prioritizing building repairs in maximo - the d.c. … building repairs in maximo.pdf ·...

Prioritizing Building Repairs in MAXIMO Based on Recommendations

Of the National Research Council

James B. Clayton, PE, MSEE, RIS1

Slide 1

Slide 1

The Institute for Responsible Infrastructure Stewardship (IRIS) is an independent, not-for-profit "think tank" that researches and advocates the use of business analytics and multi criteria decision making for obtaining best and highest use of scarce capital repair/renewal funds. We are working to close the gap between what science knows and what organizations practice in the professional skill area of Facilities Capital Repair Planning.

PracticePracticeScienceScienceCondition AssessmentCondition PredictionProject Ranking

CAPITAL REPAIR PLANNING

Weak BudgetsWasted Resources

Unwarranted Risks

Slide 2

Slide 2

In the early 1980s, US Navy leaders decided that their Capital Repair Planning process needed improvement. So the Navy joined with the Air Force (which had a similar need) in funding Army research for next-generation building condition assessments and capital repair planning. Goals were to reduce inspection costs; improve credibility of inspection data and repair budgets; enable more productive funding allocation and project selection; and allow meaningful tracking of spending impact on mission performance. Another objective of this initiative was to create a condition metric that was so reliable and consistent it could be used to regulate the outsourcing of maintenance functions.

1 Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Infrastructure Stewardship, 8212 Copperglow Trail, Fairfax Station, VA 22039, 703.980.1570, [email protected].

In 1997, the Army began publishing its research and in 1999 its new process was rated “preferable choice” among 18 alternative methods by a peer-reviewed American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) paper.2 More important, the Army’s new process met the aforementioned Navy and USAF needs, thereby affording its potential users “considerable savings and benefits in building condition assessment as well as reducing total maintenance and repair costs by nearly half over a 50-year lifecycle.”3

In 2012, fifteen years after research produced the improved process, most organizations continue to practice Capital Repair Planning in traditional ways. The research has, until recently, been largely ignored, thus perpetuating the production of weak budget requests, wasting of resources on needless inspections and low priority repair projects, and resultant unwarranted risks to mission accomplishment due to untended building deterioration.

ScienceScience PracticePractice

Slide 3

Slide 3

In 2009 the Federal Facilities Council asked the National Research Council (NRC) to appoint an ad hoc committee of experts to develop methods, strategies and procedures to predict outcomes of investments in maintenance and repair of federal facilities. The request was motivated, in part, by the development in the previous 10 years of new technologies.

After two years of study, the NRC published its report. The IRIS review of this report states:

“This report is a must-read for every facility manager, financial officer and decision maker faced with allocating scarce funds among candidate building repair projects. It skillfully describes critical issues that have defied resolution for decades; perceptively explains both new and re-kindled strategies and tools that can be applied to resolving the elusive issues; and adroitly combines multiple findings into clear and useful recommendations. The study committee deserves kudos for recognizing the need for new, ‘more strategic, more proactive, more transparent approaches’ and for taking pains to narrow the gap between recommendation and practice.”

2 G. R. Ottoman, W. B. Nixon, and S. T. Lofgren, ‘‘Budgeting for Facility Maintenance and Repair. I: Methods and Models,” ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, July–August 1999, 71–83. 3 M. N. Grussing and L. R. Marrano, “Building Component Lifecycle Repair/Replacement Model for Institutional Facility Management,” in ASCE Conference Proceedings, Reston, VA, July 24, 1997, pp. 550–557.

LO

HI

Strategic MitigationStrategic Mitigation

DeteriorationDeterioration

RISK“Establish a risk-

based process for prioritizing M&R

activities”

Recommendation 3.b

Slide 4

Slide 4

a. Report’s Conclusion: “Predicting outcomes…..” isn’t simple, but can be done and improvement will result.”

b. Finding 2: “Deteriorating facilities pose risk to mission, workplace, fiscal soundness, operations, & public policy objectives

c. Recommendation 2: “Develop a strategic approach for M&R investment to mitigate risks of deteriorating facilities.

d. Recommendation 3.b: “Establish a risk-based process for prioritizing M&R activities.”

