Future Infrastructure Forum - 3 03... · John Cooper Humber Bridge [email protected] Graham Ive UCL [email protected] Duncan McFarlane Cambridge University [email protected]

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


Asset management group

name organisation email address

David Pocock (chair) Halcrow [email protected]

Mike Chrimes /

Matthew Parker

ICE [email protected] /

[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]


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


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.


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


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


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)


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


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


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


Possible integrated proposal structure

asset

management

structures /

geotechnics

whole life

value / cost

processes

benchmarkin

g

componen

t models


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


Putting it all together

• Assets

• Performance

• Deterioration

• Failure

• Observation

• Intervention

• Prioritisation

• Wider implications

(… and information, processes and people)


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)

+ -


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 ?

+


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 ?


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

)


Thank you

Documents

Future Infrastructure Forum - 3 03... · John Cooper Humber Bridge [email protected] Graham Ive UCL [email protected] Duncan McFarlane Cambridge University [email protected]