Classifying data quality problems in asset management

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015. Making sound asset management decisions, such as whether to replace or maintain an ageing underground water pipe, are critical to ensure that organisations maximise the performance of their assets. These decisions are only as good as the data that supports them, and hence many asset management organisations are in desperate need to improve the quality of their data. This chapter reviews the key academic research on data quality (DQ) and Information Quality (IQ) (used interchangeably in this chapter) in asset management, combines this with the current DQ problems faced by asset management organisations in various business sectors, and presents a classification of the most important DQ problems that need to be tackled by asset management organisations. In this research, eleven semi structured interviews were carried out with asset management professionals in a range of business sectors in the UK. The problems described in the academic literature were cross checked against the problems found in industry. In order to support asset management professionals in solving these problems, we categorised them into seven different DQ dimensions, used in the academic literature, so that it is clear how these problems fit within the standard frameworks for assessing and improving data quality. Asset management professionals can therefore now use these frameworks to underpin their DQ improvement initiatives while focussing on the most critical DQ problems.

Applying quality control in building energy modelling: Comparative simulation of a high performance building

Quality control is considered from the simulator's perspective through comparative simulation of an ultra energy-efficient building with EE4-DOE2.1E and EnergyPlus. The University of Calgary's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Platinum Child Development Centre, with a 66% certified energy cost reduction rating, was the case study building. A Natural Resources Canada incentive program required use of EE4 interface with DOE2.1E simulation engine for energy modelling. As DOE2.1E lacks specific features to simulate advanced systems such as radiant cooling in the CDC, an EnergyPlus model was developed to further evaluate these features. The EE4-DOE2.1E model was used for quality control during development of the base EnergyPlus model and simulation results were compared. Advanced energy systems then added to the EnergyPlus model generated small difference in estimated total annual energy use. The comparative simulation process helped identify the main input errors in the draft EnergyPlus model. The comparative use of less complex simulation programs is recommended for quality control when producing more complex models. © 2009 International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA).

Coupling model uncertainty for coupled rainfall/runoff and surface water quality models in river problems

Coupled hydrology and water quality models are an important tool today, used in the understanding and management of surface water and watershed areas. Such problems are generally subject to substantial uncertainty in parameters, process understanding, and data. Component models, drawing on different data, concepts, and structures, are affected differently by each of these uncertain elements. This paper proposes a framework wherein the response of component models to their respective uncertain elements can be quantified and assessed, using a hydrological model and water quality model as two exemplars. The resulting assessments can be used to identify model coupling strategies that permit more appropriate use and calibration of individual models, and a better overall coupled model response. One key finding was that an approximate balance of water quality and hydrological model responses can be obtained using both the QUAL2E and Mike11 water quality models. The balance point, however, does not support a particularly narrow surface response (or stringent calibration criteria) with respect to the water quality calibration data, at least in the case examined here. Additionally, it is clear from the results presented that the structural source of uncertainty is at least as significant as parameter-based uncertainties in areal models. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.