Modelling and execution of asset management process via workflow automation

An Asset Management (AM) life-cycle constitutes a set of processes that align with the development, operation and maintenance of assets, in order to meet the desired requirements and objectives of the stake holders of the business. The scope of AM is often broad within an organization due to the interactions between its internal elements such as human resources, finance, technology, engineering operation, information technology and management, as well as external elements such as governance and environment. Due to the complexity of the AM processes, it has been proposed that in order to optimize asset management activities, process modelling initiatives should be adopted. Although organisations adopt AM principles and carry out AM initiatives, most do not document or model their AM processes, let alone enacting their processes (semi-) automatically using a computer-supported system. There is currently a lack of knowledge describing how to model AM processes through a methodical and suitable manner so that the processes are streamlines and optimized and are ready for deployment in a computerised way. This research aims to overcome this deficiency by developing an approach that will aid organisations in constructing AM process models quickly and systematically whilst using the most appropriate techniques, such as workflow technology. Currently, there is a wealth of information within the individual domains of AM and workflow. Both fields are gaining significant popularity in many industries thus fuelling the need for research in exploring the possible benefits of their cross-disciplinary applications. This research is thus inspired to investigate these two domains to exploit the application of workflow to modelling and execution of AM processes. Specifically, it will investigate appropriate methodologies in applying workflow techniques to AM frameworks. One of the benefits of applying workflow models to AM processes is to adapt and enable both ad-hoc and evolutionary changes over time. In addition, this can automate an AM process as well as to support the coordination and collaboration of people that are involved in carrying out the process. A workflow management system (WFMS) can be used to support the design and enactment (i.e. execution) of processes and cope with changes that occur to the process during the enactment. So far few literatures can be found in documenting a systematic approach to modelling the characteristics of AM processes. In order to obtain a workflow model for AM processes commonalities and differences between different AM processes need to be identified. This is the fundamental step in developing a conscientious workflow model for AM processes. Therefore, the first stage of this research focuses on identifying the characteristics of AM processes, especially AM decision making processes. The second stage is to review a number of contemporary workflow techniques and choose a suitable technique for application to AM decision making processes. The third stage is to develop an intermediate ameliorated AM decision process definition that improves the current process description and is ready for modelling using the workflow language selected in the previous stage. All these lead to the fourth stage where a workflow model for an AM decision making process is developed. The process model is then deployed (semi-) automatically in a state-of-the-art WFMS demonstrating the benefits of applying workflow technology to the domain of AM. Given that the information in the AM decision making process is captured at an abstract level within the scope of this work, the deployed process model can be used as an executable guideline for carrying out an AM decision process in practice. Moreover, it can be used as a vanilla system that, once being incorporated with rich information from a specific AM decision making process (e.g. in the case of a building construction or a power plant maintenance), is able to support the automation of such a process in a more elaborated way.

Improving asset management process modelling and integration

Asset management (AM) processes play an important role in assisting enterprises to manage their assets more efficiently. To visualise and improve AM processes, the processes need to be modelled using certain process modelling methodologies. Understanding the requirements for AM process modelling is essential for selecting or developing effective AM process modelling methodologies. However, little research has been done on analysing the requirements. This paper attempts to fill this gap by investigating the features of AM processes. It is concluded that AM process modelling requires intuitive representation of its processes, ‘fast’ implementation of the process modelling, effective evaluation of the processes and sound system integration.

Nation & internation practices in decision support tools in road asset management

