EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT RISK-BASED PRIORITIZATIONsites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/... · Component Failure Component Risk Rating Component Failure Knowledge-based Assessment

Copyright 2012 Institute for Responsible Infrastructure Stewardship

USING

KNOWLEDGE-BASED ASSESSMENT

DATA

to EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT

RISK-BASED PRIORITIZATION

of M&R INVESTMENTS

in EXISTING BUILDINGS

USING


DATA



of M&R INVESTMENTS



Antelman, RA

Clayton, PE

Feola, PE

Uzarski, PhD, PE

Antelman, RA

Clayton, PE

Feola, PE

Uzarski, PhD, PE

USING


DATA



of M&R INVESTMENTS


USING


DATA



of M&R INVESTMENTS


ScienceScience

PracticePractice

IRISIRISNon-profitIndependentResearchEducationAdvocacy


Thank you !

ScienceScience

PracticePractice

A must read . . . . .

IRIS Official Review 2012


“It isn't simple, but can be done & improvement

will result”

Report’s Conclusion

ScienceScience

PracticePractice


Recommendation 2

RISK

LO

HI

Finding 2


NRC ‘S RECOMMENDED PROCESSfor Implementing Recommendation 3.b

ComponentRisk Rating

M&R ProjectRisk Ranking

“Additional research & collaborative effort are needed.”

Finding 9


Selection CriteriaSelection CriteriaCredibilityCredibilityCredibilityCredibilityTransparencyTransparencyTransparencyTransparencyAffordableAffordableAffordableAffordableEasily implemented Easily implemented Easily implemented Easily implemented Agency adaptableAgency adaptableAgency adaptableAgency adaptable


M&R ProjectRisk Ranking

Our PremiseOur PremiseThe report identifies many The report identifies many The report identifies many The report identifies many

recommendations & tools that recommendations & tools that recommendations & tools that recommendations & tools that can augment this process.can augment this process.can augment this process.can augment this process.

NRC ‘S RECOMMENDED PROCESSfor Implementing Recommendation 3.b


MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRMAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

ConstructionImprovements

Alterations

SFFAS 40 & 42

““““ AcceptableAcceptableAcceptableAcceptableCondition forCondition forCondition forCondition forCurrent UseCurrent UseCurrent UseCurrent Use””””


M&R

EmergencyService

Calls

Repairs

PredictiveTesting &Inspection

ProgrammedMajor

Maintenance

PM



M&R

EmergencyService

Calls

Repairs

PredictiveTesting &Inspection

ProgrammedMajor

Maintenance

PM

INVESTMENTS ININVESTMENTS IN

Major

Repair &

Replacement



FACILITIESFACILITIES

Copyright 2012 Institute for Responsible Infrastructure StewardshipLOW

HI

� � �

� � �

� � �

The TOOLKIT


Benefit/CostAnalysis

RiskAnalysis

Threat &VulnerabilityAssessment Implementation

NRC Report page 103:“Essential to do in the context of

importance to mission fulfillment”

NRC Report page 103:“Essential to do in the context of

importance to mission fulfillment”


The Universal

Threat &

Vulnerability

Assessment


THE THREATS

THE ASSET

AGE

TerrorismVandalism

Disaster

Abuse

Design Flaw

Accident

Poor Build


THE THREAT

100%

VULNERABLE

THE ASSET

AGEAGEAGEAGEAGEAGEAGEAGE



RiskAnalysis




Component Failure

Component Failure

NRC’S RECOMMENDEDRISK ANALYSIS PROCESS

IRIS RESEARCHIRIS RESEARCHAugmenting this process with other report

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

AffordableAffordableAffordableAffordable

Easily implemented

Easily implemented

Easily implemented

Easily implemented

Agency adaptable

Agency adaptable

Agency adaptable

Agency adaptable



Component Failure

Component Failure

NRC’S RECOMMENDEDRISK ANALYSIS PROCESS

Purpose of PresentationPurpose of PresentationSummarize the possible augmentations and propose that the FFC O&M Committee consider them when performing

Task #1 of the 2012 Technical Activities Program .


The following is a product of research

conducted by IRIS under a Cooperative

Research and Development Agreement

with ERDC-CERL, but until the paperwork

clears, any opinions expressed are solely

those of the Institute and shouldn’t be

construed to reflect official positions of

ERDC, the US Army, or any organization of

the US government.

