Contents

Issued 21.11.23 – The FAQ has been updated with responses raised at the DMRB and MCHW update webinar. New questions and answers are numbered 9.9, 9.10.

Issued 14.8.23 – The FAQ has been updated with responses raised at the DMRB and MCHW update webinar. New questions and answers are numbered 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 9.8, 11.6, 12.5, 14.4, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3.

Issued 21.4.23. The FAQ has been updated with responses raised at the DMRB and MCHW update webinar. New questions and answers are numbered 2.6, 11.5.

Issued 8.8.22. The FAQ has been updated with responses raised at the DMRB and MCHW update webinar. New questions and answers are numbered 5.7, 8.7, 8.8, 12.4, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3.

Issued 29.3.22 – New questions and answers are numbered 7.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 11.3, 11.4.

Issued 23.11.22. New or updated questions are numbered 1.3, 1.4, 8.1, 8.2, 9.7, 10.3, 12.3.

Issued: 3.6.2021. Containing responses to queries raised on the 17.03.2021, 31.03.2021, 20.04.2021 and 23.11.2021; the date when the question was raised is provided in squared brackets at the start of the response.

This FAQ is kept up to date. Please provide any feedback and comments to Becky Ansell Rebecca.Ansell@highwaysengland.co.uk

General aspects on the standards governance process

Are TSCs standing committees or are they created ad hoc?

[31.03.2021] TSC are expected to be standing committees with fixed members plus some ad hoc members as needed. As such, the TSC should be in place before outsourcing work. Becky and Kirt have been collecting names for the TSC members over the last few weeks/months and the link to the latest list is provided here: https://highways.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/UpdateoftheMCHWtrainingmaterials/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?e=vp2xmN&share=ET7RI3NK2VJJgUqRWybs0C8B8Ao3Bn9-llm0yCYDuh70eQ

TSG maintains control of this list and will be checking whether the named consultees have been engaging with you when asked, as part of monthly progress calls between your disciplines and TSG. Please let Becky know if any changes are required to the names.

Will the new standards governance process introduce new time and cost implications, which may affect the bids and funding secured a few months ago?

[31.03.2021] The new governance process is meant to be more effective and less time consuming than the old one. TSG be monitoring its effectiveness over the next few months. For any specific concerns or observations, please contact TSG.

Is there an efficiency system to collect feedback outside CARS?

[20.04.2021] Feedback can come from multiple sources, e.g. the supply chain, other directorates, changes to legislation and standards, departures received. Specific work has been undertaken over the last few months to develop an approach to collect and manage all feedback sources in the most effective way supported by relevant TSES tools. This will be rolled out over the next few months as part of the new Document Maintenance Process.

[23.11.2021] The feedback management process will be launched in January 2022.

Should we not be including MCHW updates in the document maintenance process as DMRB and MCHW will be brought together into the matrix format to cover the full spectrum of activities across design, build and operate?

[23.11.2021] The document maintenance process will cover both DMRB and MCHW documents as both volume sets have to be kept up to date. However, the emphasis in now on the DMRB as it was completely refreshed in RIS1 and documents are now close to needing their first document reviews. In future, once the MCHW will be completely refreshed, the same process will apply to keep it up to date. In the meantime though, we recommend taking the chance to bring relevant DMRB documents up to date whilst refreshing the MCHW.

Roles and responsibilities

Can you clarify how the ‘document owner’ role has changed?

[31.03.2021] The concept of ‘document ownership’ has been reviewed following the change that HE has had in 2015 from Executive Body to government-owned company. To mitigate the risk of individual liability, extensive and more robust governance has been established, including the new TSC process and enhanced approval and authorisation stages.

In addition, it was considered appropriate to change the title of ‘document owner’ to ‘technical author’. Clearer roles and responsibilities have been set for: Technical authors, TSG, TSC Chair, TSC as a collective. Technical authors have responsibility to ensure that existing DMRB and MCHW documents are updated / new documents are developed in their respective practice areas when required and that relevant governance deliverables are produced – no individual ownership, he/she is also a member of the TSC. Technical authors may be supported by the supply chain, they will have a ‘authoring team member’ function.

Would it be possible to have multiple technical authors per document?

[20.04.2021] Jira will allow one technical author (as it was in the past for the document owner). However, you may have multiple people contributing to the same document as authoring teams / support (both in HE, Devolved Administrations and the supply chain).

