Risk-Based
(Asset) Facility Management Planning
Raymond Tan MBA BA(Hons) FCGP CSAM CAMA
Head of Asset Management Intelligence Support (AMIS)
Community Facilities Department.
Auckland Council
Overview
• References
• Auckland Council Approach
• Learnings
External RisksGroup Type Element Examples
Natural Event
MeteorologicalStrong wind, Flooding, Extreme rain, Extreme temperatures, Lightning, Drought
Geological/geotechnical Snow slide, Landslide, Earthquake, Tsunami, Volcanism
Fire, natural Forest, VegetationCosmic objects Meteorite (asteroid), Comet
Medical / biological
Plants and animalFungal, Parasite (Legionella,Giardia, Cryptosporidium), Bacteria, Viruses, Transferable diseases, Pandemic, Non pandemic
Technological
Release of harmful substances
Chemicals, Biological, Nuclear, Other
AccidentIndustrial fire, Industrial explosion, Transportation accident, Structural collapse, Other
Technical / human errorWater delivery, Food Safety, Sewage and waste, Transportation services, Financial services, Energy supply, ICT system failure
Human Behaviour
Malicious acts Organised crime, Sabotage, Espionage, Terrorism, War
Dysfunctional behaviour Psychotic (individuals), Negligence, Gangs, Other
Source: Auckland Council (Draft Natural Hazards Risk Management Action Plan 2017
Auckland Natural Hazard Risk Profile
Source: Auckland Council (Draft Natural Hazards Risk Management Action Plan 2017
Discussions, Guidance & Methods
2014 2014 2017
2016
2017
2010 2017 2017
Asset RisksGroup Type Element Examples
Asset
Capacity Natural wear and tear from frequency of use, stress during use
TypeConstruction method (e.g. seismic risk, weather tightness), materials used (e.g. asbestos risk, silica, lead)
Physical / Design Life Age-based deterioration/decay
ObsolescenceIrreplaceable critical components, outdated software not supported, incompatibility with newer components
Service Service Delivery Quality Reliability, increasing demand (or lack of),
Efficiency
Operating costsNot justified by new available technology to reduce costs significantly
Service costs Renewal or maintenance costs unsustainable
Design / Service Life
Pe
rfo
rman
ce
Years
Min Level of Service
Very Good
Average
Very Poor
Reduced service life
Asset renewed (original assumption)
Clause 6. Planning
6.1 Actions to address risks and opportunities
When planning for the FM System, the organisation shall consider issues…..and determine the
risks and opportunities that need to be addressed to
• give assurance the FM System can achieve its intend outcome(s);
• prevent, or reduced, undesired effects;
• ensure business continuity and emergency preparedness;
• achieve continual improvement.
The organisation shall plan:
a. Actions to address risks and opportunities, taking into account how these risks and opportunities can
change with time
b. How to:
– integrate and implement the actions into its FM system processes;
– evaluate the effectiveness of these actions.
ISO 41001:2018 Facility Management
ISO 31000:2018 Risk ManagementRisk Assessment and Management
Each asset class will have its own particular risk
profile that needs to be considered by the
organisation in terms of its corporate and
strategic objectives.
Application of a risk matrix based on
consequence and likelihood as set out in
standards such as AS4360 should be followed.
The flow chart from the IIMM Appendix 2 sets
out a good framework to follow. Importantly, a
documented outcome should be a risk
management plan that includes treatments and
operational activities to be applied; and by
whom.
