Results

This section presents the key findings from the evaluation of Transport Scotland’s Building Capacity in the Safe System: Phase 2 programme. The data draws from two primary sources:

• Qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of the programme, and
• Survey responses gathered from training participants before and after the sessions.

Additionally, a single interview with a training participant who took part in the programme is included to provide deeper insight into individual experience.

The findings are organised into two subsections. First, insights from stakeholder interviews are summarised to provide context on programme implementation, delivery, and perceived value. Second, the results of in-person and online training participant surveys are analysed to assess the impact of the training on knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and intended changes in practice.

Stakeholder interview findings

The following sections summarise insights gathered from semi-structured interviews conducted with key stakeholders involved in the design, delivery, and oversight of the Phase 2 Building Capacity in the Safe System programme. These stakeholders included representatives from Transport Scotland and the contracted provider, Agilysis. Their reflections provide a deeper understanding of how the programme was implemented, the perceived effectiveness of different components, the experiences of participants, and lessons learned for future delivery. These perspectives complement survey data (presented in section 4.2) by offering a behind-the-scenes view of the programme's successes, challenges, and strategic value.

Training programme delivery and implementation

The delivery of the training programme was widely viewed as a success by both Agilysis and Transport Scotland. From a logistical standpoint, Transport Scotland took the lead in organising venues, prioritising delegate participation, and ensuring broad sector engagement. The Agilysis delivery team reported that “All of that groundwork was handled really well” by Transport Scotland, which they considered to be instrumental in securing high levels of interest and attendance from training participants.

Both parties acknowledged the high demand for training. Agilysis commented on the ‘push and pull’ nature of demand, generated by Transport Scotland’s promotion and a strong desire for professional development across Scotland’s road safety sector. The proactive promotion of the training by Transport Scotland was described as being central to its success: “Transport Scotland have really been pushing it through”, with the delivery team agreeing that this had been essential for generating significant uptake, with “some pretty impressive numbers from a country the size of Scotland”. It was also noted that there was significant demand for training coming from local authorities and other agencies: “because local authorities have had so little to spend on training recently…we found a cohort of people who are actually really hungry for training and development as well”. Transport Scotland echoed this highlighting that “The training was really sought after, even more than we anticipated” with 32 local authorities, blue light colleagues and operating companies wanting to attend. Transport Scotland were very appreciative of how “the project team were really accommodating” in their design and delivery of the training.

In-person delivery of the Safe System Foundation course saw particularly strong take-up, with some events requiring duplicate sessions in parallel due to demand, especially in Edinburgh. To accommodate demand, Agilysis scaled their delivery: “We ended up running double...we had four courses in a week instead of two, so we had parallel rooms running because there were just so many people who wanted to attend”, bringing additional trainers to Scotland to do so. This was appreciated by Transport Scotland who described how the Agilysis team “really went above and beyond” to deliver for the training demand.

Agilysis outlined how they adapted to fluctuating demand by “increas[ing] the resilience in the team by bringing new people in” scaling delivery capacity and adjusting the team structure to build resilience. This flexibility proved vital when team members were unexpectedly unavailable. Trainers reported that room layout and environmental factors impacted the quality of engagement, noting that smaller group tables facilitated more dynamic interaction compared to boardroom-style formats. Venue-related issues such as layout options and noise disruption were mitigated through responsive facilitation strategies: “We mixed up the training, increased the amount of changeovers between people who are presenting to try and keep it more dynamic”. The delivery team also noted that it was important to adjust the content slightly dependent on the cohort in the room, to ensure maximum engagement without affecting the fidelity of the training delivery: “All of the trainers are quite adept at kind of picking up what's going on in the room and adjusting content accordingly”. They also reported adapting the first day of theoretical content in particular in response to trainee engagement “to make sure that there’s enough interaction to keep people with us”, although stressed that the core content, aims and objectives remained the same. Transport Scotland explained that the delivery team took care to mix participants at tables, which was beneficial for the quality of the discussions.

Both Transport Scotland and Agilysis agreed that smaller, in-person sessions were preferable to online delivery. Agilysis stated that “The two-day in-person was much better attended than the virtual” and Transport Scotland noted that “it’s hard to get engagement from people online”, with the two sessions described as different as “night and day”, although it was recognised that the online sessions played an important role in securing engagement from, for instance “Unit heads that couldn’t dedicate attending a full day to the session”. Transport Scotland said engaging broader than traditional road safety roles was considered to be vitally important as “It’s not about what road safety can do for other areas. It’s all about what other areas can do for road safety as well”. This emphasised the importance of having the half-day online sessions alongside the in-person two day training courses, some of which Transport Scotland said Agilysis tailored “to meet the needs of the attendees…for example some of the sessions were quite heavily police or local authority focused”.

