For single-site operators, slip resistance is a local issue.

For portfolio managers, it becomes a systems problem.

Multiple centres, each with different layouts, materials, maintenance regimes, different onsite staffing, and exposure conditions, create variability that cannot be effectively managed through isolated testing.

The Nature of Portfolio Risk

Across a typical shopping centre portfolio, risk is distributed across:

• External entries exposed to weather and foot traffic
• Food courts where contamination is constant
• Amenities subject to intensive cleaning cycles
• Car parks affected by coatings, tyre residue, (UV) sunlight and wear
• Back-of-house areas with different surface treatments

Each of these zones behaves differently – and changes over time.

Why Site-Based Testing Falls Short

Traditional approaches rely on:

• Ad hoc testing following incidents
• Site-specific reports without standardisation
• Inconsistent testing intervals

This creates three problems:

Lack of Comparability – Results from different sites cannot be reliably compared.

Reactive Decision-Making – Testing occurs after incidents, not before.

Limited Visibility – There is no consolidated view of risk across the portfolio.

A Structured Portfolio Approach

A portfolio-based model introduces consistency and control.

Key elements include:

Standardised Testing Methodology
All sites tested in accordance with AS 4663:2013, using consistent equipment and procedures.

Uniform Reporting Framework
Results presented in a consistent format, enabling direct comparison.

Centralised Data Management
Results aggregated to identify trends, recurring issues, and high-risk zones.

Defined Retesting Intervals
Testing frequency based on usage, exposure, and historical performance.

From Compliance to Risk Management

This approach shifts the focus:

• From “does this site comply?”
• To “where is risk increasing across the portfolio?”

It enables:

• Prioritised maintenance and capital works
• Early identification of performance decline
• Improved defensibility in the event of claims

Standards and Interpretation

Testing is conducted to:

• AS 4663:2013 (existing surfaces)
• Interpreted against AS 4586:2013 classifications
• Supported by HB 198:2014 guidance

Consistency in interpretation is as important as consistency in testing.

Operational Benefits

Portfolio clients typically see:

• Reduced incident frequency over time
• More efficient allocation of maintenance budgets
• Improved internal reporting to stakeholders
• Stronger position in insurance and liability discussions