Mair, CEO, IS
11:00
Roads Collaboration Programme Overview
Alexandra Croucher, Programme Manager, IS
11:15
Questions for the Panel (Cllr. Stephen Hagan, Colin Mair, Alexandra Croucher)
COMFORT BREAK
11:30
Removing Procurement & Legal Barriers
Stephen Phillips, Burness Paull
12:00
Moving Forward with Shared Services
Minister Keith Brown, MSP for Transport &
Veterans
12:30 LUNCH
13:00
HMEP Shared Services Toolkit
Mathew Lugg, Dir. Public Services, Mouchel
Infrastructure Services
13:15
Sharing within Roads Services in Scotland –
The Current Landscape
Ewan Wallace, Chair of SCOTS & Head of
Transportation, Aberdeenshire Council
13:30
Breakout Sessions: Opportunities to Share
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reducing Costs Through Sharing
Sharing Skills & Expertise
Sharing Geographically & Non-geo Options
Overcoming Perceived Legal Barriers
The politics of Sharing
Developing a Scottish Roads Collaboration
Toolkit
Interactive delegate sessions, facilitated by crossorganizational senior officers.
Each session will run twice, and delegates will be
asked to register for their preferred two sessions.
14:50
Digi-Voting Session
William McKee, Business Analyst, IS
15:00
Summary of Next Steps & Close
Colin Mair, CEO, IS
17
Appendix D: Delegate list
DELEGATE LIST
Delegate
Alan Puckrin
Role
Acting Corporate Director of
Environment, Regeneration &
Resources
Alexandra
Roads Collaboration
Ostroumoff-Croucher Programme Manager
Head of Environment
(Environmental Services and
Roads)
Andrew Correy
Organisation
Email Address
Inverclyde Council
alan.puckrin@inverclyde.gov.uk
Improvement Service
alexandra.ostroumoffcroucher@improvementservice.org.uk
East Renfrewshire
andrew.corry@eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk
Andy Johnson
Manager, Opertional Services
West Lothian Council
Andy.Johnston@westlothian.gov.uk
Andy Waddell
Head of Roads &
Neighbourhood Services
Glasgow City Council
andy.waddell@glasgow.gov.uk
Angus Bodie
Bill Ross
2014 Roads Coordinator.
Roads Maintenance Manager
Transport Scotland
Moray Council
Angus.Bodie@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
bill.ross@moray.gov.uk
Bob McLellan
Bruce Kiloh
Head of Transportation &
Environmental Services
Senior Transport Advisor
Fife Council
SPT
Bob.McLellan@fife.gov.uk
bruce.kiloh@spt.co.uk
Carron Flockhart
Road Policy Manager
Transport Scotland
Carron.Flockhart@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
Charles Armstrong
Charles Clemie
Network Manager (Roads)
Principle Roads Service Officer
East Renfrewshire Council
Dumfries and Galloway Council
Charles.Armstrong@eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk
charles.clemie@dumgal.gov.uk
Charlie Norman
Team Leader Roads & Street
Lighting
Clackmannanshire Council
cnorman@clacks.gov.uk
18
Cllr Angela Taylor
Elected Member
Aberdeen City Council
taylora@aberdeencity.gov.uk
Cllr Duncan
Macintyre
Policy Lead European Affairs,
Sustainable Economic Growth,
and Strategic Transportation
Argyll & Bute Council
duncan.macintyre@argyll-bute.gov.uk
Cllr Gordon Edgar
Executive Member for Roads &
Infrastructure
Scottish Borders Council
gordon.edgar@scotboards.gov.uk
Cllr Peter Argyle
Cllr Ramsay Milne
Elected Member
Elected Member
Aberdeenshire Council
Aberdeen City Council
cllr.p.argyle@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
rmilne@aberdeencity.gov.uk
Cllr Tony Buchanan
Elected Member
East Renfrewshire Council
Tony.Buchanan@eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk
Cllr. Ellen Morten
Elected member Policy Lead for
Roads and Amenity Services.
