Greg Martin
Waikato Conservator
Department of Conservation
Hamilton
New Zealand
President ACKMA  (Inc) 

The Department restructured itself to establish clear lines of communication and set about developing systems as standard operating procedures (SOPs).  These systems have drawn on the remnants of past activities and have been developed in a Quality Management framework.  For the Department, that has been called QCM (Quality Conservation Management).

This paper provides an overview of one such SOP, the Visitor Asset Management System. (VAMS).  The aim of the system is to maintain existing structures to an agreed and consistent standard and to build all new structures to a prescribed standard.

VISITOR ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Visitor Asset Management System is designed to keep track of structures and facilities used by visitors.  The system has been designed under the principles of a Quality Management framework.  The Department of Conservation embarked on some urgent systems development post Cave Creek.  April 1999 was the 4th anniversary of the tragedy.  The Commission of Inquiry found that the cause of the tragedy was a systemic failure.  A lack of systems, procedures and accountabilities within the organisation.  As a result, the restructured Department embraced Quality Management principles as a foundation to its new mode of operation.

Quality Conservation Management was first applied to visitor structures and that is the focus of this paper.  Within the Department, the systems are now permeating all areas of operation and are presently moving to huts, signs, tracks and visitor centres throughout New Zealand.

The Department is making sure that all its structures meet nationally consistent standards, developed in consultation with engineers and the Building Industry Authority.

When the Department of Conservation was formed in 1987, it was an amalgam of the Environmental Section of NZ Forest Service, National Parks and Reserves of the Lands and Survey Department, and the Wildlife Service of the Internal Affairs Department.  DoC inherited a whole range of structures, facilities, systems and lack of systems when everything was lumped together to form the new department.  DoC was uncertain whether this huge network of structures could be funded into the future.

As a result of the Cave Creek tragedy, the Government provided a one-off grant of 30 million dollars to be spent over 3 years replacing and upgrading structures.

The three year period expires on 30 June 1999 and of that period, 2 1/2 years was spent with the development of systems and finding out what structures the department actually had.  The total replacement costs of all DoC structures was estimated to be in the order of $188 million.

NATIONAL SITUATION
A national inventory took place with teams trained to record every structure and details such as location, measurements, type, materials and data such as when it was built, plans, map grid reference and a photograph.  

Each structure was assigned a number and a small orange coloured number embossed tag was fixed to each recorded structure in the field.  All information was gathered in a consistent way and subsequently audited as part of the new quality process.

The Department following the inventory, prioritised 15,400 structures for subsequent inspection by registered engineers.  The priority was determined by height, length, type of structure, number of people using it, and the outdoor experience of people using it.

New design criteria were established for all structures based on a loading of 5kPa.  A kilopascal equals 100 kilograms per square metre.

STANDARDS
Different standards have been developed for front country and backcountry structures.  Backcountry structures were required to meet 60% of the standard loading requirement.

INSPECTIONS
Initially, 3,000 structures were inspected and the rest have been spread into the out years.  Of the 3,000 inspected by engineers, 50% of structures met the new standards, while the remainder required alterations or upgrading to meet the new standards.  The net result of the inventory was that the Department was for the first time able to absolutely quantify the size and scale of the task to the Treasury Department.  This resulted in a baseline increase of $6.5million to the Department’s budget.

At the time of inspection for the inventory phase, structures had a Condition Report prepared to detail any immediate remedial action or minor works required.   At this stage, signs were also placed on structures to warn visitors of any dangers pending work to be completed to meet the new standards.

On some structures temporary load restriction signs are placed in a prominent position pending testing and calculations by the engineers to establish loadings.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Some of the problems encountered were matters of interpretation of standards.  Often it was a matter of deciding simply whether or not a structure was in or out of the process.  For example is a culvert a structure?   What if it has a retaining wall with a drop of greater than 1.5 metres?  Does the code (standard) then apply?

Handrails became a major issue.  The Building Industry Authority wanted the domestic code to apply, however those standards often looked out of place and context in the great outdoors setting.  The code required balusters for example to be no greater than 100mm apart.

Structures started to appear and be constructed where previously there would have been no real consideration of risk or danger to public safety.

The strict application of the regulations at times produced anomalies such as boardwalks or bridges with a handrail on one side only.  For example the upstream side of the structure may have had a 1-metre drop whereas the downstream side had 11/2 metres thus invoking the need for a handrail on one side.  This strict interpretation causes a strange result visually in the field.

Another challenge was in the construction of stairs.  The code requires a landing for every 10 risers or treads.  This can be difficult to achieve in the natural environment when confronted with rocks and other natural contours, especially in limestone/karst conditions.

All swing bridges were tested with a large vinyl bladder which was layed out in a central position on the bridge decking and then filled with water.  The bladder could be loaded to 2.5 tonne, or equivalent to the 5kPa loading per square metre.  The deflection in the structure was then measured over a 30-minute period.  An expensive result if the structure is not up to taking the loading!

VISITOR ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
All information was detailed into a national database.  A series of sites were established encompassing natural groupings of features from a management perspective.

A national ranking system was created to prioritise each site for the allocation of funding to bring it up to the national standard.  The ranking was derived from a series of scores

Visitors to the sites were grouped.  The NZ Government had a policy thrust to deal with front country sites.  The basis being that most people get the most value from any conservation dollar spent on an easily accessible front country site.  Such sites also correspond to the highest risk for the greatest number of visitors.

Visitor numbers was another key factor.  A scoring regime was established which equated 1 Back Country Adventurer to 4 Day Visitors to 20 Short Stop Travellers.

The VAMS system or Visitor Asset Management System is networked throughout the Department nationally.  The culmination of all of the contributing factors makes up the system which was purposefully designed in a Microsoft Windows environment.  A system such as this could equally apply to a Park Management Area such as Jenolan Caves or a series of parks or visitor assets requiring management for visitor safety reasons.  It is also feasible to adapt these principles and apply them to a software application “off the shelf”.

PROGRAMME DESIGN
The VAMS system provides for an easy to use drill down for specific detail.

• Assets can be called up by site or management location.
• Reports on the various structures can then be called up by clicking on the type of report and the asset or structure number which is also identified by description.
• The report includes sketch diagrams prepared by the engineers during the inspection.  These have been subsequently scanned into the system.
• Photographs of the structure have also been scanned in and give certainty to the description and knowledge of the structure from the system in the office.
• Calculations by the engineer for loadings etc have also been scanned into the system together with associated diagrams.
• CAD solutions and upgrade drawings have been scanned in to provide the design solutions and costings all on the system.

The system also provides for the re-inspection regimes which are assigned by the engineers to keep the whole system current and under review.

CONCLUSION
The Visitor Asset Management System has required a large investment in design and development however it has already proven to be extremely valuable in both securing financial resources for on-going maintenance and for minimising risks in the future management of public facilities.