Is the temporary traffic management risk-based approach actually just good supply chain management in disguise, asks Civil Contractors New Zealand Technical Manager Michelle Farrell.
“Supply chain management (SCM) involves planning, coordinating and optimising the flow of materials, information and resources across the project lifecycle, from suppliers to the construction site, ensuring efficient delivery and project success” (thanks, ChatGPT).
Sounds just like what we’re wanting when we are planning temporary traffic management (TTM) under the new risk-based approach – handy! So, what can we learn from SCM with respect to TTM?
Key activities of SCM include; planning (scoping the project, methodology and resources required); sourcing (finding the resources); procurement (contracting resources and managing the flow of resources); logistics (organising the resources and managing the programme); coordination (managing communication and collaboration among all parties in the supply chain, especially during any changes); and optimisation (continuous improvement to reduce cost, waste and improve efficiency throughout the supply chain).
And who would be responsible for undertaking the SCM? I suspect it’s not the guy that’s been subcontracted to supply the materials, for example.
How does this apply to TTM? Why do we continue to insist that the change to a risk-based approach is the lead contractor’s responsibility? We are so used to ‘contracting out’ TTM to TTM specialists or suppliers, but change is afoot.
Take this example, from Fulton Hogan cyclic road maintenance crew in Northland.
A road sign needed replacing on a rural road with no space to park in the berm. The CoPTMM (Code of Practice in Temporary Traffic Management) approach would result in alternating (stop/go) traffic to park a truck and cherry picker beside the working space.
However, the clever people in Fulton Hogan came up with a better plan, using a risk-based approach.
They decided to use a portable self-erected temporary scaffold to complete the installation (planning the works methodology). They liaised with the resident for permission to park the truck in their driveway, outside of the traffic lane (coordination). This meant that no traffic lane was impacted, no alternating flow was required, and no traffic crew were exposed to traffic.
Their TTM planners designed the controls required to ensure road user safety, such as a small shoulder closure due to works duration and ensuring approach visibility requirements (logistics). The outcome was a net reduction of at-risk staff and plant onsite; including no TTM crew.
Back to the SCM comparison – we’ve covered planning, logistics and coordination so far. The other components – finding the resources, procuring the resource required and optimisation – likely sit with the lead contractor to manage. Just like normal supply chain management.
Humour me for a minute and imagine that the lead contractor had contracted out the planning of this work to a TTM supplier (subcontractor). Would the supplier be able to plan the works method and coordinate with all the required parties (including tweaking and optimising the methodology)? Or, would they approach this with the mentality of cones, signs and traffic control being central to the solution? Perhaps.
Now, there’s another supply chain aspect to the risk-based approach that we should consider. The Road Controlling Authority (RCA) is responsible for the road until there’s a worksite established. At that point (just the same as “site possession” functions under other physical works projects, when insurances and accountabilities come into play), the road (i.e. the worksite) is under the control of the contracted party – the lead contractor. At this point, the RCA becomes a consulted party. Yes, the risk now lies primarily with the lead contractor – not with the RCA.
If you’re working in a region where the RCA is trying to determine how you do your work, such as developing their own set of guidelines (or essentially trying to apply a bespoke CoPTTM v2), remember who is responsible for the risk on the site, and act accordingly.
This is when good collaboration, communication and planning become crucial. As the lead contractor, you must gather all the necessary facts (other stakeholder requirements, including RCA requirements), identify the risks and then manage those risks to the best of your ability, given any constraints (this is the “reasonably practicable” part).
Your risk-based application will outline all those risks – including any risks in applying another party’s standard designs – and will explain how you intend to manage those risks. It may be the case that you’re able to apply CoPTTM layouts, but this would be only after you’ve thought through and documented your thinking in getting to that point.
Maybe you’re a smaller contractor working on roads and you’re feeling nervous about the perceived shift in responsibilities. To be perfectly honest, there is no change to those HSWA 2015 PCBU (person conducting a business or undertaking) responsibilities – look up section 36 of HSWA 2015, “primary duty of care”.
If you’re the contractor doing the work on the road, even if you’re not directly contracted to the RCA, you’re still a PCBU with a duty of care to yourself, your workers and the public interfacing with your worksite. You are part of the supply chain, and need to assess and manage risks, in collaboration with the other supply chain parties.
These overlapping duties make it more complex, but section 3.2 of the WorkSafe guide, Keeping healthy and safe while working on the road or roadside, outlines the issue quite simply – I suggest checking that out: “PCBUs need to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with all other PCBUs (regardless of their size) to make sure everyone can meet their health and safety duties”.
Assessing risk doesn’t mean writing pages and pages of professional looking documentation. But, it does mean understanding and writing down stakeholder requirements, identifying risks from your point of view and outlining how you plan to manage those risks and then communicating this plan adequately. You may need to tweak your plan after consulting other parties and ensure this is also documented and communicated.
Simply put, risk assessment still includes five basic steps – identify risks; decide who may be harmed and how; evaluate the risks and decide on control measures; record your findings and implement them; review your assessment and update if necessary.
But, what we can’t do anymore is find the prescribed layout for the proposed activity and run with it. If you are doing work on a road, there’s many resources available to help you work through this.
The NZTA, for example, has employed a dedicated person to help (ask your Maintenance Contract Manager for those details); the Temporary Traffic Management Industry Steering Group has many avenues for getting you the right help and is also running a series of webinars. If you’re unsure, please reach out for guidance, as this is just too important to ignore.
When I was writing this article, I spoke with the good people at WorkSafe, NZTA, Fulton Hogan and Auckland Transport, all of whom read the article and endorsed this approach. It’s great, as we all need to be on the same page to understand how best to manage risk.
Photo credits (thanks to Fulton Hogan):
Above: Fulton Hogan team members on the ground: Bex Tana, Chris Sampson, Matai Peleti & George King from the Fulton Hogan Kerikeri branch.
Cover image: Marsh Tana, the Fulton Hogan NOC Maintenance Supervisor reviewed the site with our STMS to develop the safest and most efficient work methodology and set of risk controls. A traffic management vehicle is being used as advance warning for traffic in the lane adjacent to construction workers.