Thank you for giving the issue your due attention and for allocating resources speedily and with a short deadline to report back to you; acknowledging and accepting promptly the error in the Suncroft Traffic Survey.
Just a gentle reminder to forward me the calculation of the 315 daily average in the Great Connell traffic survey.
I’d like to re-iterate a couple of points where, or in case, we may not have been fully on the same page yesterday.
1) The review should focus on the accuracy of the reports of raw data. It is not (solely) a review of whether any errors in reports had an effect on subsequent decision-making.
2) A survey of all traffic surveys and their reports since January 2016 is a good start. I appreciate the resources that a full review of all traffic surveys since 2014 would require. I’m suggesting a random sample of a further 6-10 surveys from 2014-2016 to include a survey completed by each technician and/or signoff person (if more than one person has responsibility for sign-off).
3) I appreciate that even the one error already identified has been a wake-up call and based on your response so far I have no doubt that it has. However, I would ask that you outline and review the protocol/systems for collecting traffic data, collating data, producing report, checking accuracy of report against raw data (i.e. getting sign off on report) in order to minimise the chances of errors happening in the future when this error has long been forgotten. On the basis of this wider review, you can provide the assurances I and others need that you’ve minimised the chances of this happening again.
I think everyone understands that errors and mistakes happen and will always happen. All we can do is learn from them and do what it takes to minimise the chances of them happening again. Based on our meeting yesterday I am hopeful that even in the event of finding further errors – you’ll take the same upfront and efficient approach which is genuinely appreciated!