2016 IPWEA Condition Assessment and Asset Performance Practice
Notes
ISO 31010
Our ApproachFramework, Principles and Processes
Council Top Strategic Risk - (Themes)
1. Health, Safety and Wellbeing
2. Cyber Security
3. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
4. Crown reforms – housing and urban growth
5. Fit for purpose community assets
6. Significant internal and external disruptions
7. Service Delivery
8. Small Waters, Waste Systems and Stormwater management
9. Programme and Project Delivery
10. Consent Processing
11. Theft, Fraud and Corruption
ISO 55002:2018 Decision-making framework for asset management
Ris
k M
anag
em
en
t
Co
mp
liance
Man
agem
en
t
Operational planning & control
Value
Ris
k an
d o
pp
ort
un
itie
s
Re
qu
irem
en
ts
Decision –making Criteria
Asset Management Plan(s)
SAMP
Value provided by assets
Organisational objectives
Pro
fit
Context / business environment
Stakeholders / societal expectations
Source: ISO 55002:2018
Performance(Technical / Functional)
RiskCost
Value
Adapted from ISO 55010:2019
AM Considerations - Linkages
IDF Programmes of work agreed(Drop down from LTP)
Identify
Define
Deliver
34
25
Renewal / ReplacementYes - Renew like for like?N – Upgrade / Replace
Asset Disposal / Decommission
0
Investment for change Asset Creation
Operations
Maintenance
1
AMISAssessment, Information Mgmt
/ Decision Support
• Asset deterioration assessment,
remaining useful life evaluation
• Asset fit-for-purpose, technical
performance, e.g. energy
usage, etc.
• Investment options
assessments
Risk
• Building codes and regulation
compliance evaluations
• Capacity assessments
against current building
codes
• Evaluate options to meet
legislation
Condition
• Asset Risks / Hazards
identification
• Asbestos risk assessment
• Seismic risks evaluation
• Pre-demolition surveys
Compliance
Asset Performance Assessment (Model Input)
Asset Information Management (Model Input)
• Asset information, e.g. location,
physical attributes
• Asset management information,
e.g. condition, technical
performance, capacity, etc.
Data Validation
Data Integration
• Incorporating location-based
analytics and geospatial
integration to facility
management planning.
• Provision of innovative solutions
to spatial data collection,
harmonisation and integration
with other assets systems.
Data collection
• Validation of asset information
handed over from developers
(224c), or project completion
• Conducting periodic asset data
audits on-site against various
asset management sources to
ensure accuracy of data including
condition assessments
Descriptive
Decision Support (Model Analysis & Output)
• Organisation and Visualisation of
unstructured data
• Development of interactive
dashboard to present asset
performance information.
• Develop of Facility management
plans to inform budget decisions
PredictivePrescriptive
• Analysis of options post
assessment
• Divestment, Reinvestment
evaluation
• Impact analysis of options
• Support prioritisation of asset
solutions
• Medium to long term risk-
renewals profiling
• Capital vs short term
maintenance cost estimates
• Whole-of-life costs estimation
Criticality x Condition = Risk
Qualitative /
Quantitative Quantitative Temporal
❑ Simplification (1 to 5 ranking)
❑ Risk-based approach:
Likelihood (Probability) vs Consequence (Impact)
❑ Condition= Likelihood = Probability of asset failure
❑ Criticality =Consequence = Level of Impact
❑ Temporal, Quantitative, Qualitative Dimensions
Key Considerations
❑ Asset criticality in terms of:
▪ Health & Safety (e.g. fire safety systems, security)
▪ Impact on overall asset system (e.g. roof, plumbing)
▪ Impact on Service (e.g. aesthetics)
▪ Regulatory / legislative requirements (e.g. building code, heritage, environmental)
❑ Physical condition based on the facility lifecycle affected by:
▪ Usage (e.g. wear & tear)
▪ Design life / Deterioration profile (e.g. material, construction type)
▪ Environmental or other external effects (e.g. coastal, marine, slips, storms, vandalism)
▪ Asset (Technical) Performance (e.g. breakdowns, utility costs)
Key Considerations
Criticality (Impact) / Failure Probability
Probability of Failure
Imp
act
(Cri
tica
lity)
3
3
21
1
2
4 5
4
5High
Low
Low High
Scheduled / Continuous Monitoring
Regular Monitoring
Scheduled / Planned Renewal
Scheduled Maintenance / Low Priority Renewal
High
Low
Low High
Imp
act
