Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne A Systematic Methodology for Holistic Risk Assessment in Asset Management John Mo Manufacturing and Materials Engineering RMIT University Ph: 03 9925 6279 or Em: [email protected]
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
A Systematic Methodology for Holistic Risk Assessment in
Asset Management
John MoManufacturing and Materials Engineering
RMIT UniversityPh: 03 9925 6279 or
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Outline of Presentation• Risks in asset management• The change process and holistic
approach• Analytic Hierarchy Process• Internal quantifiable factors• External non-quantifiable factors• A worked example
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Risk Issues in Asset Management
• Long service life• Changes in external factors, e.g. climate
change, market, supply and distribution networks
• Changes internal factors, e.g. production, loss time, organisations
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
AS 4360
Frame-work
Assess Risk
Establish The Context
Identify Risks
Analyse Risk
Evaluate Risk
Treat Risk
Mon
itor a
nd R
evie
w
Com
mun
icat
e an
d C
onsu
lt
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Commercial off the shelf tools• The COTS tools partially address the risk management
issues & challenges in asset management • No COTS tools completely meet the baseline requirements• Critical limitations of COTS tools for asset management
applications:– Knowledge management: inability to capture and reuse organisation
knowledge in order to formulate better mitigation plans – Risk propagation analysis: fails to consider the propagation of risks
based on their interdependencies– Quantitative risk analysis: highly dependent on user judgements
resulting in inconstant risk analysis– Treating incomplete information: inability to compute risk likelihood
using incomplete information
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Difficulties in Asset Management Decisions
• Many factors are non-quantifiable• Major decisions such as replacement,
upgrade, overhaul should be based on optimising business performance
• Effective decision making needs a single value indicator that combines other indicators in a logical way
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
The Change Process
CURRENT FACILITYAS-IS
FUTURE FACILITYTO-BE
InformationSystem
TransitionPlans
ManufacturingEquipment Transition
Plans
Human andOrganisationTransition
Plans
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Holistic Approach• All factors considered• Multi-criteria, capable of handling large number
of factors• Deal with both quantitative and qualitative data• Systematic, unbiased methodology• Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been used
in many areas in business enterprises for priority setting, resource allocation, decision making
• The process is to be supported by quantitative means wherever it is possible
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessCollect
the facts
Define the hierarchy
Establish criteria
Pairwise comparison
Normalise to Vector of priorities
Compute overall vector of
priorities
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Level II
Asset performance
indicator
AHP Structure for Asset Management Decisions
Level I
System reliability
Production capacity
Customer satisfaction
Frequency of power failures
Enterprise activity under existing asset
conditions
Enterprise activity under
new asset conditions
Level III
(Large no. of factors)
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Pairwise Comparison• For each factor, compare two states to
determine the relative importance• Internal factors are often quantifiable. For
quantifiable factors, use available numerical values– Actual production data– Historical failure rates– Test results– Sales or marketing data
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Pairwise Comparison of Data
Reliability Old asset New asset
Vector of priority
Old asset 1
New asset 1
1
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Remote Process Monitoring
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Capturing Process Performance
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
New Equipment Operation Data from Vendor
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Reliability Data Comparison
Reliability Old asset New asset
Old asset 1 6132/7800
New asset 7800/6132 1
Available time for old asset per year = 6132 hrsAnticipated available time for new asset per year = 7800 hrs
Invert from cell (1,2)
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Vector of Priority
• To address inconsistency in dimensions, units of measurement, importance or criticality
• Computed by normalising the factors for both old and new asset conditions
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Normalise Data
Reliability Old asset New asset
Old asset 1 0.786
New asset 1.272 1
2.272 1.786 1
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Compute Vector of Priority
Reliability Old asset New asset Vector of priority
Old asset 1 0.786 0.44
New asset 1.272 1 0.56
2.272 1.786 1
2.272___(2.272+1.786)
1.786___(2.272+1.786)
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
CAPEX (Negative Factor)
CAPEX Old asset New asset Vector of priority
Old asset 1 10/1 0.91
New asset 1/10 1 0.09
1.1 11 1
CAPEX for old asset = $0.1MAnticipated CAPEX for new asset = $1.0M
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
External factors• External factors are often non-quantifiable.
They are often uncontrollable. • For non-quantifiable factors, use expert
judgement:– Customer satisfaction– Competition– Market share
RMIT UniversityAsset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Define the scale of comparison• Extremely preferred/favourable• Very strong to extremely• Very strongly preferred/favourable• Strongly to very strongly• Strongly preferred/favourable• Moderately to strongly• Moderately preferred/favourable• Equally to moderately• Equally preferred/favourable
987654321
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Pairwise Comparison of Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
Old asset New asset Vector of priorities
Old asset 1 1/3 0.25
New asset 3 1 0.75
Total 4 1.333 1
Customer preference:Old asset is moderately preferred than new asset
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Pairwise Comparison of Insurance Premium
Insurance premium
Old asset New asset Vector of priorities
Old asset 1 1 0.5
New asset 1 1 0.5
Total 2 2 1
No perceived change of insurance premium
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Vector of Priority for
Each Factor
Governing factors Old PL New PLOperating cost 0.3737 0.6263
Insurance cost 0.5000 0.5000
Capacity 0.4098 0.5902
Reliability 04401 0.5599
Payback period 0.7500 0.2500
Staff morale 0.6000 0.4000
Capital expenditure 0.9091 0.0909
No. of workers 0.2273 0.7727
Customer satisfaction 0.2500 0.7500
Area occupied 0.5882 0.0317
Expected reject/ rework 0.3571 0.6429
Competitive advantage 0.3333 0.6667
Change over time 0.4118 0.5882
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Weighting of Governing Factors
• To distinguish the importance of some factors as compared to another in the context of the business (asset to be managed)
• Pairwise comparison and then normalised in much the same way
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Pairwise Comparison for FactorsGoverning Governing factorsfactors
Op. Op. costcost
Insur.Insur. CapaCapacitycity
ReliaReliabilitybility
PaybPaybackack
MoralMoralee
CAPECAPEXX
WorkWorkersers
Cust. Cust. sat.sat.
