Lean efficiencies and case studies

M4 automatic site control barriers

Recognise

The existing barrier system requires a PVM to be available to open and close the gate while any works are carried out.

To add to this, the PVM’s are sometimes targeted by members of the public who want to gain access to the area, and occasionally consider that they are being blocked unreasonably.

Define

Current processes requires a person at each barrier to check people trying to enter the site are authorised.

Business case 

To reduce the number of people required from 1 to 0 at each barrier, by use of automated barriers that can be set to open automatically to authorised personnel or to alert the Ganger that someone is requesting entry to the secure.

Stakeholder benefits

Reduction in Labour Costs
Reduced incursions to site by members of the public – the public seem less inclined to pass an unmanned barrier, when there is no opportunity for interaction or discussion with the site team.

Deliverables 

Introduce Automated Barriers resulting in a reduction in labour costs.

Success criteria

Cost saving to the project
No reports of unauthorised personal within secure areas of the site

Measure

At the start, the M4 project was using manual barriers requiring one person to be employed to manage each person.

Replacing each manned barrier with an automated barrier has resulted in a saving of £2.15m

Analysis

• This change will make the following difference to the M4 J3-12 SMP
• Potential cost saving of 0.36% of total project costs
• Potential 12.94% reduction in labour requirements

Improve

Replace Manned Barriers with Automated Barriers throughout the project reducing labour requirements on the project.

Control

This project has been delivered to the M4 and the efficiency saving calculated to the end of the project.

Control will be monitored by recording any future incursions, damage to the barriers, issues reported by both the on-site workforce and our supervisors, engineers, health & Safety team, client etc, who need to access site regularly or
infrequently during the remainder of the project.

Management, changes and action will be taken should the situation arise.

Transfer

A cost Benefit Analysis is available to demonstrate how the saving figure was established.

This would be easy to transfer to other projects.

Benefits summary

• Cash Saving to the project of £2.15m
• This saving is 0.36% of the anticipated total project cost
• This saving represents a reduction of labour by 12.94%

M23 prefabricated concrete modular block wall

Recognise

The M23 junction 8-10 Smart Motorway team needed to design retaining systems to support the existing verge embankments when creating the space required for new Smart Motorway Infrastructure including Emergency Areas, Technology Sites and Gantry Sign Bases. The team wanted to find a solution that gave good value for money whilst simplifying the buildability during the construction of these works.

Define

From the outset our team wanted to look at new retaining methods not currently used on National Highways schemes. It would have been easy to just do what others have done for years, but sometimes finding a better way means trying something different.

Stakeholders

• National Highways
• Kier
• Jacob Atkins JV (JAJV)
• Supply Chain Partners
• Road Users

Deliverables

• A retaining wall system for embankments

Benefits

• Improvement helps team deliver to programme
• Improvement aids safer working practices
• Improvement aids quality
• Improvement has environmental benefits

Success criteria

• Retaining wall construction does not adversely impact the overall programme
• National Highways delighted

Measure

The Kier JAJV team worked together collaboratively to assess a number of available methods against the M23 junction 8-10 verge retaining requirements This included sheet pile options, bored pile walls, modular block walls and gabion walls A Structures Options Report and Geotechnical Options Assessment, reviewed the technical, environmental, operational and logistical implications of procuring, handling and installing the completed systems. A cost comparison took account of material cost, temporary works, plant and the number of working phases required to install.

Analyse

Transfer

Now that the system has gained approval from the Highway Authorities Product Approval Scheme for use on UK highways, it is an option for all future schemes to assess against more traditional sheet piling or bored piling retaining solutions.

Improve

Prefabricated concrete Redi RockTM supplied by Marshalls CPM were chosen as the preferred solution, with the blocks stacked to form a gravity wall.

The units are precast concrete blocks of varying size which lock together by the mechanical keying of domes and grooves. They are BBA approved, CE Marked, are British Kitemarked by PAS 68 certification and have design life of 120 years.

