Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Future Infrastructure Forum - 3
Asset management group
Cambridge: 17,18 April 2012
2 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Asset management group
name organisation email address
David Pocock (chair) Halcrow [email protected]
Mike Chrimes /
Matthew Parker
ICE [email protected] /
Mohammed Elshafie Cambridge University [email protected]
Graham Cole Surrey County Council (rtd.) [email protected]
Zhen Chen Heriot-Watt University [email protected]
Muhammad Imran Rafiq University of Surrey [email protected]
Richard Woodward TRL [email protected]
John Cooper Humber Bridge [email protected]
Graham Ive UCL [email protected]
Duncan McFarlane Cambridge University [email protected]
Richard Fish Bridge Owners’ Forum [email protected]
3 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
FIF-2 : 17,18 January 2012
• first break-out session
• second break-out session
• summary as presented
FIF-3 : 16,17 April 2012
• slides prepared between FIF-2 and FIF-3
Asset Management group
4 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Summary as presented
• We propose a National Asset Management strategy to provide a process
enabling evidence based decision making, so we will know what to spend,
where, and when, to avoid surprises.
• This will enable a holistic view across all assets, so decisions can be taken
with a full understanding of consequences across all assets.
• We are dealing with active, ageing, and complex networks managed in a
diligent, best endeavour, but often on a single asset or local basis.
• We face the external drivers of growing demand, climate change and
economic and financial crises.
• The need is to spend “more cleverly”, to obtain the performance
needed without unacceptable surprises or consequences.
5 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Scope and benefits
• Scope – asset-based businesses (cf facilities management)
• Engineering leadership of research into long-term “management”
• Step change needed, vs tends to be incremental
• Success = safe, reliable, reasonable costs
• Less network disruption = less costs
• Sustainability : ? pay more to reduce CO2
• To demonstrate extent to which ageing / deteriorating
• Financial framework for notional depreciation
• Improved understanding across systems
• Integrated criteria
• Appropriate risk of failure
• Improved performance of assets
6 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Prioritisation and performance
• Prioritisation
• Consequences of failure
• Interdependency brings complexity
• ? tool used by HA – reliability – governance
• How do we know what needs spending when ?
• Regulated / non-regulated
• affects investment cycle / cost of service
• Regulator criteria for performance
• Water leakage - not catastrophic
• Rail – reliability of service – failure of system
• Quantification of uncertainty
• Preparedness for national / man-made disaster
across (all) systems
7 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Problem and opportunity
• Ageing structures and a shortage of funds
• How do we reduce (maintenance) costs and
target expenditure most effectively ?
• Existing assets – data has improved
• local authorities know number of bridges and condition
• Individual structures - can be excess of data
• national asset picture – not well described, overall deregulation
(? national bridge database)
• Step change in infrastructure creation
• from “manufacture-stop”
• to “service-maintain” (eg Rolls Royce)
8 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
What would it look like ?
• Enrichment of (NIP) performance metrics
• Refresh/challenge Greenbook approach
• enabler or barrier to asset management ?
• biased to demand expansion ?
not robust asset performance
• Aid to government or asset owner
• Avoiding surprises
• Informing higher levels of decision-making
• Integrated view of state of assets
9 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Data and information
• Collect data (recognise data heirachy)
• Non-commensurate
• National Statistics Office for infrastructure
• Useful national information from
individual asset owners
• Benchmarking of
• performance
• operating costs
• deterioration
10 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Vision
• By 5 years’ time, the 2017 NIP should be able to report on the NAMSEI
(National Asset Management Strategy for Economic Infrastructure)
• Not just decisions on single assets
• A strategy for data collection and decision-making across assets
• Appropriate performance
• Addressing all risks
• Evidence based
• Metrics for existing assets
• Consistent investment decisions on
• ageing assets
• new assets
11 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Possible integrated proposal structure
asset
management
structures /
geotechnics
whole life
value / cost
processes
benchmarkin
g
componen
t models
12 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
FIF-2 : 17,18 January 2012
• first break-out session
• second break-out session
• summary as presented
FIF-3 : 16,17 April 2012
• slides prepared between FIF-2 and FIF-3
Asset Management group
13 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Putting it all together
• Assets
• Performance
• Deterioration
• Failure
• Observation
• Intervention
• Prioritisation
• Wider implications
(… and information, processes and people)
14 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Assets, performance, deterioration and failure
• What and where is the asset ?