This document provides a review of international and national practices in investment decision support tools in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying analytic frameworks, evaluation methodologies and criteria adopted by current tools. Emphasis was also given to how current approaches support Triple Bottom Line decision-making. Benefit Cost Analysis and Multiple Criteria Analysis are principle methodologies in supporting decision-making in Road Asset Management. The complexity of the applications shows significant differences in international practices. There is continuing discussion amongst practitioners and researchers regarding to which one is more appropriate in supporting decision-making. It is suggested that the two approaches should be regarded as complementary instead of competitive means. Multiple Criteria Analysis may be particularly helpful in early stages of project development, say strategic planning. Benefit Cost Analysis is used most widely for project prioritisation and selecting the final project from amongst a set of alternatives. Benefit Cost Analysis approach is useful tool for investment decision-making from an economic perspective. An extension of the approach, which includes social and environmental externalities, is currently used in supporting Triple Bottom Line decision-making in the road sector. However, efforts should be given to several issues in the applications. First of all, there is a need to reach a degree of commonality on considering social and environmental externalities, which may be achieved by aggregating the best practices. At different decision-making level, the detail of consideration of the externalities should be different. It is intended to develop a generic framework to coordinate the range of existing practices. The standard framework will also be helpful in reducing double counting, which appears in some current practices. Cautions should also be given to the methods of determining the value of social and environmental externalities. A number of methods, such as market price, resource costs and Willingness to Pay, are found in the review. The use of unreasonable monetisation methods in some cases has discredited Benefit Cost Analysis in the eyes of decision makers and the public. Some social externalities, such as employment and regional economic impacts, are generally omitted in current practices. This is due to the lack of information and credible models. It may be appropriate to consider these externalities in qualitative forms in a Multiple Criteria Analysis. Consensus has been reached in considering noise and air pollution in international practices. However, Australia practices generally omitted these externalities. Equity is an important consideration in Road Asset Management. The considerations are either between regions, or social groups, such as income, age, gender, disable, etc. In current practice, there is not a well developed quantitative measure for equity issues. More research is needed to target this issue. Although Multiple Criteria Analysis has been used for decades, there is not a generally accepted framework in the choice of modelling methods and various externalities. The result is that different analysts are unlikely to reach consistent conclusions about a policy measure. In current practices, some favour using methods which are able to prioritise alternatives, such as Goal Programming, Goal Achievement Matrix, Analytic Hierarchy Process. The others just present various impacts to decision-makers to characterise the projects. Weighting and scoring system are critical in most Multiple Criteria Analysis. However, the processes of assessing weights and scores were criticised as highly arbitrary and subjective. It is essential that the process should be as transparent as possible. Obtaining weights and scores by consulting local communities is a common practice, but is likely to result in bias towards local interests. Interactive approach has the advantage in helping decision-makers elaborating their preferences. However, computation burden may result in lose of interests of decision-makers during the solution process of a large-scale problem, say a large state road network. Current practices tend to use cardinal or ordinal scales in measure in non-monetised externalities. Distorted valuations can occur where variables measured in physical units, are converted to scales. For example, decibels of noise converts to a scale of -4 to +4 with a linear transformation, the difference between 3 and 4 represents a far greater increase in discomfort to people than the increase from 0 to 1. It is suggested to assign different weights to individual score. Due to overlapped goals, the problem of double counting also appears in some of Multiple Criteria Analysis. The situation can be improved by carefully selecting and defining investment goals and criteria. Other issues, such as the treatment of time effect, incorporating risk and uncertainty, have been given scant attention in current practices. This report suggested establishing a common analytic framework to deal with these issues.

Investment decision-making under risk (reliability) and uncertainty for infrastructure asset management