Blocks typically weigh a tonne and are craned into position using a cast in lifting loop. They are non-grouted, dry placed, and the units decrease in depth higher up the wall whilst the front block face remains the same size. By setting each block back a slight rearward lean is produced which enhances the retaining structure’s stability.

Sockets for a galvanised Keyclamp guardrail were cast into the coping blocks and guardrail uprights fixed before lifting into place.

Benefit summary

Relative to the conventional SMP hierarchy Redi Rock TM MBRW’s will save the SMP over £12m in direct comparison and are recorded on National Highways' Efficiency Registers which are independently audited.

Additional programme savings from reducing conflicting operations on site at are evident and once fully assessed at scheme completion, these benefits will make the financial case for the modular blocks even more compelling.

Installation has been quick and simple slotting into each other similar to Lego, and whilst these units have been installed by Kier’s own workforce without the requirement for specialist equipment or specialist labour there have been no safety incidents or near misses involving them.

Redi-rock includes 25% recycled product, is laid dry without additional cement products, foundations are minimal, the blocks are not reinforced with steel and installation is by use of a single small crane.

The walls can be demounted as easily as they are erected and therefore possible to re-use the blocks or alter a wall if required.

Permit to dig improvements

Recognise

A Permit to Dig is produced when there is a requirement to dig on a project, on average there are 656 permits raised monthly. This process is long, and paper based, leaving room for error and for information to go missing. A Smart Permit to Dig (SPtD) system has been developed by the A14 IDT and focuses on improving the main failures of the previous system while looking at the prevention of service strikes and promotion of Health and Safety.

Define

Purpose

Review of Permit to Dig system
Establish causes of service strikes
Understand reasons for the service strikes
Develop system to reduce service strikes

Deliverables

Confidence in the Permit to Dig process
Report on service strikes for A14
Data analysis, baselining current situation
Improvement options including changes to process
Analysis of improvement and impact on service strikes

Stakeholder benefits

Improved safety of workforce
Reduced impact of service outages on customers
Reduction in cost of dealing with service strikes Programme improvement for critical operations affected by services

Success criteria

Reduced incidence of service strikes
Improved safety record for project
Greater adherence to safe working procedures
Greater standardisation across the project

Measure

A time and motion study was conducted and it was calculated that it took an average of 4 hours 31 minutes to complete a permit.

Analyse

4,592 permits produced over a seven-month period – average of 656 a month.

Improve

Introduction of new digitalised smart permit to Dig system. Focusing on improving the main failures of the previous system while looking at the prevention of service strikes and promotion of Health and Safety. New average turn-around of permit is 1 hour and 10 minutes.

Control

• Automated database and Permit Register
• Electronic notifications to Permit Coordinators, Permit Raisers and Environmental and Archaeology
  departments
• Form Validation and restrictions for improved quality
• Authorisation and access rights controlled
• Compulsory to use with regular training and updates

Transfer

Knowledge Transfer Pack stored on project and National Highways Lean Tracker.

Technical surveys

Recognise

For the Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) Tranche 5 (TMTii38) and Tranche 6 (TMTii46) technical surveys, the concept of increasing survey productivity in a single shift was considered, researched and promoted. The approach was based on capturing all highways asset data in one shift covering 4km. This included drainage, topographical (site clearing), coring, and deflectograph surveys. This approach would have safety, customer and delivery benefits.

Define

Purpose

To increase productivity when undertaking technical surveys for Smart Motorway Projects.

Deliverables

Increased productivity for technical surveys

Stakeholder benefits

Carnell: increased productivity making better use of our resources.

National Highways: efficiency savings contributing to KPI
target; quicker access to asset information to allow more effective decision making.

Customer: reduced roadworks bringing increased journey time reliability.

MP Designer: faster survey information to inform the design process bringing design programme time savings.

Success criteria

Efficiency savings calculated and delivered.