Option FormulaNONE no calculation

PRIORITY (the default) Work Order Priority

EQPRIORITY Asset/Location Priority

PRIORITY + EQPRIORITY Work Order Priority + Asset/Location Priority

2 * PRIORITY + EQPRIORITY 2 * Work Order Priority + Asset/Location Priority

PRIORITY + 2 * EQPRIORITY Work Order Priority + 2 * Asset/Location Priority

MAXIMOMAXIMOMAXIMOMAXIMOOutOutOutOut----of the Box Work Priority Factorsof the Box Work Priority Factorsof the Box Work Priority Factorsof the Box Work Priority Factors

Component Risk RatingCRR = Probability of Failure * Failure Consequence

Component Risk RatingComponent Risk Rating

CRRCRR = = Probability of Failure * Probability of Failure * FailureFailure ConsequenceConsequence

Slide 5

Slide 5

The NRC study provides detailed guidance for implementing its Recommendation 3.b. This guidance introduces a metric called “Component Risk Rating (CRR)” and defines it as a component’s probability of failure multiplied by a rating of failure consequence. The implementation guidance centers on establishing a CRR for each building component category and subcategory in the organization’s inventory and using those CRRs as primary factors in prioritizing repair projects for funding and execution.

However, MAXIMO does not yet offer this CRR metric out-of-the-box, so any organization wishing to implement NRC Recommendation 3.b must engage in product customization.

Additional Priority FactorsAdditional Priority FactorsAdditional Priority FactorsAdditional Priority Factors

Safety

Economics

Security

Urgency

Tenant Wishes

Type Work

Health

Occupancy

FCI

Public Policy

Remaining service life

Consequence of failure

Physical condition

Building Use

Repair Criticality

Historical Preservation

Mission Impact

Regulatory Compliance

Mission Element Importance

System Importance

Materiel value

Component Importance

Building Importance

Executive Whim

Environmental Impact

Failure probability

Risk of Component Failure

Equipment value

Failure Effect

Problem Type

Slide 6

Slide 6

Another reason for customizing MAXIMO to support Capital Repair Project prioritization and selection is the fact that such prioritizations often involve the use of multiple factors other than those available out-of-the box. Slide 6 lists 30 such factors that organizations have been known to use in project prioritization and selection.

$150,000

MAXIMOMAXIMOMAXIMOMAXIMO®®®®v5v5v5v5Customized with TRM RulesManager ™

NRCNRCNRCNRC’’’’S RECOMMENDED PROCESS S RECOMMENDED PROCESS S RECOMMENDED PROCESS S RECOMMENDED PROCESS

Repair Loading Dock

8456441545

872

ComponentRisk Rating

Work

Slide 7

Slide 7

The next few slides give a real-life example of how one pioneering organization has already customized MAXIMO to prioritize repair work based on a number of factors, including Component Risk Rating. The customization was done in 2004, well before the NRC study, but coincidently used the same process that was published subsequently in 2011 as NRC Recommendation 3.b. The customization used CRR as one of 5 ranking factors in an algorithm to compute a work priority score from the 5 factors, each weighted according to management preference.

The customization was undertaken when decision makers in this particular organization faced their long-standing dissatisfaction with the results of past project selections, became aware of the published Army research and resolved to apply the research in order to improve their decision making.


$150,000

Repair Loading Dock

8456441545

872


Work

CRR

= Failure Probability

x Failure Consequence

CRR CRR

= Failure Probability= Failure Probability

x Failure Consequencex Failure Consequence

Slide 8

Slide 8

The customized MAXIMO screen was set up in the “Work Order” module so that the CRR (called “Risk Code” by the decision makers) for a work order was automatically computed from user entries in the fields labeled “Probability of Failure” and “Severity Hazard.”

$150,000

Repair Loading Dock


5 – HIGH4 -3 – MODERATE2 –1 - LOW

3 – MODERATE

Component FailureComponent Failure

3


Slide 9

Slide 9

As later recommended in the 2011 NRC report, the “Risk of Failure” and “Severity Hazard” values were both assigned by the organization’s “Facility Management Experts” using a pull-down rating scale of “Low” to “High” for “Risk of Failure” and . . . .

$150,000

Repair Loading Dock


5 – SERIOUS4 -3 – MODERATE2 –1 - MINIMAL

5 – SERIOUS

5


315


Slide 10

Slide 10

. . . a pull-down rating scale of “Minimal to “Serious” for “Severity of Hazard.”

This qualitative rating process, although a positive step toward closing the gap between science and practice, was hardly objective, repeatable or transparent. It failed to take advantage of the “array of tools that was already available to quantify risks,” as subsequently noted in Finding 8 of the NRC report.

IRIS research reveals that augmenting this basic process with other NRC report recommendations can make an organizations major building repair funding decisions more credible and transparent, as well as yield better and higher use of limited capital repair funds. IRIS research also indicates that the recommended augmentations are affordable, easily implemented and adaptable to the needs of individual organizations.

