Option 30 Report
4 Options for Optimal Delivery Structures
The need to review delivery arrangements is being recognised by a number of roads authorities as are the financial challenges arising from budgetary pressures.
In considering potential options for change it is important to identify objectives and associated assessment criteria for the assessment process. This allows options which have been developed to be assessed in a consistent way which complies with guidance on public sector reform.
Objectives were identified as part of the assessment process for a range of options for delivery structures taking account of the Christie Commission Report and are detailed below:
- To empower individuals & communities in the delivery of road services
- To have a more efficient outcome-focused road service
- To achieve improvements in road service provision
- To have sustainable roads services & behaviours.
These objectives help set the essential outcomes required for any potential change scenarios and help to identify a range of options that may be able to deliver them.
In deriving these objectives, cognisance was also taken of the:
- The National Roads Maintenance Review Phases 1 and 2
- Recommendations from the Audit Scotland follow up report, Maintaining Scotland's Roads, February 2011
- Christie Commission Principles and Criteria
- HM Treasury's Guide to Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (The Green Book)
- Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance.
A methodology was developed to allow a rigorous qualitative assessment of generic options, building on the high level objectives outlined above. The methodology was developed with particular reference to the work of the Christie Commission covering matters such as social and economic wellbeing, accountability and the wider public sector reform. It also considered feedback from the Working Group and extracts from the provided COSLA manifesto as well as an awareness of single outcome agreements developed by Community Planning Partnerships.
The assessment criteria are outcome focussed and were subject to rigorous review. The methodology has been based around seven headings, of equal importance, outlined below.
Social and economic wellbeing
- To achieve improved outcomes for Scotland's people and communities through the delivery of roads services:
- Address needs of people and communities
- Tackle inequality and promote equality
- Accessibility
- Safety
- Resilience
Affordability
- To be affordable and sustainable within anticipated available budgets:
- Upfront (set-up) costs
- Ongoing revenue costs
- Downstream efficiency opportunities
Accountability
- To have appropriate arrangements for services to be accountable to local people and communities through:
- Governance structures operating at a local level
- Local democratic accountability
- Public facing service delivery
- Ability to deploy funding at a local level
- Improve transparency over plans, expenditure and performance
Implementation
- To appraise moving from current roads service delivery to an alternative model:
- Viability of moving to an alternative model
- Issues associated with current legislation or existing contracting and management approaches
- Ability to introduce new contracting approaches to increase flexible working and framework agreements
- Ability to maintain service delivery at a national or local level during any transition period
Ability to Deliver
- To appraise the ability of an alternative model to provide an improved roads service:
- Opportunities for joint collaboration, working arrangements, and operational collaboration between road authorities
- Scope to introduce integrated service arrangements within local authorities
- Scope to introduce shared services across consortia of roads authorities
- Opportunity for empowerment of front-line staff
- Encourage services to pursue preventative approaches
Sustainability
- Sustainability of the service and the environment:
- Achieving critical mass of resources
- Fostering strategic & local knowledge
- Promoting training & career development
- Encouraging environmentally sustainable behaviours
Public sector reform
- Links to other public sector reform:
- Service delivery consistent with and supportive of the wider reform and improvement of public services.
The Review Steering Group was engaged in the development of this methodology. COSLA leaders have endorsed the methodology and its use in the assessment of the options.
In addition, as part of this exercise potential risks and issues associated with each of the assessment criteria were identified, a summary of which is presented in Appendix D.
The project brief identified five high level generic options for roads service delivery:
- A - Current arrangements
- B - Structural change
- C - Shared services
- D - Combination of structural change and shared services
- E - A new means of delivery based on UK or international best practice.
Options were developed at various workshops and meetings by the Task Group.
For Option A, current arrangements (baseline position), the information received in the questionnaire returns was analysed and confirmed that there are different service delivery models in place across Scotland and change initiatives being pursued by a number of roads authorities.
In considering Options B (structural change) and C (shared services) a number of potential delivery models emerged as shown in Figure 4.3. It is assumed that structural change represents the merger of two or more local or trunk roads authorities to form a new roads authority while shared services represents the creation of shared services delivery models across two or more local or trunk roads authorities or within a local authority with other services.
Figure 4.3
For Option D, a combination of structural change and shared services, it was not feasible in this report to consider specific options until Options B and C are further developed.
For Option E a wide ranging research of delivery models across the UK, Europe and Australia, was undertaken in order to assess current practices elsewhere and their possible relevance to this study (see Appendix E for a summary of research).
