National Underground Asset Register alpha assessment
Service Standard assessment report National Underground Asset Register 21/04/2022
Service Standard assessment report
National Underground Asset Register
| From: | Central Digital & Data Office (CDDO) |
| Assessment date: | 21/04/2022 |
| Stage: | Alpha |
| Result: | Not Met |
| Service provider: | Geospatial Commission |
Service description
The Geospatial Commission is building a digital map of underground pipes and cables that will revolutionise the way we install, maintain, operate and repair our buried infrastructure - the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR).
NUAR will improve the efficiency and safety of underground works by creating a secure, auditable, trusted and sustainable platform. It will provide a consistent, interactive digital map of buried asset data, accessible when, where and how it is needed by those planning and executing excavations on behalf of underground asset owners. It will also lead to enhanced communication between parties and improve data quality.
Service users
The service is not open to the public. It will be used by a range of different stakeholders as follows:
- Data seekers - people who need to view and interrogate asset information to plan and execute works (e.g. site operatives and planners / designers)
- Records Managers - those who need to make asset information available to seekers as well as receiving information about as-built records and site observations from operatives to keep records up to date
- PMO - managers and additional functions with utility organisations who control their suppliers and any additional requirements (e.g. admin, plant protection officers etc.)
- Fringe users - small user groups who require access to the data for a range of legal, security and safety reasons (e.g. land owners, surveyors, emergency services, HSE, Security officers.
1. Understand users and their needs
Decision
The service met point 1 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- during discovery the team did extensive research using a variety of methods to understand the process and context for identifying underground assets
- the team have identified different user groups involved in the process of identifying underground assets and can describe their different needs
- the team had identified a clear set of problems for the service to solve
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- develop hypotheses that capture the assumptions that inform the direction of the service. The team has identified a part of the process that the new digital service will improve. While the team has done moderated and unmoderated usability testing of features, they haven’t, as yet, tested the idea that the whole NUAR service will improve this part of the process
- as information about underground assets is handed between multiple users the team would benefit from running research that enabled them to observe the service as part of these relationships
- a method has been developed for assessing risk and impact at a feature iteration level. The team would benefit from zooming out, applying a similar assessment to the larger problems that came out of the discovery research and using that prioritisation to inform hypothesis development
2. Solve a whole problem for users
Decision
The service did not meet point 2 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team have been working on an interactive map of assets, with recognition that this is one single part of wider initiatives in the area
- the team understands the operational process their users follow and where their service fits into those processes
- the team has a good understanding of the financial benefits this service can unlock
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team have limited their alpha scope to exclude data upload and management. However, the assumptions they have made about the front-end planning functionality cannot be proved viable without first proving the data element. This appears to be their riskiest assumption, and the alpha phase should be dedicated to identifying and testing risky assumptions
- there was not enough information presented to clearly demonstrate how users attending work sites would access and use these asset maps. Although they were demonstrated to be viewable on a mobile device, it was stated that a significant number of users have low digital literacy and cannot use digital maps. There was also no clarification that users always have access to work devices on site to access these maps. PDF export functionality was mentioned as a backlog item, but no research as to its design or viability was presented
3. Provide a joined-up experience across all channels
Decision
The service did not meet point 3 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team have considered the need for offline support, and have started discussions on this
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team had considered the possibility that an on-site worker might need a different channel, but had not taken any action to validate or address this. The team needs to consider if they are launching an MVP for user types (e.g. admin offices) which would allow this to stay on the backlog, or if their MVP is limited to specific geographical areas as planned, in which case it needs to be considered
- the operating hours for the help channel need to be confirmed, and it needs to be understood whether this works for when the users would need to use the service, for example if the helpline is only available in office hours what does a workman on site on a bank holiday or overnight do for support?
