|Home About Services Blog Subscribe Contact|
scale of the relative priority of facilities,
maintenance and other matters, which is determined by relative
Classification #1: By Action
Listed below is a five tiered priority ranking system for specific conditions associated with individual assets:
Listed below is a 6 tiered priority ranking scheme for conditions associated with individual assets:
Listed below is a three tiered of mission criticality for facilities contemplated by the Mission Dependency Index:
Listed below is a four faceted priority scheme that plots the relationship between the urgency and importance of items on the urgency-importance matrix.
The following four-facet classification provides priority rankings for individual facilities/buildings within a portfolio based upon a Portfolio Condition-Priority Matrix (PCPM).
Classification #6: by Risk:
The next classification uses a risk matrix / criticality matrix to derive priority:
The next classification utilizes multivariate analysis to draw correlations between variables to establish priorities classes using a matrix tool.
Classification #8: by Purpose/Function/Driver
The next classification
Classification #9: by level
The next classificatiON:
Fig. The principles of ISO 55001 help to ensure that optimization is achieved through mindful balance and measured trade-offs between decision-making criteria.
Fig. The "currently critical" phase in the deterioration of an asset represented by the "red zone" on an asset degradation model.
Fig. Risk-based decision making is at the heart of asset management and this requires mindful consideration of the relationship between the probability of failure (PoF) and the consequences of failure (CoF). The complexities of these correlations can sometimes be captured on a risk matrix.
Fig. Prioritization organized by coloured location tags where "red" indicates high priority, "orange" is medium priority and "green" is relatively low priority.
Fig. Prioritization organized by seasonal bar chart where "red" indicates high priority and other colour indicate relatively lower priority tasks.
Fig. I. Care is strategizing in order to efficiently and effectively allocate the limited resources across a portfolio of buildings.
Fig. Scatter plot of facilities mapped to the three tiered Mission Dependency Index (MDI).
Fig. I. Care is establishing priorities for the different assets but is fighting the "forces" that necessitate periodic re-evaluation and re-prioritization.
Fig. Chessboard analogy to illustrate competing priorities as one of the operational challenges in asset management.
Fig. Sample of an array of facilities mapped on a grid with FCI along the horizontal axis and MDI along the vertical axis.
Fig. I. Care is trying to re-align his building’s magnetic north to geodetic true north and thereby use his building as a sundial to cast the right shadow and identify all the critical assets
Fig. Criticality matrix with four quadrants to help prioritize action based on the relationship between importance and urgency.
Fig. The relationship between Consequences of Failure (CoF) represented on the vertical (y-axis) and Probability of Failure (PoF) on the horizontal (x-axis) of a criticality/risk matrix.
Fig. Different prioritization criteria for maintenance, repairs and renewals.
Fig. Prioritization by purpose using pressure washing as an example.
Fig. Prioritization by graded scale within a single system.
|(c) Copyright Asset Insights, 2000-2013, All Rights Reserved - "Insight, foresight and oversight of assets"|