In taking forward their study the Task Group met with a number of partners' representatives to inform further the option generation process as detailed below:
- SCOTS views of delivery options as well as current developments within three roads authorities in Ayrshire - Chair of SCOTS Resources Committee & East Ayrshire Council
- North Lanarkshire Council's Limited Liability Partnership - Head of Roads and Transportation
- Tayside Contracts and recent developments in client maintenance - Executive Director, Perth & Kinross Council
- Transport Scotland current and future contractual arrangements for trunk road network - Head of Network Maintenance.
The options identified are considered generic, transferable across authorities and not mutually exclusive.
The options are explained in the following paragraphs.
4.3.1 Option A - Current Arrangements (baseline)
The questionnaire responses received have contributed to a level of understanding as to how roads services are currently delivered across Scotland. What can be ascertained from professional judgement and reviewing the questionnaire returns is the existence of drivers for change and the requirement for existing services to exercise flexibility in considering future service delivery. In particular, authorities face funding challenges through reducing budgets and a deteriorating roads condition. The wider economic climate indicates a need for "best value" from existing funding and possible reduced funding availability in the future.
These factors reflect those raised by Audit Scotland in their follow up report of 2011.
In view of the above, it is recognised that keeping to the current arrangements is unlikely to be sustainable for roads authorities. There are examples of some roads authorities already implementing or seeking to implement change to current delivery models, such as the three Ayrshire Councils (investigating the provision of shared services through a complete roads service), Glasgow City Council (integrating their roads services with other service provision) and Perth & Kinross Council (combined its client maintenance with contracting works under Tayside Contracts).
4.3.2 Option B - Structural Change (new roads authorities)
Structural change has been considered as the provision of a complete roads service through a merger of roads authorities. Sub-options generated under this category incorporate reform of the current structure of road authorities, and would require changes to current governance and management arrangements underpinned by legislative change. These would include the creation of a single national roads authority covering the current duties of both the trunk roads authority and all the local roads authorities; the creation of a number of regional road authorities covering the same duties; or the integration of responsibility for trunk roads with local authorities' existing responsibility for local roads.
The sub-options identified and taken forward for assessment against objectives and assessment criteria are detailed below:
Local
B1a Existing local roads authority with all trunk roads in their area
B1b Existing local roads authority including certain4 trunk roads in their area.
Regional
B2a New roads authority covering two or more Council areas for local roads by agreement
B2b New roads authority covering two or more Council areas including local and certain5 trunk roads by agreement
B2c New roads authority covering two or more Council areas including both local and all trunk roads by agreement.
B3a New regional roads authorities across Scotland for local roads
B3b New regional roads authorities across Scotland for trunk roads
B3c New regional roads authorities across Scotland for local and trunk roads.
National
B4a New national roads authority with a single HQ
B4b New national roads authority with regional/local hubs.
4.3.3 Option C - Shared Services
Sub-options generated under this category could involve the integration of roads services with other services within a local authority as well as the creation of shared service arrangements between local authorities and/or the trunk roads authority. These arrangements could range from two or more roads authorities agreeing to specific collaborative arrangements for a range of maintenance works, specialist services or equipment, through to a single roads service. Another sub option could be to deliver roads strategies and policies pan Scotland.
The options identified and taken forward for assessment against objectives and assessment criteria are detailed below:
Local
C1 A roads service combined with other local authority services6 .
Regional
C2a Shared services for a limited or wider range of maintenance works with other local and trunk roads authorities
C2b Shared services for a limited or wider range of specialist works with other local and trunk roads authorities
C2c Shared services for a limited or wider range of professional services with other local and trunk roads authorities
C2d Shared services for a complete roads service with other local roads authorities
C2e Shared services for a complete roads service with other local roads authorities and trunk roads.
National
C3 Shared services for roads policy or strategies across Scotland with local and trunk roads authorities.
Service areas that could be potentially integrated at a national level include for example policy or strategies for roads, winter gritting, road safety, cycling, roads development guidelines, asset management methodology, flooding, environment, traffic control, procurement, framework agreements for works and services and major emergencies.
4.3.4 Option D (combination of Options B & C)
The combination of structural change and shared services options has not been considered further at this stage. It is recommended that any potential combinations be fully considered once specific roads service delivery options have been generated by roads authorities.
4.3.5 Option E (a wholly new means of roads maintenance delivery)
In consideration of Option E a wide ranging research of delivery models across the UK, Europe and Australia, was undertaken in order to assess current practices elsewhere and their possible relevance. Although there were no distinct models identified which had not already been included in Option B or C (see Appendix E for summary of research) further research work should be undertaken.