Can a TSC chair also be the technical author?

[31.03.2021] The key principle is that the TSC chair has to be independent of the drafting to lead the consultation process on a specific document in the most effective way. The TSC Chair can be a technical author as long as both roles are not taken for the same standard. An individual can be a TSC Chair for a document and an author on another document as long as the document contents are not closely related and rely on each other.

Does the TSC secretary need to be independent from drafting?

[31.03.2021] The TSC secretaries have a support role to the chair and do not approve documents. Therefore, they can be involved in drafting.

Do we know who the TSC secretariats are yet?

[31.03.2021] There is a collated list in spreadsheet form available in our SharePoint folders where governance is stored. https://highways.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/UpdateoftheMCHWtrainingmaterials/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?e=vp2xmN&share=ET7RI3NK2VJJgUqRWybs0C8B8Ao3Bn9-llm0yCYDuh70eQ

Please define TSC secretary

Supports the chair in their activities (admin-wise with invitations, adding links to CARS etc.) Please see Manual for Development of Documents, part 1, section 4.

Categories of change

How to distinguish between a policy change (category A) and a simple change to requirements (category B)?

[31.03.2021] Context can be important to decide whether it is a change in policy or change in a requirement. A policy change typically has a significant impact on the document, on its scope and content. Introducing a policy change also affects the impact that the document itself may have on cost, safety, environment, etc. TSC chairs are expected to consider categorisation carefully. TSG is involved in confirming the category of change.

To help assess the category of change appropriately, TSG is collecting examples of different types of changes to help assign a relevant category.

Please clarify what it meant by category B change.

Specific comment received: Is a B an actual change to what a requirement needs or just a rewording of an existing requirement into ‘shall speak’

[17.03.2021] Any change made to a requirement (shall/must) clause will be processed as cat. B. Rewording a requirement can also change its meaning and scope, therefore it will be a cat B.

How are notes that can impact requirements managed?

Specific comment received: some notes can be very important and may impact requirements. For instance, they can state as a statement of fact when a requirement is not needed because they do not apply to a particular situation.

[17.03.2021] By definition, notes are used for giving additional information intended to assist the understanding or use of the text of document, i.e. clarification of concepts and statements of facts. The document needs to be usable without the notes.

If a note provides the scope of application for a requirement, then it needs to be rephrased into a clause as, strictly speaking, it is not a note.

TSG will be checking in detail any change that is assigned to category D to avoid that the wrong level of governance is applied.

Is there a difference in process between B & C?

[17.03.2021] Not for now – just the version number at the end e.g. 0.1.0 for a requirement change and 0.0.1 for an advice change. TSG will be monitoring changes in category C and consider whether the authorisation process can be further streamlined in future.

TSC consultation process

Will the TSC membership be coordinated centrally or up to the individual disciplines?

[17.03.2021] TSG has consulted different directorates in the business to get up to date contacts. An excel spreadsheet with all data is provided here: https://highways.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/UpdateoftheMCHWtrainingmaterials/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?e=vp2xmN&share=ET7RI3NK2VJJgUqRWybs0C8B8Ao3Bn9-llm0yCYDuh70eQ

TSG maintains control of this list and will be checking whether the named consultees have been engaging with you when asked, as part of monthly progress calls between your disciplines and TSG. Please let Becky know if any changes are required to the names.

What is a recommended or ‘optimum’ TSC size?

[17.03.2021] The TSC comprises:

TSC chair (1)
TSC secretary (1)
editorial consultee (1)
technical consultees from SES (as relevant) and the DAs (at least 1 for each organisation = 3)
essential concurrence consultees including:
- Commercial & Procurement (1)
- H&S (1)
- Major Projects CIP (1)
- Major Projects RIP (1)
- Major Projects SMP (1)
- Major Projects Others (1)
- Operations (1)
- TSG (1)
- Carbon, sustainable development and good design (1) when needed
- Customer service (1) when needed
- Equality diversity inclusion (1) when needed
- ITS (1) when needed
additional concurrence consultees (as relevant)
informed parties (as relevant)

The size of the TSC will then vary depending on the number of SES technical consultees, concurrence consultees and informed parties. Where possible, TSG expects one consultee per area than multiple representatives, with the consultee representing the whole division/directorate (thus not giving his/her own personal opinion).