The following sections of the highways network were surveyed using this approach:

SMP Tranche 5

• M25 Junction 10-16 (24.1 km) – April 2018
• M62 Junction 20-25 (31.9 km) – January 2018
• M40/M42 Interchange (11.5 km) – March 2018
• A1 Junction 6-8 (13.4 km) – February 2018

SMP Tranche 6

• M1 J35a-J39 (22.2 km) – September 2018
• M1 J19-J23a (54.0 km) – August 2018
• M42 J0-J3 & M5 J4A-J4 (17.7 km) – August/September 2018

Measure

With a conventional drainage survey, we would use 2 survey teams (2 x CCTV, 2 x GPS, 2 x Jetting Units), and these generally cover 800 – 1000m a shift.

Both carriageways of the scheme length need to be surveyed i.e. two verge lengths and one central reservation length. As an example, the M25 Junction 10-16 was 24.1km (24,100m) in length, so total survey length for both verges and central reservation would be 24,100 x 3 = 72,300m. Based on the conventional survey approach of c.1000m per shift using 2 survey teams this would take 72,300/1000 = 72 shifts.

Analyse

We analysed the existing conventional approach and identified process waste within the survey value stream using TIM WOODS to pin-point waste.

Transportation

The existing approach has unnecessary transportation of equipment, tools and people to/from site through not maximising work within single closures, therefore requiring more closures overall. This unnecessary transportation also leads to increased fuel usage and increased wear and tear on equipment.

Inventory

The existing approach sees a longer lag time on inventory (survey data) before this is processed and available for design teams (customers) to progress design work i.e. the inventory sits with us for longer than it has to.

Waiting

Waiting to complete survey data, with less productivity per shift based on less survey teams and equipment than could be accommodated within the footprint of the traffic management closures. Ultimately leads to longer time for product to reach customers.

Skills

By using less survey teams, we have spare capacity, or non-utilised talent (skills) i.e. we can increase our utilisation of owned or hired people and equipment by maximising use within traffic management closures.

Improve

The smart approach using multiple survey teams enabled 4000m to be surveyed each shift making effective use of traffic management, so on the example survey on the M25 Junction 10-16 survey length of 24.1km, the shifts needed were:

Clockwise verge: 24100/4000 = 6 shifts (using 8 x CCTV, 4 x Jetting Units, 4 x GPS)
Anti-clockwise verge: 24100/4000 = 6 shifts (using 8 x CCTV, 4 x Jetting Units, 4 x GPS)
Central reservation: 24100/4000 = 6 shifts (using 8 x CCTV, 4 x Jetting Units, 4 x GPS)

This equates to a total of 18 shifts.

The shift saving (conventional to smart) is 72-18 = 54 shifts.

The efficiency saving is the cost of saving 54 shifts of traffic management minus the additional cost of increased survey resource each shift.

Control

This lean intervention has been controlled by ensuring we retain and maintain the resource capacity to deliver this approach in the future, where multiple survey teams and units are required.

We have shared the approach with our Water Management Division to ensure that where opportunities arise in the future, this multi-benefit lean approach can be promoted to clients.

Transfer

This improvement has been highlighted across the wider Smart Motorway Programme by the teams involved.

The National Highways Efficiencies (Commercial Intelligence) Team involved in assuring the Efficiency value as part of National Highways' RIS1 KPI target advised that “this efficiency will be added to our list of top efficiencies and redistributed to all schemes, PELs and through the monthly efficiency updates".

Benefit summary

Resources: Although the new approach required an increase in resource capacity for a single shift i.e. additional survey teams, jetting units, CCTV units, and GPS equipment, Carnell had access to the enhanced resource levels which enabled increased utilisation of plant and equipment.

Efficiency saving: Based on the estimated 54 shifts saved on the M25 Junction 10-16 scheme, and projecting this saving over the other six sections surveying using this lean approach, it is estimated that an efficiency saving of £1,638,086 has been generated. This efficiency saving was reviewed and assured by National Highways Efficiency (Commercial Intelligence) Team.

