When Standards Exist but Progress Stalls
For more than a decade, the UK drainage sector has operated under a clear technical framework for CCTV inspections. The Manual of Sewer Condition Classification (MSCC) was introduced to standardise condition coding, improve data quality, and provide confidence in asset assessment across the network and the 5th edition is the UK’s interpretation of BS EN 13508-2:2003+A1:2011 (Investigation and assessment of drain and sewer systems outside buildings. Visual inspection coding system).
As a framework, it remains sound.
The challenge lies not in the standard itself, but in how it is applied.
A Standard at Risk of Stagnation
While longevity is not inherently negative, standards only remain effective when they are actively applied, tested, and evolved.
If MSCC5 becomes something that is referenced rather than consistently enforced, it risks losing momentum. Without active application, there is little incentive for the industry to invest in future development, including the progression to review the BS EN 13508-2:2003+A1:2011 and the potential publication of MSCC6.
In that scenario, stagnation becomes self-perpetuating.
Certification Without Adoption
WRc plays a defined and often misunderstood role. It certifies software against MSCC5 as being fit for purpose. It does not mandate procurement decisions or prescribe which platforms must be used.
This creates a structural gap.
Software can be fully certified, demonstrably compliant, and technically robust, yet still face resistance in adoption. Not due to deficiencies in compliance, but because the industry defaults to what is already embedded.
Certification exists, but adoption does not automatically follow.
The Weight of the Default
Over time, one software platform has become the default choice across much of the sector. This position has not been established through mandate, coercion, or exclusion, but through a far more common mechanism: default behaviour.
When a system is already in place and broadly accepted, it requires effort to question it. In many cases, that effort simply never occurs.
Buyers rarely revisit assumptions once a solution is embedded.
Contractors feel commercially safe doing what everyone else does.
Manufacturers align with the option that presents the least friction.
Nothing malicious is happening. There is no single decision point where change is actively rejected. Instead, the market hovers — remaining static not because it is optimal, but because movement feels unnecessary.
The Comfort of the Known
In practical terms, this creates a form of operational comfort. Using the same tools as peers reduces perceived risk, even when alternatives exist that meet the same standards.
Consistency becomes conflated with compliance.
Familiarity becomes a proxy for assurance.
Over time, evaluation gives way to repetition.
This is a natural human and organisational behaviour, particularly in risk-averse environments. But it has consequences.
When Default Becomes Direction
The unintended effect of default behaviour is that progress slows without anyone actively deciding to slow it.
Innovation struggles to gain oxygen.
Certified alternatives face higher scrutiny than incumbents.
Change is treated as an exception rather than a normal outcome of competition.
The market does not reject new approaches — it simply does not engage with them.
When that happens, standards no longer drive evolution. They merely legitimise the status quo.
Why This Matters
Technology in adjacent infrastructure sectors has advanced rapidly. Cloud-based workflows, mobile-first data capture, AI-assisted review, and improved data accessibility are now commonplace.
CCTV drainage should not lag behind.
When new platforms enter the market that are fully certified, demonstrably compliant, cost-efficient, and technically capable — yet struggle to gain traction — the issue is no longer technical. It is behavioural and systemic.
A Moment for Re-examination
The sector now faces a choice.
MSCC5 can be reaffirmed as a genuinely applied, vendor-neutral framework that encourages competition, innovation, and future development. Or it can remain a static reference point while direction is set by default behaviours rather than active evaluation.
This is not a call for disruption, nor a criticism of existing tools. It is a call for reflection, to ensure that familiarity has not quietly replaced scrutiny.
Standards only deliver value when they are actively applied.
Progress follows when assumptions are periodically revisited.