Is it possible to have a TSC consultation phase in Jira prior to DDP?

[31.03.2021] You may have as many meetings as you like before the DDP, for example inception / development strategy meeting to gather preliminary views. However, TSC consultation is a specific stage in the process when the document has been drafted and needs comments – it is like in the standardisation industry when a standard is out for enquiry.

Can we have multiple consultations?

[31.03.2021] Yes, however it is important to minimise their number as far as possible by developing documents/clauses of the right quality, completeness etc. Asking consultees to contribute multiple times, particularly if documents are not of the right quality, can be frustrating and may discourage future attendance in TSC consultations.

Can a document advance without full (essential) consultation response?

[31.03.2021] In the new TSC process, specific emphasis has been placed on the agreement of the deadline to receive comments between the TSC chair and the consultees. Consultees have to communicate any other commitment which may impact on the timely submission of comments and ask for an extension well in advance the end of the consultation.

However, we acknowledge that, while it is desirable that all consultees provide their response in a timely manner, there may be situations where this may not happen. In such a case, a document may advance without essential consultation response.

The consultation report will identify who was invited, who participated and who did not for audit purposes. From review of the consultation report, Approvers may decide that the input from non-attendees was necessary, thus resending the document back to the TSC chair for consultation.

TSG will organise monthly meetings with the TSC chairs to monitor and collect feedback on attendance in TSCs to ensure that all relevant parties are engaged, understand any barriers for attendance and discuss relevant mitigations measures with the TSC chairs.

Consultees and informed parties

Are Commercial only one voice in consultation?

[31.03.2021] Commercial are only one view in the consultation as the other concurrence consultees. As such, they review and comment on the document and the impact assessment report, specifically the section on commercial impact. MP and Ops Contract and Performance Teams may also have a commercial viewpoint, so in reality there are multiple sources to cover commercial considerations. In addition, separate Commercial review of documents sometimes meant further delays in progressing standards because of their high workload and time availability.

Can we undertake other early industry discussions outside of the formal TSC process?

[31.03.2021] Yes, you may involve them as peer reviewers for example – there is a specific stage in the process where peer reviews are involved.

How do we deal with consultees who do not have access to CARS e.g. industry contacts?

Anyone who is a consultee can be given access to CARS by adding them to your reviewer list on the front page of CARS. It would be worth discussing with your TSC chair/secretary about whether they just want a copy of the PDF sent to industry contacts as informed parties only. If you want consultee feedback from them, you can then give access on CARS.

What is the distinction between ‘consultees’ and ‘informed parties’?

[31.03.2021] The parties listed as ‘informed’ are inherently different from the consultees who represent the Overseeing Organisations. For informed parties, no response is expected.

Why are local authorities considered ‘informed parties’ rather ‘consultees’?

[17.03.2021] It is in the interest of Highways England and the Devolved Administrations that Local Authorities are engaged in relevant TSCs as providing valid experience and contribution to the documents. However, it is important to recognise that the DMRB and MCHW are written for use by the Overseeing Organisations of the UK motorway and all-purpose trunk road network, not local roads (although other highway authorities may use the DMRB and MCHW where they deem it to be appropriate). Local authorities are inherently different from the ‘consultees’, who represent the Overseeing Organisations. Therefore, they are considered ‘informed parties’.

Can additional informed parties be treated as consultees?

[17.03.2021] You may decide to treat selected informed parties as consultees, as long as their comments help develop documents which aligns with the strategic goals of the Overseeing Organisations and which are relevant to the motorway and all-purpose trunk road network.

As a reviewer, does CARS prompt you to press the ‘start review’ and ‘finish review’ buttons on a version?

[8.8.22] It does not as often reviews can be undertaken across multiple sessions. It is therefore for the user to determine once their review is complete and to press the finish review button.

I have no idea if I’m a consultee or not – I only cover NRSWA and only for the devolved administration in Scotland but I’d have no issue providing a response even if it was mainly N/As

Please see slides 34-39 in the accompanying slide pack for details of typical consultees: https://sauksprodtsespublication.blob.core.windows.net/cars-wordpress-uploads/2023/07/DMRB-and-MCHW-webinar-slide-pack-19.7.23.pdf. You will alerted by email if you are invited to participate in a consultation.

If TSC consultees do not have any comments, are they required to confirm that in a response? Or is no response acceptable?

