Delay: Do standards introduce delay? Not really. But poor planning does. Addressing standards at the end of a project, not the start, causes both delay and cost. Good planning addresses these factors at the start.
This assumes all project engineers are well informed about standards. If this assumption is incorrect, then RSSB may have a role to play with its members and the professional institutions in raising and sustaining the awareness.
Of course, all the foregoing refers to project delays. ‘Delay’ for the rail professional instantly brings performance to mind. Standards for degraded mode avoid the need for risk assessment, using agreed best practice to resume normal operation, thus saving time and not increasing delay.
However, the performance levels today are far below plan and expectation. Proposals from ATOC, Network Rail, the National Task Force or any quarter would be given a high priority for standard review.
Cost: Standards exist to promote both safety and efficiency. In passing, the considerable benefits of standards should not be ignored. This is not just the safety performance of the railway, but the substantial savings realised by industry in establishing a co-operative approach.
Each duty holder has obligations to assess and manage risk. That some of these obligations can be managed by reference to standards is a significant benefit - both in terms of cost and of the improved outcomes based upon shared knowledge and experience.
The challenge on cost comes from the criticisms cited in Panel 1 - allegations of over-specification for rural routes, standards lagging technology, and risk-averse specification.
In relation to scope, undoubtedly many examples will fall within infrastructure. It can be easier to apply the standard rather than do the work to justify deviation, especially with many competing priorities for the skilled engineering resources that make such judgements. Compliance with an existing standard can be the easier option.
But there are trade-offs, too. Every deviation adds to complexity - different maintenance requirements, perhaps lower interoperability for freight, different equipment requiring competencies and training.
Some costs are self-evident, but many are hidden. Undoubtedly the critique focuses on the transparent costs of specification and installation, and not always the hidden costs of whole life and whole system perspective. Duty holders manage these trade-offs for their own standards, or can seek a deviation from RGS when required.
The Industry Standards Group report noted: “Through the investigation, it quickly became clear that much of the inefficiency was not caused by British, European or other International Standards themselves, but by how these were interpreted by different clients.”
So, for this first group of issues, there is more myth than reality. Standards do not fundamentally stifle innovation, introduce delay or increase cost. In fact, in most cases the reverse is true (provided, of course, that the frameworks and processes are effectively applied).
Framework: When critiquing standards, what lies behind much of the criticism is the suggestion that the wrong judgement has been made by the committee approving the standard - whether at ERA, RSSB or company level.
At RSSB, the requirement to take a holistic approach is built into the committees’ rules for decision-making, balancing risk and economy within the parameters laid down by law. This raises the question: are standards too risk-averse for today’s railway? Do we require crashworthiness in one of Europe’s safest railways?
But some finite risks remain. It has to be for the duty holders to inform judgement based upon evidence and experience, although there is undoubtedly a role for RSSB to provide challenge and thought leadership for system thinking. Where there are potential cost savings, then the industry should not hesitate to raise them. It has to be for those who use the standards to see the opportunity.
Process: The other major critique is that standards review is too slow. With continuing technological change, it is essential that standards keep up to date at all levels.
Nowhere is this more true than new systems (ETCS, for example), but it applies to all standards. It can be faster. Inevitably there is a trade-off (set by the industry) of the frequency of change versus the speed to implement - miss a deadline, and a new standard can be delayed by three months until the next issue arises.
Using modern collaboration tools and new ideas will help. Just as importantly, refreshing the technical skills base that informs the judgements is essential. RSSB can play a key role in all these aspects. A faster review process to issue new standards will always help, but is not the core issue at the heart of standards critique.
The Industry Standards Group report made four recommendations, summarised as:
- 1 Define outcomes, not inputs: Clients should clearly define their performance and output requirements, and structure their specifications and standards to support this objective.
- 2 Enable standard assets, not asset standards: Different standards and specifications (or different interpretations of the same standard) that apply to the same asset class is uneconomic, and can act as a barrier to standardisation.
- 3 Empower industry to challenge and innovate: Clients should seize the opportunity to empower their supply chains in the early stages of projects - especially the procurement phase - by ensuring their requirements are clear, accessible and promote innovation.
- 4 Measure benefits to drive continuous improvement: Client bodies should introduce a requirement in their in-house standards development process to demonstrate clear value for money in introducing new standards.
These remain as true today. As chief executive of RSSB, I am an advocate of standards… an advocate for their role for reliability and efficiency, making a safer railway. It is all too easy to perceive a cost of standards and miss the significant benefits in safety and economy in the system. But I am not an advocate of status quo. RSSB is committed to supporting continuing improvement in the development and application of standards. Much work by RSSB (working with the industry) on alignment and simplification has already been achieved, but much more is planned.
To do this we need the full support of industry. Mention standards, and the eyes glaze over. But as standards impact directly on safety and efficiency, this is neither sustainable nor desirable.
Do standards receive the attention they require in each and every railway undertaking? Are standards on the agenda? Do you know who represents the sectors’ perspective on committees?
While standards are too often seen as an obstacle to efficiency, rather than a tool to achieve both safety and efficiency, they tend not to receive the attention they need. Companies have duties to fulfil and a role to play. Working together, we can ensure standards play their part in making a better railway.