Customer experience: The new approach delivered a 75% reduction in the number of shifts required to complete the survey work. That represents a 75% reduction in the number of traffic management closures required. In total across the 7 sections, it is estimated that this approach saved 392 shifts of traffic management and therefore 392 nights of disruption for customers. Using webtris daily traffic flow data, it is estimated that this approach has resulted in 6.5 million customers (road-users) not experiencing roadworks (based on traffic flows between 20:00 and 06:00hrs). This makes a significant contribution to improving customer satisfaction, firstly through less roadworks, and secondly by customers being able to observe more work being done in each roadworks closure i.e. when they do pass roadworks, they can see plenty of activity taking place.

Design: The SMP design teams were able to access survey information faster, allowing designs to be completed in less time, and avoiding the risk of any abortive design work based on assumptions rather than technical survey data.

MS4 accessible gantry standardisation

Recognise

The SMP over the coming years has identified that hundreds of gantries will be required for the programme. The majority of these will be accessible cantilever MS4 gantries, which should in theory be identical across the SMP. Currently, all gantries are designed as bespoke to each scheme and previous standard designs (MCX) have become obsolete and have not been updated. Currently, ITS equipment is installed on gantries on site after erection of the steel superstructure, adding cost and health and safety issues which could be eliminated.

Define

Problem statement

How to introduce efficiencies into the design of gantries through standardisation and the removal of waste.

Purpose

Standardised gantry designs to enable standardised fabrication of steel superstructures and subsequent fitting of ITS equipment at source. Design once, use often. One solution for all occasions.

Benefits

The benefits to us and the supply chain are:

• reduced design costs
• reduced fabrication costs
• standardised erection methods
• programme and safety benefits

Deliverables

Standard details, drawings, models etc for each standardised gantry type which could be adopted on all other schemes across the SMP.

Associated guidance documents to explain use on schemes.

Contract works information for standardised fabrication and technical assurance compliance.

Success criteria

Success will be defined as:

• use of standard designs for multiple schemes.
• demonstration of cost saving from standardised fabrication and erection procedures.
• demonstration of programme and safety benefits of fitting ITS equipment at source.
• project programme met or improved.

Measure

Baseline: Current costs of each MS4 gantry location - £50,000 (provided by SMP team).

These costs are based on bespoke design and fabrication information for each scheme.

Analyse

We've developed technical optimisation of the accessible MS4 gantry design, ie minimising materials and cost while achieving a safe design.

Liaised with fabricators and asset maintainers to understand optimum layout arrangements and detailing.

Gained an understanding and agreement of technical assurance processes required for standardised use across multiple schemes. Lessons learned for other standard 'products'

Agreement on procurement strategy for inclusion of these gantries in multiple schemes.

Future design variants are being developed for fitting CCTV cameras etc.

Improve

Implementing SMP Programme Instruction and reflecting improvements over the 3 no tranches in RIS2 will:

• Reduce the number of bespoke designs for gantries on future SMP schemes.
• Facilitate standardised fabrication and erection procedures.
• Influence the design of other disciplines to enable standardised gantry components, e.g. VRS, drainage and comms in verges

Control

Production of a set of standard design drawings, models, details to cover applications across all SMP schemes (similar to old MCX HCD drawings).

Production of model Works Information documents and technical assurance documents

Production of an accompanying set of rules and design parameters within which these designs can
be re-used and the structural design remains valid.

Production of implementation procedures and addition to the SMP Design Guide.