We would prefer that consultees tell the TSC chair they have no comments and use the button on the front page of the CARS version to signify they have completed their review. This helps us understand they we are not expecting further comments on the document from that consultee. Please see slide 38 in the accompanying slide pack for details of typical consultees: https://sauksprodtsespublication.blob.core.windows.net/cars-wordpress-uploads/2023/07/DMRB-and-MCHW-webinar-slide-pack-19.7.23.pdf

Can Industry bodies (i.e. not individual companies) be included as TSC consultees?

They are typically classified as Informed Parties. Please see slides 34-39 in the accompanying slide pack for details of typical consultees: https://sauksprodtsespublication.blob.core.windows.net/cars-wordpress-uploads/2023/07/DMRB-and-MCHW-webinar-slide-pack-19.7.23.pdf

Can commercial team identify themselves in their comments? Otherwise it will be difficult to tell that their comments should be prioritised?

Graham Thomas is the Commercial reviewer and lead.
Dermot Roddy and Deborah Kent focus on Volume 4 updates, they may make some comments on general commercial implications but generally those come from Graham Thomas. Their names are given as the commercial consultees on the shared TSC consultee list of names available here.

Approval and authorisation

Who leads Authorisation discussion with CHE?

[31.03.2021] The Technical Author attends the CHE authorisation meeting to present their document as before.

Does the CHE need to authorise for category of change B/C?

[31.03.2021] Yes – the CHEs approve categories of change A, B and C. The only one not approved by them is cat D (changes to notes or spelling mistakes).

Why wouldn’t category B changes require Divisional Director approval?

[31.03.2021] In the previous governance process, the Divisional Director approved the QMR1 confirming that there was a business case to develop a document. This is now done outside of the standards governance process through team management and the bidding process for consultancy support. The Divisional Director also approved the QMR2 confirming that the business case was still valid, and the document could proceed. This is now covered by the impact assessment report and the whole standards governance process. Limited time availability meant that, in the past, Divisional Director approval was often a blocker to progressing standards. The SES SLT, which includes Divisional Directors, has approved this change.

Have Divisional Director been taken through the new approach and governance?

[17.03.2021] The SES SLT, which includes Divisional Directors, has approved this change.

Notification

What if notification to European Commission results in changes? Can the document go back to TSC?

[20.04.2021] There are feedback loops in Jira where the document goes back to the Technical Author to address changes and, if needed, will go to TSC again.

Why do documents still need EU approval – we have left the EU ?

[29.03.22] The NI Protocol requires all UK wide Technical Regulations (the legal definition of MCHW and DMRB) as well as those which are specific just to NI to continue to be notified. The DMRB and MCHW are written as UK wide requirements and therefore needs to be notified. Nationally Determined Requirements/Nationally Determined Sections/National Application Annexes that only apply to England, Wales and Scotland do not need notification.

Document maintenance

Is there a risk to receive a lot of spurious requests to change the standards with the introduction of the feedback channel on the website?

Whilst there may be spurious requests to change standards (which happens now too), there is a lot of learning in the supply chain and we would like to collect and use it in the most efficient way. The new MS form will help classify submissions, enhance their quality (when dealing with Challenges to standards in particular) and help technical authors to process feedback more quickly.

Can I complete a Document Review before the deadline (for new documents to be completed a maximum of 4 years after first publication, then a maximum of 5 years between successive Document Reviews)?

Document Reviews may be carried out at any time before the deadline. We do encourage early completion to ‘spread the load’, particularly for disciplines managing a large number of documents. Major revisions to existing documents should include a Document Review as most effective. Please note that Document Reviews do not include the drafting and governance of routine changes needed as a result of the review, only the completion of the form and the record of the outcome in Jira.

If a 5-year review confirms no changes required, how is this recorded / advised to supply chain?

[29.03.22] If no changes are needed, the version number will not change, however the review will be recorded in the Index Manager. The best channel to communicate the review with no change to the supply chain is currently under discussion

Could each document’s page have supplementing Issues and Version, a <to be reviewed by> date and a <last reviewed> date (if older than 5-years from last issue)?

[29.03.22] TSG will be investigating this further to see if it is possible to have a new entry against documents on the Standards for Highways website that details the date the document was last reviewed.

Is it possible to start a review in advance of the programme if there are some issues to be resolved, or do need need to wait?