Training participant experience and perceived impact

Participants of the in-person training were reported by Transport Scotland and Agilysis to be highly receptive and engaged. Agilysis reflected that “I've delivered the same course elsewhere... it’s received very differently...much more of a defensive position...that’s testament to the groundwork that Transport Scotland have done in this space”. Transport Scotland echoed this, noting that the “training was discussed in lots of separate meetings that we weren’t at” which led to “stakeholders discussing it amongst themselves…it made the sessions even more popular as they went on” leading to more requests for training spaces, further increasing uptake.

Day one of the in-person training, characterised by more theoretical content, was acknowledged as harder going for some participants. However, the second day of training, which focused on scenario-based exercises, was repeatedly described as a ‘lightbulb moment’ for many. Agilysis explained that “We give them a bunch of scenarios...and that is the biggest lightbulb moment”. One police officer was described by Agilysis as having reflected emotionally on his past experience as “he realised that if he'd taken a more systemic to his approach in road policing over the last 15 years or so” that risks to road users might have been reduced. Transport Scotland reinforced this with an example from their senior leadership team who said: “It was actually the best session the Senior Management Team have had”. As the course progressed, Agilysis reflected that many participants moved from traditional paradigms to systems thinking: “Until we get to that main exercise, they can still be stuck in their silos...[and then they realise]I can't do this on my own, can I?” Across sectors, from road safety to active travel, participants were described by Transport Scotland as increasingly seeing the relevance of Safe System thinking in their work: “they're actually considering how they're going to embed the Safe System within these active travel schemes”.

Both Transport Scotland and Agilysis said that they thought participants benefitted from the mixed-cohort format, with cross-sector representation (e.g. engineers, fire officers, educators) enhancing dialogue and reinforcing the interdependent nature of Safe System thinking. The Agilysis trainers observed that delegates moved from discipline-specific assumptions toward recognising the need for collaboration across silos, “Having that mix of blue light services, engineers, educators…you could feel the difference in the room”. This was further supported by facilitation techniques that encouraged networking and systems-level reflection. Transport Scotland also carefully managed table placements to ensure cross-sector interaction by having “one person per table” from each organisation.

Transport Scotland praised the breakout exercises and delivery style: “It [was] not just death by presentation…there was quite a lot of breakout sessions and table discussions as well…the delivery of the training was the best aspect”. They reported that participants “before they even left the room after the training ended, were asking me if we [were going to] roll it out further”, with some asking for the slide deck to deliver internal training themselves. When asked about whether there was any specific lessons learned, or improvements to be made Transport Scotland noted that “there’s nothing that springs to mind that I would change now”, providing a strong endorsement from the client on how the training was delivered.

Safe System Manual development

Agilysis described the development of the Safe System Manual as a structured editorial process, guided by an extensive list of content topics and audience personas, “If you're a fire officer, here's your core content written in your language...if you're a director in a local authority, you've got content targeted at you”. Agilysis engaged both internal and external contributors, aligning content language and structure to the needs of various user groups. The manual’s structure was designed to ensure relevance and accessibility for diverse stakeholders. While Transport Scotland had not reviewed the final manual at the time of the interview, they expressed confidence in its development and described it as “greatly sought after” by road safety practitioners.

Platform selection for the manual was driven by a desire to avoid per-user licensing costs and ensure broad accessibility. The chosen system, Document360, was selected to support flexibility and long-term accessibility. It also includes AI-powered internal search, user role segmentation, and multimedia integration: “We want it to seem not like just a static manual, but a source of wisdom and information for professional practitioners” (Agilysis). Transport Scotland noted the importance of accessibility for screen readers and formats suitable for government publications as well as having the content updated when needed. The platform chosen was described by Agilysis as well positioned to serve as a dynamic and user-friendly resource that would support ongoing engagement well beyond the training period.

Both Transport Scotland and Agilysis agreed that the manual’s long-term value lies in its ability to complement training and support ongoing practice change. Agilysis described the manual as being an important legacy element of the project: “It will be the thing that encourages practitioners to continue to engage and explore...I think the training on its own is insufficient”. Transport Scotland stated that the manual “has been really sought after by road safety practitioners” and expressed that they “look[ed] forward to the feedback once [they] do roll it out”, viewing it as a crucial tool for helping to “embed the Safe System”.

Project coordination and communication

The delivery relationship between Transport Scotland and Agilysis was consistently described in positive terms. Transport Scotland characterised the partnership as low-maintenance and high-performing: “It’s all been very smooth…working with Agilysis is always really great”.  They also noted the value of continuity across phases “They've been working on the framework fund for years now…which has really helped as they know what's required on my end…it's been really great to work with them”.

Agilysis said project coordination in Phase 2 was characterised by a shift from frequent formal meetings to more fluid, trust-based communication. The longstanding relationship between the Agilysis team and Transport Scotland enabled streamlined interactions, with responsive communication cited as a strength. Agilysis describing the working style as “the kind of client relationship that you really enjoy working in”. Informal check-ins, conference-based engagement, and visible progress helped maintain alignment and confidence between the partners.

The maturity of the working relationship was described by both Transport Scotland and Agilysis as contributing to the smooth delivery of project components and reflected a move from initial scoping and engagement activities (Phase 1) to a more delivery-focused model in Phase 2.