PROVISO


to BuildingCII

THE BLENDED TOOL METHOD

Component Failure


Component Failure

Knowledge-basedAssessment


to Mission

Report Page 52Weibull Model

CFPRCSCI

“An array of tools is available to quantify risks.

Finding 3 & 8

“Use existing Knowledge-basedAssessment data.”

Recommendation 6

“Component ImportanceIndex.”

Report Page 99


to Building

to Mission

CII MDI

Component Failure


Component Failure


Knowledge-basedAssessment “Relative Mission Index”

USCG

RMI


“Mission Dependency Index”Finding 3

“Involve Senior Decision Makers”Report Pages 76 & 108

Mission ManagersMission Managers



Component Failure

Component Failure




Report Page 102ASTM 1765-07e1& Delphi Method”

CFCR



Implementation


RiskAnalysis

Threat &VulnerabilityAssessment

“ Recommended technique for economic analysis of government

programs & projects”– OMB Circular A-94 Revised -

“ Recommended technique for economic analysis of government

programs & projects”– OMB Circular A-94 Revised -


Benefit-to-CoPROJECT

BENEFIT / COST (B/C) ANALYSIS

B/C = Unmitigated CRR – Mitigated CRR

Estimated Project Cost



Component Failure

Component Failure



to Building

to Mission


Project




RiskAnalysis



COMPONENT RISK RATINGCOMPONENT RISK RATINGCOMPONENT RISK RATINGCOMPONENT RISK RATING

PROJECT B/CPROJECT B/CPROJECT B/CPROJECT B/C

Optimize

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Must Fund

Risk Tolerance

Report Chapter 7 & 8


Component Failure

to Mission

to Building

84 ComponentRisk Rating



Component Failure


Project

80.95

50

BLENDED TOOL METHODExample


COMPONENT RISK RATINGCOMPONENT RISK RATINGCOMPONENT RISK RATINGCOMPONENT RISK RATING

PROJECT B/CPROJECT B/CPROJECT B/CPROJECT B/C

Must FundOptimize

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Risk Tolerance

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


# Description Structural Mechanical Electrical Other1 Headquarters 50.0 60.0 70.0 20.02 IT Central 20.0 15.0 35.0 40.03 Conference Center 30.0 50.0 65.0 20.04 Library 15.0 20.0 15.0 25.05 Garage 45.0 30.0 25.0 0.06 Clinic 20.0 25.0 30.0 45.07 Cafeteria/Galley 20.0 10.0 15.0 15.08 Warehouse 20.0 75.0 50.0 15.0

FACILITY System Failure Risk Rating

Risk Register


# Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Structural 75 78 81 84 87 90

Mechanical 63 66 69 72 75 78

Electrical 67 68 69 70 71 72

Other 42 50 58 66 74 82

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Structural 40 43 46 49 52 55

Mechanical 63 66 69 72 75 78

Electrical 67 68 69 70 71 72

Other 42 50 58 66 74 82

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Structural 40 43 46 49 52 55

Mechanical 40 43 46 49 52 55

Electrical 40 41 42 43 44 45

Other 42 50 58 66 74 82

Capital Investment = $500,000

RISK MITIGATION PLAN BCapital Investment = $1,000,000

5 Garage

RISK MITIGATION PLAN A

Capital Investment = $0UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL RISKFACILITY

System



Features– Quantitative

– Predictive– Dynamic/On demand

– FM/Mission Balance– Affordable

– Streamlined– Do-able in MS Excel

Benefits– Repeatable

– Auditable– Transparent

– FM/Mission Balance– Use existing data


ScienceScience

PracticePractice

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.


ScienceScience

PracticePractice

THE BLENDED METHOD

RecommendationRecommendationThat the FFC O&M Committee consider these types of

process augmentations when doing Task #1 of the FFC 2012 Technical Activities Program.


History of Navy Leadership

in Facility Condition Assessment

TraditionalTraditionalTraditionalTraditionalTraditionalTraditionalTraditionalTraditional

KBIKBIKBIKBI1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s


For more info

Jim [email protected]


Documents

EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT RISK-BASED PRIORITIZATIONsites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/... · Component Failure Component Risk Rating Component Failure Knowledge-based Assessment