[29.3.22] Yes, it is possible to start document reviews at any time and certainly in advance of their due date. Please see the document maintenance process training video for further guidance: https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/i-am-a-technical-author/#Document_review_and_feedback_management

So many rules on drafting might lead to stagnation and meaningless 5 year reviews because trying to improve documents might be too difficult within a rigid set of MDD requirements.

[29.3.22] Please provide examples where drafting rules are causing stagnation and meaningless 5 year reviews.

A considerable amount of external standards (BSI, EN, ISO and so on) are used within our (DMRB/MCHW) requirements. These external standards bodies also have a five year review time scale is there a fast track route for changes they may make?

The document review checklist prompts technical authors to complete a review against their standards for drivers for opportunities or change at least once every five years. However, the document review can be completed earlier than this if required and there is also the opportunity for feedback items to become ‘change issues’ where updates are made to standards using the governance process. The document maintenance process encompassing document review, feedback, and changes can therefore cater for updates at any time.

Please see section 18 of Manual for Development of Documents part one for further guidance.

With regard to the ‘due date’ for DMRB document reviews, does that mean the publication date – or an earlier stage in the process such as verbal agreement of any updates with the TSC?

[8.8.22] The initial due date for document reviews is set at 4 years post publication and this is the date flagged on Jira. This allows the technical authoring team a further 12 months to make any identified changes through the governance process.

Following publication, the document review period is then set to 5 years in the future and so on. Please see section 18 of Manual for Development of Documents part one for further guidance.

Governance deliverables

What is the difference between clause change summary and change log?

[20.04.2021] The change log only applies to existing MCHW documents which will be reviewed in MCHW update programme (RIS2 commitment) only. The change log is not expected to provide a long description of the changes made, rather to briefly identify the type of change and the reason behind it as well as the location of the clause when moved (i.e. the specific section) for easy future retrieval. The clause change summary is a new deliverable relevant to all categories of change, which provides the old clauses, the new clauses and the background commentary for the changes made.

Where will governance deliverables be stored?

[17.03.2021] Governance deliverables will be stored in SharePoint and links provided into Jira for each document.
DMRB documents are listed by discipline here: https://highways.sharepoint.com/sites/UpdateoftheMCHWtrainingmaterials/DMRB/Forms/AllItems.aspx

MCHW documents are listed by series here:

https://highways.sharepoint.com/sites/UpdateoftheMCHWtrainingmaterials/MCHW/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Please collate all governance deliverables per update into a separate change issue folder. These have been set up in advance for you on SharePoint as ‘change issue 1’, ‘change issue2’ etc.

Does the rationalisation of governance deliverables deliver a change in resourcing requirements or transfer responsibility for delivery to other parties?

[31.03.2021] Overall, the new deliverables will provide less documents to be produced, some of them can be automatically generated, duplications have been removed and deliverables are now produced at the right time when information is available.

Technical Authors continue to be responsible to draft the deliverables. The TSC Chairs now have a clearer role in checking the deliverables throughout the process to avoid that what goes to consultation is of poor quality, thus to avoid rework later on in the process.

Does the Technical Author draft the Impact Assessment Report?

Specific comment received: There is a potentially a lot of specialist input required well beyond the expertise of the Technical Author.

[17.03.2021] It is drafted by the Technical Author as in past, however there is now space for the consultees to comment on each section, which will help the Technical Author to refine / improve the report. Specialist input may be required through peer reviewers.

Can we add coverage of Environment in the impact assessment report?

Specific comment received: additional items may be material efficiency, land quality/availability, implication of policy changes on Habitats Regulations.

[31.03.2021] Some of these aspects are already covered in the section ‘Carbon management, sustainable development and good design’. Changes to regulations is already a driver (see MDD Part 1 and the list of drivers in the Entry point to Jira). Please contact TSG if there are any aspects missing and will be considered for future additions.

How is the carbon management section in the impact assessment report to be completed? does it align with the HE Net Zero strategy?

[31.03.2021] The HE Net Zero strategy will be released over the next few weeks. The training sessions for technical authors covers how to complete the impact assessment report. A separate training module will also be shared on how to embrace the carbon management hierarchy and principles when drafting DMRB and MCHW documents.

Can I complete a Document Review before the deadline (for new documents to be completed a maximum of 4 years after first publication, then a maximum of 5 years between successive Document Reviews)?

