1. With the system being non UK based, does the system comply with current
UK regulations? Will it comply with the new UK regulations about to come
out? Do we have to ensure it will comply? Is the system recognised by UKAS,
HSE or any other recognised body? To our knowledge it is not compatible
with a UKAS accredited method of survey.
2. Archibus is not an asbestos management program and the UoE are the trialling
the system for them and we have to ask for any updates required i.e. remove
use of American terminology, imperial measurements etc. instead of a purpose
built system which has a wider user base and is updated with new ideas and is
ensured to comply, and these changes are included in the annual fee.
3. The system was not set up correctly initially and the system is to lose the
survey number, this is an example of the UoE trialling the system and
encountering basic problems.
4. Some items which we were assured changed by MAS i.e. imperial
measurements, and item under quantity, survey names and not numbers are
still to be changed on Alcontrol PDA’s although I was assured that these
specific items had been changed. When something like this happens, each
entry has to be individually inspected and corrected as necessary which is very
time consuming and costly.
5. Some issues raised with MAS which we were told could be easily corrected
and that are no problem to fix such as default select site as University of
Edinburgh are still not done.
6. The system is far from streamline with each box having to be individually
filled in, with the only automatic fill through being the “no asbestos” tick.
Data entry is therefore extremely time consuming.
7. The system which has had fix upon fix added to it. This will continue to be
the case as the system develops and more and more technical problems are
likely to result from these patches.
8. Doubts over how the system will cope in the future i.e. cope with demolition
surveys (Type 3) information, Changes required to comply with new
regulations, other teething problems with resurvey data. Other systems can
have detailed tracking, re-inspection, remediation and removal information.
9. Some problems with the system have to be remedied by persons in Canada
which take time to complete.
10. The range of function within the reports which can be produced is poor, i.e.
There is not facility for recording remedial action other than the complete
removal of an ACM;
There is no method for altering the management team when re-inspections
MyEd/ MyEd Channel
Evidence from the contractors questionnaires and in-house staff that the
system is not being used.
1. Multiple problems with external viewing of drawings on MyEd due to version
of Java used, this information is from contractors.
2. There are problems with information shown i.e. Buildings drawing colours
which appear to have changed for no apparent reason, (rooms now showing as
white). Both Lisa and Gordon had previously checked these and were
confirmed as ok. Lisa was unable to check what had happened as she could
not rerun the scripts before she left, this issue has been ongoing since
3. Concerns that changes could have happened to other colours which are not so
evident. This will not be known until we know what caused to white rooms
4. Anything surveyed or altered in Archibus since Nov. can not be quality
checked and may not be correct on MyEd.
5. Some of the rooms are green when they should be red, and vice versa, we
know from end users that the majority only look at the colours on the plan and
not the data table. This incorrect colouring could mean that people are being
exposed to asbestos materials.
6. The plans are poor:
They provide only the footprint of the building with the room outline, no
detail such as doors to be able to orientate the user;
The room numbers on large buildings are impossible to view;
Users find the drawings very difficult to navigate around.
The colour coding on the plans means that risk scoring is not emphasised
e.g. rooms are red for damaged sprayed coating and sink pads with no
8. The layout of the asbestos channel is confusing and people do not know where
to look for specific information – the system is not simple enough to be
7. Buttons / links are not clear and take different routes i.e. when you open a
photo and want to go back to the previous screen you have to go back to the
9. The MyEd channel is often offline and unavailable.
11. All pictures related to a room / area show for every entry, this can be
confusing as even “no asbestos” entries show and the relevant photo may not
be the first shown.
12. There is nothing on the channel that tells the user whether the information is
up to date i.e. last modified date. For example buildings that undergo
refurbishment will have internal changes these are not reflected on MyEd for
sometime (partly due to the fact that the MAS system for resurveys is still
under development but also due to the timescale involved in some
refurbishment works). The same is true of areas where ACM removal has
13. There is no function for producing or printing full reports i.e. Type 2 report for
each building including limitations/caveats etc.
1. PDA’s are notorious for losing Data
2. Data carried in PDA is in a different format than the same information on
MyEd And Archibus
3. Photos are not loaded into the PDA for resurveys, this means that a print out of
the photos has to be carried with the surveyor (some buildings have over 150),
the photos have to be identified and there id noted by hand to enable any kind
of cross referencing on site.
4. To upload of data from the PDA to the Archibus system takes 1-2 hours and
means that the person doing it can not do any other work in Archibus while
this process takes place.
5. Since the change to the new background programme (MAS) there have been
very time consuming and costly problems with the transfer of data from PDA
to computer. Gill has to ask Jane who in turn has to ask MAS, this can take
days/weeks to be resolved and in some cases leads to the loss of data and the
need to resurvey buildings.
6. Some Archibus entries are appearing on the PDA to be resurveyed and they do
not appear to be relevant to the building being surveyed. They cannot be
opened on the PDA so further investigation by EBIS is required.
7. The programme for resurveying is still under development.
1. No undercrofts, attics or ducts are included in surveys as the information is
linked to Space management
2. Resurvey Data entry is extremely time consuming and labour intensive as the
information is loaded into a PDA then onto the Archibus system which is then
shown on MyEd, this also leads to problems as the final information is
displayed completely different from the previous entries.
3. More user friendly systems are available which are based on the more easily
recognised Microsoft programmes.
4. Some systems allow the data to be updated on an Ultra mobile with Microsoft
programmes which show the data as the end users sees it.
5. Training is done online by some companies to allow users to use the system.
6. Alcontrol “U” drive not remapped to Morton in October and the problem was
not identified until March. All photos loaded on in small conference room
were loaded into wrong area so had to be renamed and remapped (751 entries),
this problem was not picked up as it was assumed that the photos were unable
to be viewed due to the scripts not being able to be run, this implies that the
systems requirements are not understood fully.
7. There are no system alerts to ensure re-inspections are carried out at the
correct times, other systems send out e-mails or other alerts to enable checking
to be programmed.
8. Other systems can track users and show who has checked what information,
1. Currently there is only one (part time) member of the EBIS team who can deal
with problems relating to Archibus, the PDA’s or MyEd.
2. Problems within MIS have meant a 5 month delay with access being grated for
Gordon to the server where the asbestos survey photographs are held.
3. Gill is currently up loading and downloading information to and from the
PDA’s. When she leaves who will take over?
4. EBIS does not always have time to include for asbestos problems during the
visits from MAS representatives as their time is limited. This can lead to
problems dragging out or being forgotten about completely. Mohan is leaving