• What are its purpose and performance requirements ?
• What is its service environment ?
• What is its expected lifecycle ?
• What are its potential forms and distribution of deterioration ?
• How does deterioration lead to failure ?
• Which are its critical / vulnerable sub-assets ?
• How does sub-asset failure affect asset performance ?
• How are the performance requirements increasing ?
• When do we expect increasing performance requirement to
meet capacity decreasing due to deterioration / sub-asset
failure ?
• What are the potential consequences of failure ? (e.g. direct cost, indirect cost, penalties, opportunity cost / loss of
availability, safety, environmental, reputational)
+ -
15 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Observation and intervention
• Are deterioration symptoms visible or is another form of
observation required ?
• Do we have sensors able to monitor the deterioration
mechanism ?
• Will monitoring the critical / vulnerable sub-assets give
us useful warning or will failure be sudden ?
• What are the potential intervention principles ? e.g. restrict demand / maintain / repair / partial replacement /
full replacement
• What are the attributes of the interventions ? e.g. cost / other impacts / trigger / improvement / own
deterioration rate
• Can we rank the sub-assets and potential interventions ? e.g. by timing, likelihood, consequences (doing / not doing)
• How does the total cost /yr of the proposed
interventions compare with the available budget ?
• How will the likelihood and consequences of failure
increase with delay ?
+
16 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Prioritisation and wider implications
• Will future combinations of in-year and delayed work be
feasible and affordable, or will we be creating a growing
back-log ?
• Would it be better overall to intervene earlier (e.g. before
visible symptoms) if this helped reduce the future back-log ?
• Can we afford the spend rate needed to complete an overall
intervention cycle across our asset base, within the length of
that intervention cycle ? (e.g. are we “painting the Forth Bridge”
fast enough to be finished before the next re-paint is needed ?)
• Would an “asset-as-a-service” model be feasible ? helpful ? (e.g. aircraft engines / DBFO roads)
• How could we articulate the potential wider impacts of the
infrastructure back-log compared to other non-infrastructure
calls on budget ?
• Across asset hierarchy ?
• Across asset types ?
• Across networks and systems ?
• Across funding streams ?
• Across Government Departments ?
17 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
1.
What a
nd
wh
ere
is t
he
asse
t ?
2.
What a
re its
pu
rpo
se
an
d p
erf
orm
ance r
equ
ire
me
nts
?
3.
What is
its
se
rvic
e e
nviro
nm
ent ?
4.
What is
its
exp
ecte
d life
cycle
?
5.
What a
re its
po
ten
tia
l fo
rms a
nd
dis
trib
utio
n o
f d
ete
rio
ration ?
6.
Ho
w d
oe
s d
ete
rio
ration le
ad
to
fa
ilure
?
7.
Whic
h a
re its
critica
l /
vu
lne
rab
le s
ub-a
sse
ts ?
8.
Ho
w d
oe
s s
ub-a
sse
t fa
ilure
aff
ect a
sse
t p
erf
orm
ance a
nd w
ha
t a
re th
e
co
nse
qu
ence
s ?
9.
Ho
w a
re th
e p
erf
orm
ance r
equ
ire
me
nts
in
cre
asin
g ?
10
.When d
o w
e e
xp
ect in
cre
asin
g p
erf
orm
an
ce r
equ
ire
me
nt to
me
et
ca
pa
city d
ecre
asin
g d
ue
to
de
terio
ration
/ s
ub-a
sse
t fa
ilure
?