Likelihood
High Impact / Low Probability (repair / maintain)
Low Impact / Low Probability (repair / maintain)
High Impact / High Probability (renew / rehabilitate
Low Impact / High Probability (renew / rehabilitate
Yr 1-5 Yr 6-10 Yr 11-15
Risk ProfileRenewal Projection
Yr 16-20
Risk-Based Renewals
Requirements to address Asbestos, Heritage and Seismic
Asset Risk Assessment Program (ARAP) - Blueprint Program Sponsor - Rod SheridanBusiness Owner - Raymond TanProgram Manager - Ben MeadowsProgram Coordinator - Tracy MassamSub Program Lead – Surveys - Jimmy Bester (Asbestos), TBC (Seismic), TBC (Compliance)Sub Program Lead– Evaluations - TBCSub Program Lead – Decision Advice - TBCSub Program Lead – Design & Scoping - TBCSub Program Lead – Projects Delivery - TBC
Projects Delivery
• Construction• Divestment
Design & Scoping
• Approvals• Commission• Consenting
Decision Advice
(Invest / Divest) Local Board
• Governing Body• Staff
Evaluations / Investigations
• Prioritise remedial actions
• Evaluate options• Concept• Business Case• High-level
costing
Surveys / Inspections• Pre-inspection preparation –
building plans, consent review, legislation review: RMA, MCA, BA
• Survey, inspection• Materials collection & testing
(asbestos/ mould/lead)• Seismic calculation (Initial/Detail)• Current code compliance
evaluation (e.g. fire safety, accessibility, weather-tightness)
• Heritage• Sticker / Notices deployment• Report development
Deliverables• Asset Risk report• Media release• Stakeholder communication
(messaging)
• Prioritised list for investigation/optimisation
• Stakeholder communication (messaging)
• LB/GB report• Memo • Stakeholder
communication (messaging)
• Project Initiation• LB/GB report• Memo• Stakeholder
communication (messaging)
• Asset renewed• Asset optimised• Asset Divested• Stakeholder
communication (messaging)
Other Program Resources
CF (AMIS) / Building Control / Legal CF (I & D) / CS (SS&I)
CF (I&D/S&LA) / LBS CF (I&D/S&LA) CF (PD/S&LA)
Business InputsIES / Corp / Panuku / CS /
SS&IIES / Corp / Panuku / CS / SS&IIES / Corp / Panuku / CS /
SS&I / Finance
Benefit Realisation
IES / Corp / Panuku / CS / SS&I
Program Governance
ARAP Steering Group
Capex Delivery
& AM Steering Group
H&S Steering
Committee
Sub Program Tasks
Gateway / PMF conformance
Administration / Communications / Legal / Democracy (Deliverable: Communication Plan)
Core Program Resources
Asbestos Assessment
Asbestos Containing Material - ACM
• Asbestos cement (AC) sheets, slates & pipes, roof
sheets
• Insulation/sprayed lagging
• Asbestos textiles (rope, yarn and cloth)
• Sprayed coatings (textured ceilings)
• Bitumen felts and coated metal (decramastic tiles)
• Flooring materials (i.e. vinyl/tiles)
• Textured coatings and paints.
• Reinforced plastics – Electrical (Bakelite) boards &
fittings
• Millboard, paper and building (roofing) paper products
• Mastics, sealants, putties and adhesives
• Automotive brake pads, lifts brake disks
• Possible contaminant in baby powder, various foot &
shoe powders & even make up.
Asbestos is present in 1000’s of products (usually encapsulated in a resilient matrix)
HARDIPLANK - ASBESTOS
WEATHERBOARDASBESTOS CLADDING FIBRE
CEMENT TILES
Results
Building (EPB) Amendment Act 2016
The Act and its underpinning regulations and methodology came into fully effect from 1 July 2017
Key changes:
• National rules and methodology will supersede all Council EPB policies
• Divides NZ into zones of high, medium, and low seismic risk
• Stepped approach to identification, assessment and management of EPBs depending on seismic risk zone
• Councils to identify potential EQP buildings based on building ‘profile’ categories and advise owners. Council has discretion to identify buildings outside these profile categories.
Strike the right balance between:
I- Protecting people from harm in an earthquake
II- The cost of strengthening
III- The impact on built heritage
URM Pre-1976 buildings Falling hazard components
Seismic Assessment
No. Buildings Assessed Area (m2) of Assessed Buildings215
(≈ 6% total listed AC) buildings)417,896
(≈20% estimated total area of A) buildings)
Seismic Risk Category No. Buildings Area (m2)
High (NBS<%34) 67 44,082
Moderate (%34≤NBS<%67) 88 141,088
Low (NBS≥%67) 34 176,603
N/A (Non-building assets, Demolished, etc.) 26 56,123
10% of the total area of AC owned buildings is estimated to be EQP.
