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.

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.

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.

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

Road Asset Management Investment

Australias civil infrastructure assets of roads, bridges, railways, buildings and other structures are worth billions of dollars. To effectively manage road infrastructures, road agencies firstly need to optimise the expenditure for data collection whilst not jeopardising 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 can be accurately calculated. Finally, the prediction of budgets for maintenance and rehabilitation must be reasonably reliable.

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.

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.

Review on Australian and international practices for asset management in building infrastructure

Both in developed and developing economies, major public funding is invested in civil infrastructure assets. Efficiency and comfort level of expected and demanded living standards are largely dependant on the management strategies of these assets. Buildings are one of the major & vital assets, which need to be maintained primarily to ensure its functionality by effective & efficient delivery of services and to optimize economic benefits. Not withstanding, public building infrastructure is not considered in Infrastructure report card published by Australian Infrastructure Report Card Alliance Partners (2001). The reason appears to be not having enough data to rate public building infrastructure. American Infrastructure Report Card (2001) gave “School Buildings” ‘d-’ rating, which is below ‘poor’. For effective asset management of building infrastructure, a need emerged to optimise the budget for managing assets, to cope up with increased user expectations, to response effectively to possible asset failures, to deal with ageing of assets and aging populations and to treat other scenarios including technology advancement and non-asset solutions. John (Asset Management, 2001) suggests that in the area of asset management worldwide, UK, Australia and New Zealand are leading.

Risk assessment in life-cycle costing for road asset management

Queensland Department of Main Roads, Australia, spends approximately A$ 1 billion annually for road infrastructure asset management. To effectively manage road infrastructure, firstly road agencies not only need to optimise the expenditure for 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. This paper presents the results of case studies in using the probability-based method for an integrated approach (i.e. assessing optimal costs of pavement strength data collection; calibrating deterioration prediction models that suit local condition and assessing risk-adjusted budget estimates for road maintenance and rehabilitation for assessing life-cycle budget estimates). The probability concept is opening the path to having the means to predict life-cycle maintenance and rehabilitation budget estimates that have a known probability of success (e.g. produce budget estimates for a project life-cycle cost with 5% probability of exceeding). The paper also presents a conceptual decision-making framework in the form of risk mapping in which the life-cycle budget/cost investment could be considered in conjunction with social, environmental and political issues.

Comparative study of guidelines and practices for building infrastructure asset management

This paper presents a comparative study of primarily Australian (and limited international) practices and guidelines on Buildings Asset Management (BAM). The objective of this study was to identify potential gaps in current practices and potential areas of research for further improvement. The paper starts with an overview of BAM. Later sections cover current BAM practices and guidelines across different states of Australia; give a limited overview of international practices and concludes with the authors’ observations.

Report : development of a methodology for assessing variation in maintenance and rehabilitation costs

In the previous research CRC CI 2001-010-C “Investment Decision Framework for Infrastructure Asset Management”, a method for assessing variation in cost estimates for road maintenance and rehabilitation was developed. The variability of pavement strength collected from a 92km national highway was used in the analysis to demonstrate the concept. Further analysis was conducted to identify critical input parameters that significantly affect the prediction of road deterioration. In addition to pavement strength, rut depth, annual traffic loading and initial roughness were found to be critical input parameters for road deterioration. This report presents a method developed to incorporate other critical parameters in the analysis, such as unit costs, which are suspected to contribute to a certain degree to cost estimate variation. Thus, the variability of unit costs will be incorporated in this analysis. Bruce Highway located in the tropical east coast of Queensland has been identified to be the network for the analysis. This report presents a step by step methodology for assessing variation in road maintenance and rehabilitation cost estimates.

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.

A framework for strategic infrastructure asset management

The concept of asset management is not a new but an evolving idea that has been attracting attention of many organisations operating and/or owning some kind of infrastructure assets. The term asset management have been used widely with fundamental differences in interpretation and usage. Regardless of the context of the usage of the term, asset management implies the process of optimising return by scrutinising performance and making key strategic decisions throughout all phases of an assets lifecycle (Sarfi and Tao, 2004). Hence, asset management is a philosophy and discipline through which organisations are enabled to more effectively deploy their resources to provide higher levels of customer service and reliability while balancing financial objectives. In Australia, asset management made its way into the public works in 1993 when the Australian Accounting Standard Board issued the Australian Accounting Standard 27 – AAS27. Standard AAS27 required government agencies to capitalise and depreciate assets rather than expense them against earnings. This development has indirectly forced organisations managing infrastructure assets to consider the useful life and cost effectiveness of asset investments. The Australian State Treasuries and the Australian National Audit Office was the first organisation to formalise the concepts and principles of asset management in Australia in which they defined asset management as “ a systematic, structured process covering the whole life of an asset”(Australian National Audit Office, 1996). This initiative led other Government bodies and industry sectors to develop, refine and apply the concept of asset management in the management of their respective infrastructure assets. Hence, it can be argued that the concept of asset management has emerged as a separate and recognised field of management during the late 1990s. In comparison to other disciplines such as construction, facilities, maintenance, project management, economics, finance, to name a few, asset management is a relatively new discipline and is clearly a contemporary topic. The primary contributors to the literature in asset management are largely government organisations and industry practitioners. These contributions take the form of guidelines and reports on the best practice of asset management. More recently, some of these best practices have been made to become a standard such as the PAS 55 (IAM, 2004, IAM, 2008b) in UK. As such, current literature in this field tends to lack well-grounded theories. To-date, while receiving relatively more interest and attention from empirical researchers, the advancement of this field, particularly in terms of the volume of academic and theoretical development is at best moderate. A plausible reason for the lack of advancement is that many researchers and practitioners are still unaware of, or unimpressed by, the contribution that asset management can make to the performance of infrastructure asset. This paper seeks to explore the practices of organisations that manage infrastructure assets to develop a framework of strategic infrastructure asset management processes. It will begin by examining the development of asset management. This is followed by the discussion on the method to be adopted for this paper. Next, is the discussion of the result form case studies. It first describes the goals of infrastructure asset management and how they can support the broader business goals. Following this, a set of core processes that can support the achievement of business goals are provided. These core processes are synthesised based on the practices of asset managers in the case study organisations.

Strategic infrastructure asset management : a conceptual framework to identify capabilities

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework that can be used to identify capabilities needed in the management of infrastructure assets. Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilises a qualitative approach to analyse secondary data in order to develop a conceptual framework that identifies capabilities for strategic infrastructure asset management. Findings – In an external business environment that is undergoing rapid change, it is more appropriate to focus on factors internal to the organisation such as resources and capabilities as a basis to develop competitive advantage. However, there is currently very little understanding of the internal capabilities that are appropriate for infrastructure asset management. Therefore, a conceptual framework is needful to guide infrastructure organisations in the identification of capabilities. Research limitations/implications – This is a conceptual paper and future empirical research should be conducted to validate the propositions made in the paper. Practical implications – The paper clearly argues the need for infrastructure organisations to adopt a systematic approach to identifying the capabilities needed in the management of strategic infrastructure assets. The discussion on the impact of essential capabilities is useful in providing the impetus for managers who operate in a deregulated infrastructure business landscape to review their existing strategies. Originality/value – The paper provides a new perspective on how asset managers can create value for their organisations by investing in the relevant capabilities.