$150,000

Repair Loading Dock

CurrentProjectedCredibleTransparentAffordable


AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS

55

“Use Knowledge-

based condition

assessment”Component FailureComponent Failure

Risk-based inspection75% labor savingsEliminate subjectivityAuditable, repeatableCondition & backlog metricsCondition predictionRisk-based work triggersConsistent work scope & $$

Slide 11

Slide 11

For example, Report Recommendation 6 advocates the use of “Knowledge-based Condition Assessment” to make the outcomes and risks posed by investments in maintenance and repair projects and activities transparent to decision makers at all levels of the organization.

The recommended Knowledge-based Condition Assessment is, in fact, the same Army process that was first published in 1997 and rated “best of type” in 1999. The NRC study committee recommended its use in 2011 for many reasons, some of which are listed on this slide.

Any organization that actually implements Knowledge-based Condition Assessment will have at its disposal constantly updated, current and projected Component Failure Probability Ratings (CFPR) for every component in its building portfolio. These affordable, credible and transparent data can be routinely stored in MAXIMO as asset attributes and automatically retrieved to populate the CFPR field of repair projects involving the particular asset.

$150,000

Repair Loading Dock

Consequence MetricsComponent/BuildingBuilding/Mission ElementMission Element/Mission

ToolsCreating metricsCombining metrics

“Involve Senior

Decision Makers

“Involve Senior

Decision Makers

CredibleTransparentAffordable

Metrics

55


81

1556441545

872


AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS AUGMENTED NRC PROCESS

Slide 12

Slide 12

6 of the NRC report emphasizes the need to communicate the value of maintenance and repair investments to senior decision makers by: (1) showing senior decision makers precisely how funding requests meet overall organization objectives (not just those of facility managers), and (2) demonstrating that there is a disciplined and deliberate approach to requesting funds, that requests are directly tied to mission-related outcomes and that received funds will be invested effectively to achieve the mission outcomes.

What better way to satisfy this dual need than to involve the organization’s senior mission managers in the repair project prioritization process recommended by NRC? Furthermore, doesn’t it really make more sense to have the organization’s mission managers making the calls on mission consequences of encumbered facilities than to have facility management experts making that type of call?

The NRC report describes three metrics that IRIS believes can be combined into a single Component Failure Consequence Rating (CFCR). The first metric, called Component Importance Index (CCI) is a quantitative surrogate for severity of a component’s failure on the performance of its parent building. The second metric, Mission Dependency Index (MDI), is a quantitative surrogate for the impact of an impaired facility upon the primary Mission Element that it supports. And the third metric, Relative Mission Importance (RMI), is a quantitative surrogate for the impact of an impaired Mission Element upon the organization’s Mission.

Data for calculating these three metrics is initially obtained through inexpensive structured interviews of building users, mission managers and senior executives and updated only on an annually basis. The NRC report suggests certain tools for obtaining consensus opinion among mission managers on each of the individual metrics and for weighting and combining them into a single number for a quantitative CFCR that is both credible and transparent.

$150,000


Repair Loading Dock

8456441545

872


Work

OTHER RISK-BASED TOOLSComponent Vulnerability Assessment

Risk-based Project Benefit /Cost MetricRisk Register

Program Optimization

Slide 13

Slide 13

The NRC report and other published documents contain many additional ideas and tools that can be used to augment the recommended risk-based process for prioritizing maintenance and repair activities.

ConclusionConclusionThe recommended NRC process for managing

mission risks of deteriorated building components can be augmented with other

NRC report recommendations. The blends are easily implemented, agency adaptable, and

can make major building repair funding decisions more credible and transparent.

Slide 14

Slide 14

We believe that all these suggestions are easily implemented, user adaptable, and can make major building repair funding decisions more credible and transparent for any large facility owner within or outside the federal government.

•Mind the Gap•Read the Book•Close the Gap

My Recommendations

Slide 15

Slide 15

So my recommendation is three-fold:

- Mind the Gap: that is, be constantly aware that science currently knows more about condition assessment, condition prediction and repair project ranking than organizations typically practice, and, for this reason, organizations are producing weaker budgets, wasting more resources and taking unwarranted risks than they should have to.

- Read the Book: the NRC report is available at no cost and contains the information that can help you recognize ways to improve your organizations use of scarce repair project resources, and

- Close the Gap: act on the information in the NRC report and reap the benefits.

For more info

Jim [email protected]

Slide 16

prioritizing building repairs in maximo - the d.c. … building repairs in maximo.pdf ·...

Documents