Area Area RejecRejectt
Cmp. Cmp. adv.adv.
C/OC/O
Operating Operating costcost 1.001.00 7.007.00 3.003.00 5.005.00 3.003.00 9.009.00 1.001.00 5.005.00 0.200.20 9.009.00 1.001.00 5.005.00 6.006.00
Insurance Insurance costcost 0.140.14 1.001.00 0.200.20 0.140.14 0.330.33 0.330.33 0.140.14 1.001.00 0.110.11 3.003.00 0.200.20 3.003.00 0.200.20
CapacityCapacity 0.330.33 5.005.00 1.001.00 5.005.00 3.003.00 5.005.00 3.003.00 3.003.00 0.140.14 7.007.00 1.001.00 3.003.00 3.003.00
ReliabilityReliability 0.200.20 7.007.00 0.200.20 1.001.00 5.005.00 5.005.00 0.200.20 1.001.00 0.110.11 5.005.00 0.140.14 5.005.00 3.003.00
Payback Payback periodperiod 0.330.33 3.003.00 0.330.33 0.200.20 1.001.00 3.003.00 0.200.20 5.005.00 0.140.14 7.007.00 0.200.20 3.003.00 5.005.00
Staff moraleStaff morale 0.110.11 3.003.00 0.200.20 0.200.20 0.330.33 1.001.00 0.140.14 3.003.00 0.140.14 5.005.00 0.140.14 5.005.00 0.330.33
CAPEXCAPEX 1.001.00 7.007.00 0.330.33 5.005.00 5.005.00 7.007.00 1.001.00 5.005.00 0.330.33 9.009.00 3.003.00 3.003.00 7.007.00
No. of No. of workersworkers 0.200.20 1.001.00 0.330.33 1.001.00 0.200.20 0.330.33 0.200.20 1.001.00 0.140.14 5.005.00 0.200.20 2.002.00 0.200.20
Customer sat.Customer sat. 5.005.00 9.009.00 7.007.00 9.009.00 7.007.00 7.007.00 3.003.00 7.007.00 1.001.00 9.009.00 5.005.00 9.009.00 9.009.00
Area Area occupiedoccupied 0.110.11 0.330.33 0.140.14 0.200.20 0.140.14 0.200.20 0.110.11 0.200.20 0.110.11 1.001.00 0.200.20 0.330.33 0.330.33
Reject/ Reject/ reworkrework 1.001.00 5.005.00 1.001.00 7.007.00 5.005.00 7.007.00 0.330.33 5.005.00 0.200.20 5.005.00 1.001.00 5.005.00 7.007.00
Competitive Competitive adv.adv. 0.200.20 0.330.33 0.330.33 0.200.20 0.330.33 0.200.20 0.330.33 0.500.50 0.110.11 3.003.00 0.200.20 1.001.00 0.330.33
Change over Change over timetime 0.170.17 5.005.00 0.330.33 0.330.33 0.200.20 3.003.00 0.140.14 5.005.00 0.110.11 3.003.00 0.140.14 3.003.00 1.001.00
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Vector of Priority for
Factors (Normalised)
Governing factors VP
Operating cost 0.1245Insurance cost 0.0210Capacity 0.0989Reliability 0.0618Payback period 0.0539Staff morale 0.0347CAPEX 0.1266No. of workers 0.0256Customer complains 0.2735Area occupied 0.0109Expected reject/ rework 0.1095Competitive advantage 0.0187Change over time 0.0405
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Overall Vector of Priority
Governing factors Old PL New PLOperating cost 0.0465 0.0780Insurance cost 0.0105 0.0105Capacity 0.0405 0.0584Reliability 0.0272 0.0346Payback period 0.0404 0.0135Staff morale 0.0208 0.0139Capital expenditure 0.1151 0.0115No. of workers 0.0058 0.0198Customer satisfaction 0.0684 0.2052Area occupied 0.0064 0.0045Reject/ rework 0.0391 0.0704Competitive advantage 0.0062 0.0125Change over time 0.0167 0.0238
TOTAL 0.4437 0.5563
Benefit indicator:
%4.254437.0
4437.05563.0
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Sensitivity AnalysisOld/New VP
1/5 0.26991/2 0.25401/1 0.23822/1 0.22285/1 0.2075
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Summary• Many other factors are also governing the operation of the
asset• Some of these factors are non-quantifiable• Major decisions such as replacement, upgrade, system
overhaul are risk sensitive• The existing and new asset conditions can be analysed as
a transition from AS-IS state to TO-BE state by Analytic Hierarchy Process
• AHP can take both quantitative and non-quantifiable factors together in an equitable way
• Internal factors are mostly quantitative factors• External factors are generally non-quantifiable factors.
They are analysed by expert judgement• This holistic risk approach can convert all factors into a
single indicator value assisting decision making on asset management
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
A Word of Caution• Like any risk analysis, there is always a
factor of uncertainty• The indicator should be used as a
reference for decision making, rather than dictating the outcome of the decision
• More expert involvement will give a fairer judgement on non-quantifiable factors
Asset Management Council Meeting, 8 November, 2007, Melbourne
Thank youQuestions?
Professor John MoDiscipline Head, Manufacturing and Materials EngineeringRMIT UniversityBuilding 251, Bundoora East Campus, Bundoora, VIC 3083Contact: 03 9925 6279 or [email protected]