Main Roads has improved its knowledge of the condition of the road network and the performance of its contractors since our 2009 audit. However, this has not yet led to a strategic approach to maintenance or capacity to inform decision-making through modelling the costs of deferring maintenance or a capacity to provide strong and consistent planning advice to regional offices.

Main Roads now has systems to collect condition and performance data to inform prioritisation and monitoring

In 2009, we found that a lack of information on road condition and the delivery of maintenance limited the ability of Main Roads to monitor contractor performance and prioritise maintenance. We recommended that Main Roads integrate its systems with those of its contactors. Main Roads has made good progress in this area, with the introduction of new information systems and reports.

Main Roads’ introduction of the Maintenance Management Information System (MMIS) in July 2014 was an important step. MMIS provides consistency in the storing, measurement and reviewing of road maintenance information. Regional field and office staff use MMIS to store information about inspections, defects, work orders and area wide treatment.

MMIS is used alongside other Main Roads corporate systems to report on the costs and performance of maintenance in each region. Main Roads has begun to develop reports, such as earned value analysis, to present this information. However is yet to use this information to its full capacity to inform overall maintenance management at Main Roads head office.

Despite better information, Main Roads lacks a long-term strategy to preserve the road network and reduce costs

Main Roads understands that doing maintenance only when it becomes critical offers poor value for money and that it increases the overdue maintenance backlog and allows the network to deteriorate. Targeting additional funding to resurfacing work between 2012 and 2016 was a limited step toward a more preventative approach that uses maintenance to extend asset life and reduce whole-of-life costs.

However, Main Roads has no corporate plan or strategy to achieve a more preventative approach to maintenance. An important aspect of any such plan would be recognition of the change in approach in the regional offices’ 10-year network maintenance plans as these plans would need to reflect a balance between critical maintenance and the more cost effective preventative maintenance.

Main Roads has recognised the need to formalise strategies to guide maintenance planning and asset management and started to develop key guiding documents. However, until these are implemented, Main Roads delivers maintenance without a determined focus on preventative maintenance and cost efficiency. This means Main Roads has not progressed in this area since the original audit and does not have a solid strategic focus as it moves into the new contracting model.

Main Roads’ focus on resurfacing is some evidence of it starting to take a strategic approach to road maintenance. However, there are significant elements of a strategy missing. For instance, Main Roads has not calculated either the cost benefits over time or the benefits of alternative maintenance approaches. Main Roads acknowledges that it does not yet have the capability to develop scenarios or other modelling to determine the cost implications of deferring maintenance.

The lack of strategic guidance, and operational advice to regional offices on how to implement it, also reduces the likelihood that prioritisation will be consistent across the network. Under the ISAs, regions (both contractors and Main Roads staff) are required to assess the condition of the roads, determine maintenance priorities in the region and deliver the maintenance based on the allocated funding.

Information on priorities and treatment options are contained within each region’s 10-year network maintenance plan. The plan can record assessment of costs and risk associated with treating maintenance within the year it is identified, or deferring it. However, it requires manual input and is not a mandatory requirement. Main Roads implemented this planning tool in 2015, but recognise that it needs refining and staff training in how best to use it to plan and monitor maintenance.

Main Roads has provided some guidance on how to assess maintenance defects, but it acknowledges there is inconsistency across the network and is planning to address it.

A prioritisation process (Appendix 2) drives the determination of needs and treatment approaches. This process has only been in use since 2015, and Main Roads has not formalised it or issued the guidance it has drafted. Until it does, assessment of similar maintenance issues could be different from region to region. Given that priorities drive funding, the differences in how priorities are established can lead to inconsistent funding decisions, and differing outcomes for the network.

As mentioned earlier, regional offices are also reluctant to comprehensively assess and report on defects that do not typically attract funding. This means that defects, such as those relating to road rehabilitation are not captured in the 10-year plans. The result is incomplete and inaccurate information about the condition and performance of the network.

Monitoring of maintenance linked to 2 road safety factors has not improved

Our 2009 audit recommended that Main Roads improve its monitoring of 2 types of maintenance related to road safety:

• maintenance resulting from road crash assessments
• road surface friction.

Main Roads still does not have a process to monitor and evaluate road maintenance work recommended by crash investigators.

Checks on the status of this work only occur in response to a specific request. In the absence of a request, Main Roads will not automatically check that the maintenance is done, and if the safety of the road has improved. This is despite Main Roads investigating all serious and fatal crashes and having processes in place with the regions to decide on any maintenance required in response to investigation findings.

Poor surface friction is an identified factor contributing to road crashes. Our 2009 audit recommended that Main Roads develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to improve skid resistance (now known as surface friction) across the network. Main Roads has not implemented this recommendation.

In lieu of a strategy, Main Roads introduced a surface friction guideline. However, it is not comprehensive. It focuses mostly on the technical aspects of collecting data but does not include typical characteristics of a strategy, such as objectives for improvement or an implementation plan.

The guideline is also not used by all regional offices. Of the 2 regions we examined, the Metropolitan region had used the guideline during inspections and investigations, but had not acted on the results. The South-West region did not use it.

Main Roads has also not decided whether it should use road inspection data to identify and prioritise surface friction treatment. As a result, collection of surface friction data between 2011 and 2016 is limited, with nearly 90% of it collected in just 1 region – the Wheatbelt. Overall, 17 defects identified in this data are yet to be fixed.

It took 3 years to adequately monitor and improve contractor performance

Main Roads spends over $400 million per year across the 7 regions delivering maintenance and capital works through its ISAs (Appendix 3). Although ISAs were introduced between 2010 and 2011, it took Main Roads 3 years to implement standardised systems to monitor contractor performance, including against time, quality and budget targets.

Main Roads found it difficult to clearly measure performance under its original model. As there were 77 different performance indicators and inconsistent approaches to measuring them, Main Roads lacked the information to be confident that performance bonuses paid to contractors were warranted. Main Roads responded to this by introducing common performance indicators in July 2014. Subsequently, Main Roads found that contractor performance was lower than expected, though performance has since improved.

The growth in skill and knowledge of Main Roads staff from implementation of ISAs is not clear

Our 2009 report detailed the loss of technical knowledge and skills that occurred within Main Roads during the previous Term Network Contract (TNC). Main Roads believes the current ISA contract arrangements boost capability, but cannot show how.

Under the TNCs, many experienced technical staff left Main Roads to work for maintenance contractors. Main Roads also believes that the skills and knowledge of its remaining staff declined over time from having only limited involvement in maintenance decision-making.

The ISA model was designed to return Main Roads staff to the forefront of maintenance planning and delivery. Main Roads believes that it has achieved this aim.

However, we found that Main Roads is not managing its skills and knowledge gaps and development opportunities for technical staff have diminished. Main Roads does not have a workforce development or management plan to address skills and knowledge shortages and does not conduct capability assessments of the organisation or its staff. As such, it does not have a clear view of staff capability and organisational capacity, nor a plan to address any deficiencies.

Main Roads faces 2 factors which could further impact on its skills and knowledge base. The first of these is the loss of staff with skills in maintenance due to retirement, but no current corporate succession plan is in place. The second factor is a loss of skills and knowledge when the contracts change in 2017. We noted that a large proportion of staff working at the 2 regional offices we examined were contractors.