Assessed Buildings
Decision-Making Framework
• Defines and considers different options that may be applied to remediate the risk once a building is
identified as being EQP
• Considerations when comparing the advantages of each option against its alternatives are:
- The building current use and importance level
- If the building is of heritage value
- Any future programme that has been planned or likely to be planned for the building in future
- Financial parameters
Seismic Risk Management Policy
• provides a guideline to define the most economically and structurally viable upgrading level to which a
building can be possibly upgraded to
• Identify a wide spectrum of influential parameters that could play a major role in establishing this guideline
• Examine the impact of identified parameters on two important measures that drive the policy, being risk
and cost
Current Activity
Estimating Risks with Models
Embedding spatial dimension in asset risk
profiling: Towards a better of management of
community assets in Auckland Council
Methodology
Spatial Analysis
Principal Component Analysis
Decision Tree Analysis
Extraction of multiple spatial variables from existing topographic and hydrological dataset using GIS to identify buildings that are exposed to flood-related variables.
A statistical procedure to find spatial variables that significantly contribute to flooding and derive associated principal components for decision tree analysis
A predictive modelling tool to classify the flooding risk of community building in terms of risk index value
Spatial Analysis
➢ Getting sample points➢ Building corners and centroid generation➢ 984 buildings exposed to flood risk
• 430 entire building • 554 partial building
Dataset and variablesThemes Data used Derived variables
Asset Community buildings footprint data information (vector)
(i) proportion of building area exposed to flood
Topography Digital elevation model – Urban and Rural (LIDAR)
(ii) building centroid ground level; (iii) building corners ground level; (iv) elevation difference between building corners and building central location
Topography Digital surface model (LIDAR) (v) Surface elevation above ground level
Topography Slope (LIDAR) (vi) Slope (in degrees)
Hydrological Flood plain (based from hydrological modelling)
(vii) Floodplain level
Hydrological Flood prone area (based from hydrological modelling)
(viii) Minimum level; (ix) spill level; (x) depth of flood prone area
Hydrological Overland flow paths (based from hydrological modelling)
(xi) Overland flow path catchment area
Hydrological Coastal inundation (based from raster spatial modelling)
(xii) Coastal inundation depth
Asset Building valuation (xiii) Proportion affected building value exposed to flood
Decision Tree and Principal Component Analysis
Importance of components:
PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 PC9
Standard deviation 2.3265 1.4396 1.3184 1.1520 1.00801 0.90203 0.87363 0.68406 0.45379
Proportion of Variance 0.3866 0.1480 0.1242 0.0948 0.07258 0.05812 0.05452 0.03342 0.01471
Cumulative Proportion 0.3866 0.5346 0.6588 0.7536 0.82617 0.88429 0.93881 0.97223 0.98694
PC
A1
PC
A2
PC
A3
PC
A4
PC
A5
PC
A6
PC
A7
PC
A8
PC
A9
PC
A1
0 PC
A1
1 PC
A1
2 PC
A1
3 PC
A1
4
Building centroid ground level
Elevation diff bet bldg corners & centroid
Coastal inundation depth
Flood plain level
Flood prone minimum level
Flood prone spill level
Flood prone depth
Overland flow path catchment area
Proportion of building value exposed to flood
Proportion of building area exposed to flood
Slope (in degrees)
Surface elevation above ground level
Urban LiDAR
Rural LiDAR
➢ 3,428 point locations for 984 buildings➢ Shows the % of data that falls to each nodes ➢ The average response value at that node are
displayed for the branch➢ Decision tree consist of:
• 6 internal nodes• 8 terminal nodes
➢ The developed tree used to predict the test and train building datasets for the flooding risk scores
Results and Discussion:
15616%
26327%
29630%
9410%
434%
182%
10310%
111%
Building Count by Predicted Flood Risk Index
Score: 299 Score: 413 Score: 490 Score: 537
Score: 643 Score: 692 Score: 724 Score: 808
Lessons Learned
• Never assumed everyone knows the
risks
• Don’t rely completely on IT systems
• Complacency and ignorance is real
• Plan / Prioritise assessment of critical
assets
• Understand the difference between
asset and business (service) risks
Where can you find information?