Argyll & Bute Council
ellen.morten@argyle-bute.gov.uk
Cllr. Vincent Waters
Elected Member
East Renfrewshire Council
vincent.waters@eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk
Colin Mair
Colin Ovens
Chief Executive
Infrastructure Manager
Improvement Service
Scottish Borders Council
colin.mair@improvementservice.org.uk
covens@scotborders.gov.uk
David Manson
Derick Murray
Donald MacRae
Lead Engineering Officer - Asset
Management
Director
Principle Roads Officer
West Dunbartonshire Council
Nestrans
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar
david.manson@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
derickmurray@nestrans.org.uk
dmacrae@cne-siar.gov.uk
Donald Morrison
Dorothy Reid
Head of Asset Management
Area Roads Engineer
Transport Scotland
Falkirk Council
Donald.Morrison@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
dorothy.reid@falkirk.gov.uk
Douglas Makay
Roads Maintenance Partnership
Manager
Dundee City Council
douglas.mckay@tayside-contracts.co.uk
Emily Lynch
Euan Kennedy
Project Manager
Roads Services Manager
Improvement Service
Edinburgh City Council
emily.lynch@improvementservice.org.uk
euan.kennedy@edinburgh.gov.uk
Ewan Wallace
Head of Transportation
Aberdeenshire Council
ewan.wallace@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
19
Gill Miller
Gordon Mackay
Senior Performance Auditor
Head of Roads & Transportation
Audit Scotland
South Lanarkshire Council
gmiller@audit-scotland.gov.uk
gordon.mackay@southlanarkshire.gov.uk
Grace Irvine
Director of Neighbourhood
Services
East Dunbartonshire Council
grace.irvine@eastdunbarton.gov.uk
Graeme Malcolm
Graeme McKay
Roads and Transportation
Manager
Head of Roads & Transportation
West Lothian Council
North Lanarkshire Council
graeme.malcolm@westlothian.gov.uk
mckayg@northlan.gov.uk
Graham Edmond
Head of Network Maintenance
Transport Scotland
Graham.Edmond@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
Hazel McDonald
Network Bridges Manager
Transport Scotland
Hazel.McDonald@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
Hugh Carr
Head of Strategic Procurement
Scotland Excel
Hugh Carr <hugh.carr@scotland-excel.org.uk>
Hugh Murdoch
Iain McDonald
Head of Service Asset
Management & Operations
Business Systems Co-ordinator
Aberdeen City Council
Stirling Council
hughm@aberdeencity.gov.uk
mcdonaldi@stirling.gov.uk
Iain Waddell
Managing Director Tayside
Contracts
Tayside Contracts
iain.waddell@tayside-contracts.co.uk
Ian Cochrane
Head of Technical &Property
Services
Angus Council
cochraneia@angus.gov.uk
Ian Moffet
Jamie Wright
Jim Jack
Head of Environment &
Commercial Services
Roads Maintenance Manager
Head of Operational Services
Inverclyde Council
Stirling Council
West Lothian Council
ian.moffet@inverclyde.gov.uk
wrightj@stirling.gov.uk
jim.jack@westlothian.gov.uk
Argyll & Bute Council
jim.smith@argyll-bute.gov.uk
North Ayrshire Council
Inverclyde Council
joesmith@north-ayrshire.gov.uk
john.mundell@inverclyde.gov.uk
Scotland Excel
Karen.thomson@scotland-excel.org.uk
Joe Smith
John Mundell
Head of Roads & Amenity
Services
Senior Manager (Roads &
Transportation)
Chief Executive
Karen Thomson
Categorm Manager Construction
Jim Smith
20
Keith Scrimgeour
Network Manager
East Dunbartonshire Council
keith.scrimgeour@eastdunbarton.gov.uk
Kevan Aitken
Roads Manager
East Ayrshire Council
Kevan.Aitken@east-ayrshire.gov.uk
Kevin Hamilton
Linda Mathieson
Team Leader Roads Safety &
Traffic Management
Head of Roads
West Lothian Council
Glasgow City Council
Kevin.Hamilton@westlothian.gov.uk
linda.mathieson@glasgow.gov.uk
M West
Roads & Transportation
Manager
Clackmannanshire Council
mwest@clacks.gov.uk
Transport Scotland
martin.mclaughlin@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
General Manager Operations
Principle Roads Officer
HMEP
Aberdeen City Council
Dumfries and Galloway Council
Matthew.Lugg@mouchel.com
mcheyne@aberdeencity.gov.uk
Mike@mail.dumgal.gov.uk
Minister Keith Brown
Neil Dougal
MSP for Transport & Veterans
Road Services Manager
Scottish Government
Midlothian Council
Keith.Brown.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
neil.dougall@midlothian.gov.uk
Peter Forsyth
Senior Transportation Officer
East
East Lothian
pforsyth@eastlothian.gov.uk
Phil Cragg
Business Analyst
Improvement Service
phil.cragg@improvementservice.org.uk
Philip McKay
Raymond Smith
Head of Roads and Landscape
Services
Roads Manager
Aberdeenshire Council
Falkirk Council
philip.mckay@aberdeenshire.gov.uk
raymond.smith@falkirk.gov.uk
Raymond Walsh
Network Management Coordinator
West Dunbartonshire Council
raymond.walsh@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Richard Evans
Acting Head of Roads &
Community Works
Highland Council
richard.evans@highland.gov.uk
Robert Young
Head of Engineering &
Infrastructure
Scottish Borders Council
ryoung@scotborders.gov.uk
Martin Mclaughlin
Matthew Lugg
Michael M Cheyne
Mike Fawkes
Engineering and Programme
Manager
Director of Public Services for
Mouchel Infrastructure Services
21
Scott Allan
Head of Environment & Related
Services
Head of Roads and
Transportation
Shona Macdougal
Director of Community
Resources
Renfrewshire
shona.i.macdougall@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Soma Raviraj
Senior Manager Asset, Network
& Passenger Transport
Fife Council
soma.raviraj@fife.gov.uk
Stephen Phillips
Head of Public Sector Team
Burness Paull
Stephen.Phillips@burnesspaull.com
Steven Feeney
Roads Policy Manager
Transport Scotland
Steven.Feeney@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
Stewart Turner
Head of Ayrshire Roads Alliance
Ayrshire Roads Alliance
Stewart.Turner@east-ayrshire.gov.uk
Stuart D'All
Roads Maintenance Partnership
Deputy Manager
Perth and Kinross
SLDAll@pkc.gov.uk
Director of Community Services
Transport Scotland
Highland Council
Trevor.McIlhatton@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk
william.gilfillan@highland.gov.uk
Business Analyst
Improvement Service
william.mckee@improvementservice.org.uk
Russell McCutcheon
Trevor McIlhatton
William Gilfillan
William McKee
Head of Engineering &
Commercial Services
North Ayrshire Council
russelmccutcheon@north-ayrshire.gov.uk
Renfrewshire Council
scott.allan@renfrewshire.gov.uk
22