Reflections on programme outcomes

Agilysis reflected that the combination of theoretical learning, interactive exercises, and practical applications applied within the in-person training successfully supported capacity-building aims. The two-day course was described as important for achieving this, as one-day courses were considered too compressed in comparison because “You don’t have enough time for reflection. You aren’t really able to lead people to that sort of moment of self-discovery…whereas 2 days gives you the breathing space to do that”. Transport Scotland strongly agreed, calling the programme “an important project…[which] Scotland has been pioneering…we really want to get it right”. Agilysis also noted that “A foundational training programme shouldn't be the end of the picture. There will be the need for more”.

Together, the training and manual development were seen as complementary elements by both Transport Scotland and Agilysis. Agilysis said “It's interesting because the two-day course is intense, but at the end of it, people say I've got to work out what I'm going to do in my day job as a consequence of this, I've got some ideas of how I might work differently, but having some further help would be good. And that's when we kind of have these conversations [and say] this manual will be coming and it will give you some real pointers on what it means for your day job”. Consequently, the manual was described by the Agilysis team as “the really big legacy…in a positive sense”, given its vital role in sustaining the shift in mindset initiated by training and providing ongoing guidance for daily practice.

The delivery team also highlighted Scotland’s unique road safety landscape, particularly the political and institutional support that underpinned the programme, as a critical success factor: “I think the whole programme is a message to the sector that this is something that we really value and it's massively important”. It was also highlighted that the consistent messaging from ministers, senior officials, and Transport Scotland staff reinforced the programme’s importance and encouraged broad buy-in: “I think it's sends a really clear message to practitioners in road safety in Scotland…that it's an ambitious programme…we value what you're doing…we want to support you and therefore we're not just going to say this is the safety framework, go away and deliver it for us. How can we, you know, upskill you, give you the tools that you require in order to do this properly”. Transport Scotland reinforced this ambition by stating: “We went out there and funded this for our road safety practitioners…we want to try and educate as many road safety practitioners on the Safe System as we possibly can”.

Agilysis also suggested that the programme approach could serve as a best practice model for other jurisdictions, “Training and good quality guidance is a very desirable thing to for Scotland to have and I'm hopeful that a lot of other road authorities will see that it is something that is worth investing in”. However, it was also recognising that there is “a way of working in Scotland, that we probably don’t see in other places”. Transport Scotland also expressed pride in how Scotland has been, and continues to showcase this model Internationally, “At the Global Ministerial Conference in Marrakech we could say that we've been pioneering Safe System delivery and training”. Ultimately the leadership, enthusiasm and energy demonstrated by the Transport Scotland team, “coupled with the fact they know they’ve got political backing to do it” and “the fact that they are increasing their road safety funding year-on-year” was described by Agilysis as absolutely mission critical for securing ongoing engagement, support and results from this programme of work. Both Transport Scotland and Agilysis noted that the real impact will be evident in how the training translates into practice. Transport Scotland reported that it is committed to following up the work through its three-tiered governance structure and intends to ask, going forward: “What are you doing differently to incorporate the Safe System into your schemes?”.

Suggestions for future programmes

Reflections from both the client and contractor of this programme of work yielded a shared set of forward-looking recommendations:

Retain the two-day format for training

• This structure was recognised as allowing sufficient time for reflection, cross-sector learning, and transformational thinking, which shorter formats could not replicate.

Continue mixed-cohort delivery

• The benefits of multi-professional participation were repeatedly emphasised, suggesting future programmes should seek to replicate or expand this format.

Further roll-out based on evaluation results

• Transport Scotland expressed willingness to fund more training if the evaluation demonstrates success and funding continued to be available.

Build on the Safe System Manual

• While the manual is a foundational resource, Agilysis suggested that further training or thematic deep-dives (e.g., engineering-specific modules) could extend impact and reinforce learning. Both Transport Scotland and Agilysis described the manual as a long-term anchor for cultural and operational change.

Maintain and extend manual platform capabilities

• The knowledge management system should continue to evolve based on user feedback and emerging needs, preserving its relevance and accessibility.

Leverage and share Scotland’s collaborative model

• The trust-based, cross-organisational approach adopted in this programme was cited as exemplary. Future efforts should reinforce this model and explore ways to cascade training and engagement across partner organisations and to share the programme as an exemplar that others can learn from.

Together, these recommendations reflect a vision for sustaining and scaling Safe System capacity building across Scotland. They highlight a commitment not only to maintaining the quality and structure of the existing programme, but also to evolving it in response to participant feedback, sectoral needs, and emerging challenges. Importantly, the emphasis on mixed-cohort learning, knowledge-sharing platforms, and long-term cultural change points to a maturing approach, one that sees Safe System implementation not as a one-off intervention, but as an ongoing, adaptive journey. By embedding these recommendations into future programme planning, Scotland is well-positioned to consolidate its leadership in systems-based road safety transformation.