[29.03.22] Please see the response to 8.2.

Surely key changes should be captured in the impact assessment report?

Key changes are recorded in the impact assessment report and the commercial impact assessment report. The intention is to produce a ‘high level narrative’ overview for approvers and authorisers that summarises the detail in these documents. Further details will be provided to technical authors soon.

Are TSG drafting the narrative document on behalf of the technical author?

The content reviewers are compiling the High Level Narrative based on the existing governance deliverables. This is currently only for the MCHW at present. Technical Authors are then to finalise / confirm the content. This is covered on this help page: https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/how-to-create-a-high-level-narrative-document/

Are messages regarding communicated via a channel other than Teams?

In addition to Teams messages, important messages are emailed to Technical Authors and TSC chairs as applicable (for example the updates to the Commercial Impact Assessment Toolkit), and there is an email to CARS users about software updates to CARS.

Due to the nature of the document development activity there are not maintained mailing list for the authoring community, therefore it is not possible to duplicate all Teams messages as emails.

Devolved Administrations

Do all DAs have access to SharePoint?

[31.03.2021] Yes. Invites to access the training materials and SharePoint folders have been issued to all parties involved in the update via a Microsoft Team called: DMRB and MCHW training materials and governance – https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a237d9fea815a4483bf28892d606029e0%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=2984bbb7-7b54-45a3-ae67-5a4e852b91df&tenantId=29509fb2-7faf-4f8b-b7a2-32f96ec5de6c

Please let TSG know if there are any issues accessing the SharePoint folders.

Are Devolved Administrations aware of the consultation periods? Can they resource?

[31.03.2021] Our colleagues in the Devolved Administrations have been involved in shaping this process since the very beginning. TSG will be working with them to identify any resource issues.

Are the Devolved Administrations aware of what they need to know/do about the document maintenance process?

[23.11.2021] An awareness session has been delivered to our colleagues in the Devolved Administrations (Heads of Standards) at the beginning of November. They will cascade relevant information to their own staff. TSG will be working with them to identify any resource issues and will share briefing material for the DAs’ technical specialists in January 2022 when rolling out the new process.

Jira and CARS aspects

Who is responsible for making the changes in JIRA?

[17.03.2021] The Technical Author completes the initial core details; additional information is captured through ‘transitions’; these are performed by the relevant person for each stage. I.e. The technical Author would provide links to the various deliverables as they pass the item to the next stage; as a TSC Chair – you typically will need to confirm the category of change and provide comments as you approve or pass back items.

What if we are already underway with changes on CARs?

[17.03.2021] Your work in progress in CARS will not be lost. These features will be added seamlessly, and predominantly focus on the creation of version for approval/ authorisation. If you have any concerns, we can have a look at your specific documents and answer any questions you have offline.

Who puts the draft documents initially in CARS?

[29.3.22] The documents that are used for the change logs (i.e., previously published outside of CARS) are inputted to the system by TSG. For newly drafted documents on CARS this is the technical author and authoring team.

Can CARS documents be downloaded and worked on outside the system as it would be very useful for analysis and joined up working?

[29.3.22] There are no current plans to introduce this functionality as CARS is an online collaborative tool.

How do you initiate a change/update in a DMRB document?

All requests to make a change to a document should be initiated through the Technical Standards Group who will create the necessary change issue in Jira and any required links to CARS. Once the change issue link is available, please complete the contents of the draft change issue form in Jira to be submitted to your TSC chair for approval: https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/contents-of-the-draft-change-issue-in-jira/

Should the status of non-England NAAs be changed from ‘New’ to ‘In Drafting’ if we are not getting involved with the non-England ones?

The Jira governance workflow only relates to the work completed on the core document and England NAA. The Devolved Administrations have their own governance for updates and approvals of National Application Annexes. The status on the front page of CARS documents, which include both the core document and the NAAs, reflects the Jira workflow status for the package including the core document & all NAAs.

Training and other support provided

Is training available for Technical Authors on how to draft deliverables?

[31.03.2021] We will start running detailed training sessions for technical authors at the end of April (20th and 27th), which cover how to complete all governance deliverables, as well as how to access SharePoint, and key updates to Jira and CARS. TSC chairs can also attend training sessions for technical authors if they want to do so, optional invites will be sent to them.