4. Make the service simple to use
Decision
The service did not meet point 4 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- use of robust information sources like the postcode network, USRN and UPRN data provide multiple ways for users to source location information. In future demonstrations the team should share how they intend to source this data and ensure it is up-to-date and accurate
- the team have ensured that the asset map is viewable on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets - although, this is presented with reduced functionality
- the team have implemented mouse and keyboard controls to their interactive map tool that mirrors the controls users will be familiar with from using similar tools
- user satisfaction surveys are being incorporated into future plans
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team has not followed the GDS style guide or content design guidance guidance. Language encountered in the demo was overly complex and some elements, for example service naming conventions and use of title case instead of sentence case, were contrary to service standards
- the team stated that, per the guidance of the panel, they would seek to recruit a content designer if and when it became a need. The Service Manual advises a content designer should be onboarded into the team for the Alpha phase. Content design should be incorporated into the design at the outset, not at the end
- the team have elected not to use the styles, patterns and components from the GOV.UK Design System. These elements exist both for consistency with other government services, and because they have been tried-and-tested for usability
- the team has not explored the design or usability of the data upload and management aspect of the service, which is critical to the viability of the overall service
- while the team were able to articulate what design and research activity had been undertaken, they did not clearly indicate user reception to their proposed designs. We were not presented with any quotes from users, satisfaction metrics from research sessions, or other evidence that clearly demonstrated user satisfaction with the proposed service and prototype
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
Decision
The service did not meet point 5 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team confirmed that the elements of the service outside of the interactive map have been tested and achieved AA WCAG 2.1 compliance
- the team has created accessibility testing plans for future design and development activity
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- government services are required to be WCAG 2.1 compliant and the interactive map on this service requires interaction that could be impossible to perform for users with mobility issues. There is also a significant use of colour to denote meaning. While the team has observed that the map element is excluded from WCAG requirements, the service as a whole is not. The full end-to-end service must be WCAG 2.1 compliant in order to meet our minimum legal requirements, therefore there must be a way of requesting and accessing asset information for users who cannot use the interactive map
- there was not enough information presented to clearly demonstrate how users attending work sites would access and use these asset maps. Although they were demonstrated to be viewable on a mobile device, it was stated that a significant number of users have low digital literacy and cannot use digital maps. There was also no clarification that users always have access to work devices on site to access these maps. PDF export functionality was mentioned as a backlog item, but no research as to its design or viability was presented
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
Decision
The service did not meet point 6 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team are a strong unit and work well together as a consortium using a one team approach
- the team have placed a dev with the UX team to better facilitate prototyping for research sessions
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- as discussed elsewhere in this report, the team needs to ensure that they have access to a specialist content designer
- better role definition between the “discovery lead” and the product owner need to be considered, or explained clearly
- the panel are concerned that the only permanent civil servants in the team are the service owner, product manager and scrum master. Consideration should be given to ensuring that there are the right internal skills to iterate, develop and manage this product long term. The panel appreciates that there are external factors influencing this, including the pending consultation decision
- given the lack of certainly on the future shape of the team moving forward, the panel felt unable to mark this as met
7. Use agile ways of working
Decision
The service met point 7 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team have clearly defined process and agile ways of working which were demonstrated in a number of areas of the presentation
- the team were upfront about the success and suggestions that were brought up in retros, and the changes that had been made
- the team are rightly proud of their engagement with TOG/SOG and the links that they have with industry.
