The purpose of the independent review is to add value to a project by questioning the design team on their hazard elimination and risk reduction measures relating to the design, construction, use, maintenance and decommissioning of the structure. The concept of an independent assessment is not new; it is a well established process. The Highways Agency has adopted a system of independent checks on most highway structures for many years; the nuclear, and other specialist sectors also adopt rigorous review procedures. Some enlightened private sector clients have also seen the benefits. Although the detail and approach of these client-instigated reviews may vary they all have the common aim of reducing risk and adding value to the project.

However, although the process set out in this note operates through an independent reviewer in common with the examples quoted above, it differs in its approach from most existing examples. The key characteristics of this process are that:

• It is a high level 'review', not a 'check' as conventionally performed (that is for others).
• The reviewer is seen as the designers 'critical friend', whilst retaining independence
• The design team retain ownership of the design but are challenged to justify and consider design decisions and their impacts.
• The reviewer is able to act objectively without attracting liability.
• It should be an iterative process i.e. the reviewer becomes involved at an early stage and contributes throughout the design development.

2 The independent review is not a further layer of bureaucracy; it is designed to be useful to all parties and to assist in reducing risks and adding value to the project. As noted above, it is already accepted in specific sectors as a client-sponsored safeguard which recognises that the wider benefits outweigh the additional cost.

1. Design philosophy (including the design safety objectives)
2. Major hazards and ascertain if they have been identified and dealt with².
3. The robustness of the structure and whether it has been adequately considered.
4. Models of analysis and that they have been adequately validated by the designers. Also, to ascertain that the results have been reviewed in terms of magnitude and pattern.
5. Design assumptions including the relationship to construction, use and maintenance, materials and specification.
6. Design interfaces.
7. Procurement and contractual arrangements including their compatibility with structural robustness.

4 However it is worth noting that there is often benefit to the project if the scope of such a review is widened to include other project issues: for example client brief, expected deliverables and finance; sustainability issues could also be included. This is the holistic approach.

6 Hence, it is recommended that any structure which falls into one of more of the following categories should be subjected to an independent review:

This approach aims to select projects which are large, complex, innovative or unusual (a suggestion already promoted by others) and those with high risk.

7 This categorisation derives from a structural safety perspective. However, there may be compelling grounds for an independent review on economic, insurance, business criticality or similar grounds. (The chosen categories tie in with, and expand on, the suggestions made in the SCOSS 14th Biennial Report).

9 Suggested 'rules' for conducting the review are proposed as follows:

i) To be of value, the review must be conducted at high level*. It will be to consider whether the design principles are sound, that the construction proposals are properly considered and adequate proposals are in place for execution. To complete such work satisfactorily, the reviewer(s) must be thoroughly experienced and technically aware across the full range of disciplines, design and construction phases, inherent in the project. The reviewer(s) must be technically skilled to a level whereby design submissions can be properly appraised.

*The parallel activity of design calculation and code compliance checking should continue to take place.

ii) To be of value, all parties in the project must regard the reviewer as a 'critical friend to the team'. In turn, that implies willingness by the reviewer to help resolve problems in an open manner without loosing independence. The reviewer must therefore be someone of integrity, not to be swayed by contractual positions but equally ethically bound not to use confidences to the contractual detriment of any party. The reviewer's duty is to act independently of the team, but to the benefit of all.

iii) If the reviewer is to provide maximum assistance, in order to help resolve the inevitable difficulties that arise, (s)he must not be constrained in offering best judgement for fear of financial penalty (civil action), notwithstanding the obligation to use reasonable skill, care and diligence.

iv) The reviewer must be independent of the team. However, the interaction with the team should be flexible and open with the emphasis on reducing risk and adding value. The review should commence at an early stage so that key project decisions may be considered in a contemporaneous manner. A key focus should be placed on safety and risk reduction through highlighting and addressing concerns. This can very effectively be achieved through presentations by the team to the reviewer along with the generation and maintenance of risk registers. The reviewer should point out errors or concerns and allow the designers to explain their rationale; solutions must be fully owned by the team.

v) The team should be encouraged to provide the written draft reports and outputs, stemming from presentations, workshops and discussions with the reviewer. The drafts are then assessed and commented on as appropriate by the reviewer. This process thus serves as a useful check on communication and also enables the input and value from the reviewer to be maximised. It also places the onus on the team to address the issues and develop solutions thus maintaining the necessary ownership. However, whilst the onus is on the team, it does not preclude the reviewer from pro-actively making constructive contributions.

vi) The cost of the review must be proportionate to the risk i.e. it must add value; it is a matter of negotiation between the parties. However the budget must be reflect the required input if the process is to bring any real benefit to those more directly involved.

11 If the reviewer comes from the same organisation that is employed to design the facility, then the question of liability (in the corporate sense) does not arise. It is then a question of ensuring that internal procedures and culture allow and encourage the reviewer (as an individual or group) to act according to their professional judgement.

12 If the reviewer is from a separate organisation from that of the designers then, appointment documents should be constructed to avoid subsequent action. This might appear to be radical; however, if the process is conducted as suggested, with the reviewer being the 'team's friend' and of established reputation, and ownership of change rests with the designers, it becomes a logical approach.

² see for instance the reference to 'abnormal hazards reasonably foreseeable' in Approved Document A para 5.1e. Examples of such hazards are also given in a topic paper on the publications page of the SCOSS website (Topic paper - A risk managed framework for ensuring robustness).