Is there any JIRA refresher training available, particularly for new starters?

[17.03.2021] A detailed JIRA training video is available on the new Jira functions and what to press to move between stages (HE use only) https://web.microsoftstream.com/video/cc2d9686-5c08-4dc6-af96-2a5ce23cdb78

There will be some drop-in sessions on a Tuesday afternoon every 2 weeks between 2.30pm – 3pm where Becky Ansell will help with queries. You only need to attend if you need help with anything. Please join via this Teams link: Click here to join the meeting or contact Becky to be sent the meeting cycle invitation.

Where can I find all training resources?

All training videos and links are uploaded to the CARS help pages: https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/quick-links-to-training-videos/ The same links are provided below.

Technical Author – https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/i-am-a-technica l-author/

TSC Chair – https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/i-am-a-technical-standards-committee-chair/

TSC Consultee – https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/i-am-a-technical-standards-consultee/

Are there any further training sessions available on drafting rules in the Manual for Development of Documents in future?

[8.8.22] There are no plans to run any further live training or refresher training sessions on drafting rules in the Manual for Development of Documents, but all previous training sessions have been recorded and are available to view on the Help pages:

The drop in sessions are also available for MCHW drafting queries (Tuesday mornings) and Jira/governance queries (Alternate Tuesday afternoons). Please contact rebecca.ansell@nationalhighways.co.uk to be sent an invite.

What is the MDD?

The Manual for Development of Documents (our drafting and governance rules). The current MDD (version 6.3) can be found here: https://help.futuredmrb.co.uk/reference-materials/

General questions

Will there be an accessible repository for useful advice that is stripped out of various documents?

[17.03.2021] Please contact TSG to present the type of advice you would like to store and to discuss potential location of advice.

Publication

How will the MCHW/DMRB big bang publication work and will there be a gap where content goes out of the MCHW and into the DMRB?

[8.8.22] Where there is content that is identified as needing to come out of the MCHW into the DMRB, we recommend creating a DMRB ‘holding’ document in CARS to store the content and get it in a drafted state. It can then be transferred over to your live DMRB document and go through the governance process so it can be published at the same time as the MCHW ‘big bang’ publication. This also means incremental changes to the DMRB that are not as a result of the update to the MCHW can be published in the meantime.

Once the new style MCHW is published, the current MCHW will not disappear. It will be available on the standards for highways website (in a similar way to the DMRB) in the archive before the new MCHW is published. The contracted version will be a dated version of the Specification as defined by the contract.

Please contact TSG for any further guidance.

Will National Application Annexes be available in a HTML format once some of the DMRB documents start to get published in this format later this year?

[8.8.22] Yes. Any DMRB document that was published after March 2021 will be available to view in a HTML format (as a webpage) or PDF format later this year. The date is still to be confirmed. If the document was published with National Application Annexes they will also be available in this format.

Can the Departures Manual be made available via Standards for Highways?

[8.8.22] No. The Standards for Highways website will only list documents applicable to all of the four Overseeing Organisations and the Departures Manual is a National Highways only document. The Departures Manual can be downloaded here: https://das-help.highwaysengland.co.uk/

Will the key changes be included in the final documents?

This has not been discussed and agreed yet. It is unlikely though as documents have been completely redrafted and may not be appropriate to include ‘key changes’ on a contractual document. Certainly this information will be shared in the supporting material, training etc.

Standards for Highways website

Archive standards on the DMRB site go back much earlier than 2001

The rules for the archive are that they were live published documents in 2001 but of course you are correct that some were originally published much earlier than this.

For the archive what would be useful is going forward, to have in there also the ones predating the ones that were live in 2001 – essentially all DMRB documents ever produced since the start (I think all started late sixties/early seventies with BE documents). We often get queries on historical changes and most of the stock was build in the 60s and 70s.

The archive on the Standards for Highways website represents the earliest copy of standards we were able to obtain as a complete CD record from the previous maintainer of the website – Williams Lea or The Stationery Office as they were previously known.
Unfortunately before this time our records are not 100% complete and we often have scans of documents that are annotated and therefore need checking. In RIS 3 we hope to look into what we can do to keep adding to the archive database where earlier records become available.

I was sharing the feedback form with someone yesterday and they were surprised how easy and accessible it was.

This is great to hear and thanks for the feedback. As a reminder the feedback form can be found here: https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/feedback