EVALUATION OF CDM 2007 PILOT STUDY REPORT PUBLISHED

Survey report data shows respondents views on CDM 2007 were ‘positive’

HSE has published a report describing the plan developed for the evaluation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007), the findings from the pilot of the evaluation plan and options for a full evaluation of CDM 2007.

The pilot evaluation showed:

Objectives: there are positive signs in terms of CDM 2007 meeting its objectives, with evidence of three being met and two being partially met;
Concerns: some respondents report concerns regarding the effectiveness of CDM 2007 in: Minimising bureaucracy; Bringing about integrated teams; Bringing about better communications and information flow between project team members; and Better competence checks by organisations who appoint other duty holders;
Costs: respondents were able to provide cost data. Some Clients, Designers and Principal Contractors reported no additional costs in complying with CDM 2007 on a project. The remaining Clients, Designers and Principal Contractors, and all of the Contractors did report additional costs in complying with CDM 2007 on a project; and
Overall: on balance, the respondents’ views on CDM were positive as the benefits were viewed as moderate, whilst the costs were viewed as moderate or lower.

Conclusions

The reports draws the following conclusions from the work undertaken:

the full evaluation should assess the impact of all of the changes incorporated in CDM 2007;
most of the respondents (87%) agreed that CDM 2007 was clearer than CDM 1994, and 96% agree that they clearly understand what their duties are under CDM 2007;
respondents are using a range of contractual forms with CDM 2007 and most of the respondents (89%) agree that CDM 2007 can be used with the types of contract used in the construction industry;
around half of the respondents (46%) disagree that CDM 2007 assists in minimising bureaucracy, whilst most of the respondents (85%) agree that CDM 2007 assists in managing health and safety;
half of the respondents agree that CDM 2007 has helped bring about integrated teams (48%) and better communications and information flow between project team members (50%); however, a significant majority (ranging from 67% to 81% for the four relevant questions) of the respondents agree that CDM 2007 assists in facilitating coordination and cooperation;
threequarters of the respondents (76%) agreed that CDM 2007 is helpful when assessing the competence of duty holders; most (83%) agreed that the client thoroughly assessed the competence of those organisations they appointed to work on the project; and most respondents (86%) agreed that the organisation who appointed them made a good job of assessing the competence of their organisation;
there are positive signs in terms of CDM 2007 meeting its objectives, with evidence of three being met and two being partially met. However, some respondents have concerns about the effectiveness of CDM 2007 in: Minimising bureaucracy; Bringing about integrated teams; Bringing about better communications and information flow between project team members; and Better competence checks by organisations who appoint other duty holders;
a third of the respondents (15) reported negligible costs in employing health and safety staff / advisors when they were introducing CDM 2007 into their organisations for the first time. However, nine respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these four were Principal Contractors;
over half of the respondents (26) spent less than £5,000 on preparing health and safety management systems when they were introducing CDM 2007 into their organisations for the first time. However, five respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these three were Principal Contractors and two were Contractors;
over half of the respondents (27) spent less than £5,000 health and safety training when they were introducing CDM 2007 into their organisations for the first time. However, eight respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these eight, there were two each of Coordinators, Designers, Principal Contractors and Contractors (see Section 11.4).
a third of the respondents (14) reported negligible costs spent on employing health and safety staff / advisors whilst maintaining CDM 2007 in the last year. However, ten respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these four were Principal Contractors;
over half of the respondents (27) spent less than £5,000 on their health and safety management systems whilst maintaining CDM 2007 in the last year. However, five respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these three were Principal Contractors and two were Contractors;
over half of the respondents (25) spent less than £5,000 on health and safety training whilst maintaining CDM 2007 in the last year. However, five respondents reported spending £10,000 or more; of these two were Principal Contractors;
over half of the respondents (25) rate the costs of CDM 2007 as low or lowmoderate, with another 12 rating the costs as moderate. Only seven respondents rated the costs as high or moderatehigh. Three of those respondents were contractors. Twentyone respondents viewed the benefits of CDM as 2007 as moderate. Ten respondents thought that the benefits were higher than moderate, whilst 14 thought that the benefits were less than moderate (see Section 11.7);
on balance, the respondents’ views on CDM were positive as the benefits were viewed as moderate, whilst the costs were viewed as moderate or lower;
half of the respondents felt that the question set was too long, and twothirds had difficulty in separating out the CDM 2007 costs from other costs. However, they found the guidance notes accompanying the question set to be helpful;
a set of seven activities has been developed for the evaluation of CDM 2007. These address the issues identified in this pilot and provide continuity from the baseline studies;