Initial results are in from the International Tunnelling Insurance Group (ITIG) survery, which was launched in February 2018 with the aim of reviewing the penetration and effectiveness of the International Tunnel Code of Practice (TCOP) around the world.
The survey sought feedback on the application and experience of the Code (or other risk management approaches) and was targeted at all relevant parties (clients, designers, contractors and insurers) with the support of the relevant professional bodies (ITA, BTS and IMIA). The purpose of this note is to provide a summary of the initial findings from the survey and an indication of the proposed next steps.
The initial findings are:
Book your company’s exhibition stand for BTS 2018
- The survey has real validity. There were over 100 respondents representing all facets of the tunnelling and insurance communities, split approximately 2/3rds, 1/3rd. Responses were received from contributors in over 20 different countries, with coverage from all continents of the World. The engagement was best illustrated by over 500 qualitative comments added by respondents and the high number (67%) requesting to be in some way involved in any future revision of the Code.
- The substantial majority response (>90%) was that risk management has had a positive impact on the industry, supported by other initiatives such as Geotechnical Baseline Reports, Health & Safety legislation and the sharing of lessons learned.
- Formal risk management processes appear to be wide-spread and to represent best practice on most projects and in most areas of the world. However it appears that more work is required to derive the full benefit at site level, to optimise the management of risk (as opposed to Risk Management). Other notable trends were concerns with competence and expertise of both technical and risk professionals.
- The majority (73%) of respondents expressed a preference for an update or revision of the Code and the suggested changes were welcomed. Consideration to I&M and to BIM were both strongly endorsed. Other qualitative comments were provided containing many valuable suggestions.
ITIG now need to review all the feedback in more detail and in particular analyse the extensive qualitative commentary. It is too soon to conclude with certainty pending this detailed analysis but it would appear that a limited review and update of the Code is appropriate. However, since the feedback is generally so positive, it is not envisaged that the fundamental concept, scope or structure of the Code will be changed.