- the team have linked up with the Scottish version of the service to explore lessons learned and the possibility for reuse
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team needs to do more to ensure that user research is a team sport so that all team members are appreciative of the problems users face
- the panel appreciates that the team are in flux long term pending decisions of the consultation, however would recommend that documentation is strengthened so that it can be handed over regardless of the outcome
8. Iterate and improve frequently
Decision
The service met point 8 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team demonstrated that they had explored and discarded multiple early options based on pilot activity and comparative testing with low-fidelity prototypes
- the team demonstrated that they have tested hypotheses in usability sessions and made prototype improvements based on research outputs
- the team have used multiple different tools and methods to design and test multiple designs and ideas, from low-fidelity mockups to fully interactive prototypes
- the team have developed a considered UCD ‘ways of working’ process which they are continually revisiting
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team’s future plans imply that features may be developed and released with only retrospective post-release testing, if the team “understand resultant stories” from their internal refinement. This should be revisited and the team should aim to usability test new features prior to development and release
- more emphasis on how the ‘improved’ versions of designs were received by users would have been welcome. There was a good description of what users struggled with in the first iteration, but not much said about how users had reacted to the second iteration following the improvement efforts
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Decision
The service met point 9 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team has established a Security Oversight Group (SOG) group represented by x-government Subject Matter Experts where security concerns are discussed and required changes are approved
- the team has adopted the “least privileges access” approach in regards to critical datasets and services
- the team has initiated the Threat Modelling exercise and have a Penetration Test in the pipeline
- the team uses modern security mechanisms to protect the service (e.g. two-factor authentication over text message, web application firewalls)
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- complete the Threat Modelling exercise and present the report to the SOG for prioritisation so the work required to mitigate the risk can begin
- complete the Penetration Test, work on a schedule for regular IT Health Checks
- agree with the SOG what additional compliance reports are required like DPIA
- consider enabling other ways of two-factor authentication like using an app or email
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data
Decision
The service met point 10 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team have considered what good looks like for their service, and have made plans to measure this
- the team have considered a broader performance framework than the standard KPIs
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- one of the key drivers for this work is to create a quality data set - there were no success metrics on this. These should be considered
- the team need to fully consider not only how they drive up take up of their service, but how they will better validate that it is replacing the use of other systems and/or current paper maps and diagrams
11. Choose the right tools and technology
Decision
The service met point 11 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the service conforms with the ‘Cloud First’ policy
- technology choices are discussed within the cross government Technical Operational Governance (TOG) group
- the team adopted the “container first” approach to limit the impact of vendor locking
- the service follows good solution architecture practices like use of the APIs and microservices
- the team uses managed services where appropriate (e.g. PaaS for databases, Azure B2C for authentication)
- selected data model have a potential to develop additional features e.g. 3D model of underground assets
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the data ingestion and transformation portal is at the early development stage, the team needs to ensure good practices are followed through e.g. use of APIs, automation
- the front-end service is built primalrily for desktop users so it needs to be optimised for the mobile and tablet devices
12. Make new source code open
Decision
The service did not meet point 12 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team is willing to seek stakeholders’ approval to make the source code open
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team and stakeholders need to agree what subset of source code can be safely published in public repositories
- published source code should have relevant documentation and appropriate licensing in place so other departments and members of the public can reuse, contribute and learn from the it
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
Decision
The service did not meet point 13 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team uses open standards, software and data definition models relevant to the Geospatial sector (e.g WFS from Open Geospatial Consortium, MUDDI, GeoServer, PostGIS)
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team is not adhering to the GOV.UK styles, components or patterns from the GOV.UK Design System and Service Manual
- the team should consider the GOV.UK Notify service as a method to deliver outgoing emails and text messages to the users
- the team should think about how to contribute to the open standards and open source community
14. Operate a reliable service
Decision
The service met point 14 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team have multiple environments, uses CI/CD and have monitoring tools to observe infrastructure’s health and applications deployment processes
- the infrastructure is defined as a code and there are plans to make a use of the Azure Blueprints
- the team plan to utilise Availability Zones and different Regions to ensure NUAR service is reliable and highly available
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team should aim to release features to the live system more frequently to limit a risk related to big releases at the end of a sprint
- the team should discuss with the service owners the Recovery Time Objective and Recovery Point Objective so Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans can be drafted and tested
- the team needs to ensure all critical datasets are stored securely and follow the NCSC 3-2-1 rule
- chaos engineering or GameDay events may be considered as the way to build team confidence around the service recovery ability
Updates to this page
Published 25 January 2024