Transfer

Major Projects have issued a Programme Instruction No. 040

SMP Design Guide – includes reference to standard MS4 gantry superstructure design within Annex E2.03 for New Gantries version 4

SMP Structures Peer to Peer Group – sharing information and getting feedback

Operations Directorate (SW Region) team using this standard design for their M5 scheme

Uploaded on the National Highways Lean Tracker and shared more widely with National Highways and supply chain partners

Benefit summary

Expected benefits:

• Design once, use many times
• Reduced design costs
• Reduced fabrication costs
• Standardised erection methods
• Programme & safety benefits
• Better knowledge of the asset in the future for maintenance – standardised asset

Expected cost benefits per location (provided by SMP team):

• £3000 for design process, £5000 of fabrication costs, £5000 for “production line” approach
• Total approx. £13,000
• Assuming approx. 200 sites across RIS 2 schemes and £100k development costs, this gives a net cost
  benefit to SMP of £2.5M

Potential future benefit opportunities include:

• Combining CCTV camera mountings to remove need for separate support structures (design variant
  in progress)
• Use of bulk purchase methods for procurement of the gantry superstructures
• Ease of reuse in different locations due to standard design parameters applicable nationally

Great crested newts survey method

Recognise

Seventy ponds were identified within 500m of the M62 junction 10-12 SMP scheme. Each pond has a risk of presence of great crested newts (GCN), which are protected. There is an unlimited penalty and risk of reputational damage if a GCN is harmed or by undertaking unlicensed activities.

A habitat survey index had ruled out GCN presence in 55 of the ponds. For the remaining 15 ponds the current method is to use a bottle trap technique to check ponds for the presence of GCNs. This is time consuming as the trapping method must be repeated four times with waiting periods in-between as directed by Natural England. The time-consuming activity is a risk to programme commencement. There are also both seasonal and temperature restrictions on when GCN trapping can be carried out.

Define

Purpose

• To identify the presence of GCNs, a survey has to be undertaken. This aims to improve this process.
• To reduce the amount of time to verify whether a population survey of GCNs is required.
• To improve reliability of survey.

Deliverables

• DNA samples of pond water providing accurate data on presence of GCNs with documentation.
• Outline environmental management plan to reflect presence or absence of GCN.

Stakeholder benefits

• BAM Morgan Sindall Joint Venture (bmJV) – To mitigate the risk of delays to the start of works due to presence of GCN
• WSP/Aecom – More efficient use of their Ecologist resource
• National Highways – Safeguarding programming through risk mitigation
• Natural England – Environmental responsibility

Success criteria

• Reduce cycle time to evaluate if GCNs are present
• Time saving for ecologists
• Reduce risk of GCNs holding up the works
• Greater confidence in programme delivery
• Cost savings
• Environmental benefits

Measure

A current-state value stream map was prepared. We identified that two ecologists were required on multiple visits throughout a seven-week period to check for the presence of GCNs. Natural England has stated that you are to "assume GCN are absent if there is no evidence of them after four visits".

A fishbone diagram was completed with the scheme's environmental advisor to understand the challenges of traditional trapping due to both seasonal and temperature restrictions on trapping.

The financial implications of harming a GCN are unlimited fines and reputational damage.

Analyse

The traditional bottle trapping method involved having two ecologists on site for manually trapping the GCNs throughout the 15 different areas, which takes four days to carry out each time. There's a nine-day wait dictated by Natural England before trapping can be repeated.

It then takes one day to return the results. Following the guidelines from Natural England you are to trap four times before assuming there is no presence in the area. This meant the overall cycle time for GCN trapping of 15 ponds was seven weeks.

Improve

Use of Environmental DNA (eDNA) testing of ponds can verify the presence of GCNs from their DNA within water samples. A two-day turnaround of results can dramatically reduce cycle time and cost. The eDNA testing kit and lab results cost £340 per pond.

As with the traditional method, two ecologists are required as they do not work alone; however, once the water samples results have been received there is a definitive answer as to whether there is presence of GCN in the area.

This reduced the programmed trapping time from seven weeks to four days. From the 15 ponds surveyed, two were identified as having GCNs present. The eDNA survey had quickly identified the areas where the team Deliverables needed to focus.

Control

The use of eDNA testing gives a greater confidence in the results of GCN presence within the area. This gives the team a more certain programme of works within those specific areas without the risk of GCN presence.

Transfer

This project has been shared with other bmJV schemes and is being uploaded to the National Highways Lean tracker.