11
.What a
re th
e p
ote
ntial co
nse
qu
en
ces o
f fa
ilure
?
(e.g
. d
ire
ct co
st,
in
dire
ct co
st,
pe
na
ltie
s, o
pp
ort
unity c
ost
/ lo
ss o
f
ava
ilab
ility
, sa
fety
, e
nviro
nm
enta
l, r
ep
uta
tion
al)
12
.Are
de
terio
ration s
ym
pto
ms v
isib
le o
r is
an
oth
er
form
of o
bse
rva
tio
n
requ
ire
d ?
13
.Do
we
ha
ve
se
nso
rs a
ble
to
mo
nito
r th
e d
ete
rio
ration
me
ch
anis
m ?
14
.Will
monitorin
g th
e c
ritica
l /
vu
lne
rab
le s
ub-a
sse
ts g
ive
us u
se
ful
wa
rnin
g o
r w
ill f
ailu
re b
e s
ud
de
n ?
15
.What a
re th
e p
ote
ntial in
terv
en
tio
n p
rin
cip
les ?
e.g
. re
str
ict
de
ma
nd / m
ain
tain
/ r
ep
air / p
art
ial re
pla
ce
ment /
full
rep
lace
me
nt
16
.What a
re th
e a
ttrib
ute
s o
f th
e in
terv
en
tio
ns ?
e.g
. co
st /
oth
er
imp
acts
/ t
rigge
r /
imp
rove
ment /
ow
n d
ete
rio
ration
rate
17
.Ca
n w
e r
an
k th
e s
ub-a
sse
ts a
nd
po
ten
tia
l in
terv
en
tions ?
e.g
. b
y t
imin
g, lik
elih
ood
, co
nse
qu
ences (
do
ing / n
ot d
oin
g)
18
.Ho
w d
oe
s th
e to
tal co
st
/yr
of
the
pro
po
se
d in
terv
en
tio
ns c
om
pa
re
with
th
e a
va
ilab
le b
ud
ge
t ?
19
.Ho
w w
ill t
he
lik
elih
oo
d a
nd
co
nse
qu
ences o
f fa
ilure
in
cre
ase
with
de
lay ?
20
.Will
futu
re c
om
bin
ations o
f in
-ye
ar
an
d d
ela
ye
d w
ork
be
fe
asib
le a
nd
aff
ord
able
, o
r w
ill w
e b
e c
rea
tin
g a
gro
win
g b
ack-
log ?
21
.Ca
n w
e a
rtic
ula
te th
e p
ote
ntial w
ide
r im
pa
cts
of
the
in
fra
str
uctu
re
ba
ck-lo
g c
om
pa
red to
oth
er
no
n-in
frastr
uctu
re c
alls
on
bu
dge
t ?
22
.Would
it b
e b
ett
er
ove
rall
to in
terv
en
e e
arlie
r (e
.g.
be
fore
vis
ible
sym
pto
ms)
if th
is h
elp
ed r
ed
uce
th
e f
utu
re b
ack-
log ?
23
.Ca
n w
e a
fford
th
e s
pe
nd
ra
te n
ee
ded to
co
mp
lete
an
ove
rall
inte
rve
ntio
n c
ycle
acro
ss o
ut a
sse
t b
ase
, w
ith
in th
e le
ngth
of th
at
inte
rve
ntio
n c
ycle
? (
e.g
. a
re w
e p
ain
tin
g th
e F
ort
h B
rid
ge
fa
st e
no
ugh
to b
e f
inis
hed
be
fore
th
e n
ext
re-p
ain
t is
ne
ed
ed ?
)
24
.Would
an “
asse
t-a
s-a
-se
rvic
e”
mo
de
l b
e fe
asib
le ?
(e.g
. a
ircra
ft e
ngin
es o
r p
erh
ap
s a
DB
FO
ro
ad
)
18 Cambridge FIF2 asset management group slides - v3 A CH2M HILL COMPANY 17,18 April 2012
Thank you