Investment decision framework for infrastructure asset management: a probability-based approach

Australia’s civil infrastructure assets of roads, bridges, railways, buildings and other structures are worth billions of dollars. Road assets alone are valued at around A$ 140 billion. As the condition of assets deteriorate over time, close to A$10 billion is spent annually in asset maintenance on Australia's roads, or the equivalent of A$27 million per day. To effectively manage road infrastructures, firstly, road agencies need to optimise the expenditure for asset data collection, but at the same time, not jeopardise the reliability in using the optimised data to predict maintenance and rehabilitation costs. Secondly, road agencies need to accurately predict the deterioration rates of infrastructures to reflect local conditions so that the budget estimates could be accurately estimated. And finally, the prediction of budgets for maintenance and rehabilitation must provide a certain degree of reliability. A procedure for assessing investment decision for road asset management has been developed. The procedure includes: • A methodology for optimising asset data collection; • A methodology for calibrating deterioration prediction models; • A methodology for assessing risk-adjusted estimates for life-cycle cost estimates. • A decision framework in the form of risk map

Strategy for the development of investment decision-making framework for road asset management for queensland department of main roads

The aim of this project is to develop a systematic investment decision-making framework for infrastructure asset management by incorporation economic justification, social and environmental consideration in the decision-making process. This project assesses the factors that are expected to provide significant impacts on the variability of expenditures. A procedure for assessing risk and reliability for project investment appraisals will be developed. The project investigates public perception, social and environmental impacts on road infrastructure investment. This research will contribute to the debate about how important social and environmental issues should be incorporated into the investment decision-making process for infrastructure asset management.

International practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of an international review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different countries and international organisations. Road assets are powerful drivers of economic development and social equity. They also have significant impacts on the natural and man-made environment. The traditional definition of asset management is “A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and operating physical assets cost effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory and it provides tools to facilitate a more organised, logical approach to decision-making” (US Dept. of Transportation, 1999). In recent years, the concept has been broadened to cover the complexity of decision making, based on a wider variety of policy considerations as well as social and environmental issues rather than is covered by Benefit-Cost analysis and pure technical considerations. Current international practices are summarised in table 2. It was evident that Engineering-economic analysis methods are well advanced to support decision-making. A range of tools available supports performance predicting of road assets and associated cost/benefit in technical context. The need for considering triple plus one bottom line of social, environmental and economic as well as political factors in decision-making is well understood by road agencies around the world. The techniques used to incorporate these however, are limited. Most countries adopt a scoring method, a goal achievement matrix or information collected from surveys. The greater uncertainty associated with these non-quantitative factors has generally not been taken into consideration. There is a gap between the capacities of the decision-making support systems and the requirements from decision-makers to make more rational and transparent decisions. The challenges faced in developing an integrated decision making framework are both procedural and conceptual. In operational terms, the framework should be easy to be understood and employed. In philosophical terms, the framework should be able to deal with challenging issues, such as uncertainty, time frame, network effects, model changes, while integrating cost and non-cost values into the evaluation. The choice of evaluation techniques depends on the feature of the problem at hand, on the aims of the analysis, and on the underlying information base At different management levels, the complexity in considering social, environmental, economic and political factor in decision-making is different. At higher the strategic planning level, more non-cost factors are involved. The complexity also varies based on the scope of the investment proposals. Road agencies traditionally place less emphasis on evaluation of maintenance works. In some cases, social equity, safety, environmental issues have been used in maintenance project selection. However, there is not a common base for the applications.

National practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of a national review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different sate road authorities. The investment objectives of Australian road authorities are based on triple-bottom line considerations (social, environmental, economic and political). In some cases, comparing with some social considerations, such as regional economic development, equity, and access to pubic service etc., Benefit-Cost Ratio has limited influence on the decision-making. Australian road authorities have developed various decision support tools. Although Multi-Criteria Analysis has been preliminarily used in case by case study, pavement management systems, which are primarily based on Benefit Cost Analysis, are still the main decision support tool. This situation is not compatible with the triple-bottom line objectives. There is need to fill the gap between decision support tools and decision-making itself. Different decision criteria should be adopted based on the contents of the work. Additional decision criteria, which are able to address social, environmental and political impacts, are needed to develop or identify. Environmental issue plays a more and more important role in decision-making. However, the criteria and respective weights in decision-making process are yet to be clearly identified. Social and political impacts resulted from road infrastructure investment can be identified through Community Perceptions Survey. With accumulative data, prediction models, which are similar as pavement performance models, can be established. Using these models, the decision-makers are able to foresee the social and political consequences of investment alternatives.

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.

Framework for investment decision-making under risk and uncertainty for infrastructure asset management

A study has been conducted to investigate current practices on decision-making under risk and uncertainty for infrastructure project investments. It was found that many European countries such as the UK, France, Germany including Australia use scenarios for the investigation of the effects of risk and uncertainty of project investments. Different alternative scenarios are mostly considered during the engineering economic cost-benefit analysis stage. For instance, the World Bank requires an analysis of risks in all project appraisals. Risk in economic evaluation needs to be addressed by calculating sensitivity of the rate of return for a number of events. Risks and uncertainties of project developments arise from various sources of errors including data, model and forecasting errors. It was found that the most influential factors affecting risk and uncertainty resulted from forecasting errors. Data errors and model errors have trivial effects. It was argued by many analysts that scenarios do not forecast what will happen but scenarios indicate only what can happen from given alternatives. It was suggested that the probability distributions of end-products of the project appraisal, such as cost-benefit ratios that take forecasting errors into account, are feasible decision tools for economic evaluation. Political, social, environmental as well as economic and other related risk issues have been addressed and included in decision-making frameworks, such as in a multi-criteria decisionmaking framework. But no suggestion has been made on how to incorporate risk into the investment decision-making process.