Risks and uncertainties are inevitable in engineering projects and infrastructure investments. Decisions about investment in infrastructure such as for maintenance, rehabilitation and construction works can pose risks, and may generate significant impacts on social, cultural, environmental and other related issues. This report presents the results of a literature review of current practice in identifying, quantifying and managing risks and predicting impacts as part of the planning and assessment process for infrastructure investment proposals. In assessing proposals for investment in infrastructure, it is necessary to consider social, cultural and environmental risks and impacts to the overall community, as well as financial risks to the investor. The report defines and explains the concept of risk and uncertainty, and describes the three main methodology approaches to the analysis of risk and uncertainty in investment planning for infrastructure, viz examining a range of scenarios or options, sensitivity analysis, and a statistical probability approach, listed here in order of increasing merit and complexity. Forecasts of costs, benefits and community impacts of infrastructure are recognised as central aspects of developing and assessing investment proposals. Increasingly complex modelling techniques are being used for investment evaluation. The literature review identified forecasting errors as the major cause of risk. The report contains a summary of the broad nature of decision-making tools used by governments and other organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America, and shows their overall approach to risk assessment in assessing public infrastructure proposals. While there are established techniques to quantify financial and economic risks, quantification is far less developed for political, social and environmental risks and impacts. The report contains a summary of the broad nature of decision-making tools used by governments and other organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America, and shows their overall approach to risk assessment in assessing public infrastructure proposals. While there are established techniques to quantify financial and economic risks, quantification is far less developed for political, social and environmental risks and impacts. For risks that cannot be readily quantified, assessment techniques commonly include classification or rating systems for likelihood and consequence. The report outlines the system used by the Australian Defence Organisation and in the Australian Standard on risk management. After each risk is identified and quantified or rated, consideration can be given to reducing the risk, and managing any remaining risk as part of the scope of the project. The literature review identified use of risk mapping techniques by a North American chemical company and by the Australian Defence Organisation. This literature review has enabled a risk assessment strategy to be developed, and will underpin an examination of the feasibility of developing a risk assessment capability using a probability approach.

Workflow resource pattern modelling and visualization

Workflow patterns have been recognized as the theoretical basis to modeling recurring problems in workflow systems. A form of workflow patterns, known as the resource patterns, characterise the behaviour of resources in workflow systems. Despite the fact that many resource patterns have been discovered, people still preclude them from many workflow system implementations. One of reasons could be obscurityin the behaviour of and interaction between resources and a workflow management system. Thus, we provide a modelling and visualization approach for the resource patterns, enabling a resource behaviour modeller to intuitively see the specific resource patterns involved in the lifecycle of a workitem. We believe this research can be extended to benefit not only workflow modelling, but also other applications, such as model validation, human resource behaviour modelling, and workflow model visualization.

Identifying Core Functions of Asset Management

It is widely acknowledged that effective asset management requires an interdisciplinary approach, in which synergies should exist between traditional disciplines such as: accounting, engineering, finance, humanities, logistics, and information systems technologies. Asset management is also an important, yet complex business practice. Business process modelling is proposed as an approach to manage the complexity of asset management through the modelling of asset management processes. A sound foundation for the systematic application and analysis of business process modelling in asset management is, however, yet to be developed. Fundamentally, a business process consists of activities (termed functions), events/states, and control flow logic. As both events/states and control flow logic are somewhat dependent on the functions themselves, it is a logical step to first identify the functions within a process. This research addresses the current gap in knowledge by developing a method to identify functions common to various industry types (termed core functions). This lays the foundation to extract such functions, so as to identify both commonalities and variation points in asset management processes. This method describes the use of a manual text mining and a taxonomy approach. An example is presented.

BIM for sustainable whole-of-life transport infrastructure asset management

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) showed that, in 2004, owners and operations managers bore two thirds of the total industry cost burden from inadequate interoperability in construction projects from inception to operation, amounting to USD10.6 billion. Building Information Modelling (BIM) and similar tools were identified by Engineers Australia in 2005 as potential instruments to significantly reduce this sum, which in Australia could amount to total industry-wide cost burden of AUD12 billion. Public sector road authorities in Australia have a key responsibility in driving initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the construction and operations of transport infrastructure. However, as previous research has shown the Environmental Impact Assessment process, typically used for project approvals and permitting based on project designs available at the consent stage, lacks Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that include long-term impact factors and transfer of information throughout the project life cycle. In the building construction industry, BIM is widely used to model sustainability KPIs such as energy consumption, and integrated with facility management systems. This paper proposes that a similar use of BIM in early design phases of transport infrastructure could provide: (i) productivity gains through improved interoperability and documentation; (ii) the opportunity to carry out detailed cost-benefit analyses leading to significant operational cost savings; (iii) coordinated planning of street and highway lighting with other energy and environmental considerations; iv) measurable KPIs that include long-term impact factors which are transferable throughout the project life cycle; and (v) the opportunity for integrating design documentation with sustainability whole-of-life targets.