National Academies Press: OpenBook

Analytical Tools for Asset Management (2005)

Chapter: Section 4 - Selection of Tools for Development

« Previous: Section 3 - Review of Existing Tools
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Selection of Tools for Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Selection of Tools for Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Selection of Tools for Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Selection of Tools for Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Selection of Tools for Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Section 4 - Selection of Tools for Development." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Analytical Tools for Asset Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13851.
×
Page 35

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

30 SECTION 4 SELECTION OF TOOLS FOR DEVELOPMENT 4.1 GAP ANALYSIS Table 7 presents a matrix of current tools by category along with the needs for improved analytical tools found in the interviews and supplementary literature review. 4.2 SCREENING OF CANDIDATE TOOL CONCEPTS The analysis of needs and available tools indicates that there is an extensive and varied set of decision support needs as well as a large body of existing tools that at least partially match these decision support needs. To establish priorities for which needs should be addressed under this project, can- didate tools were judged on how well they met the following five criteria: A. Respond to Needs. Would the candidate tool address the needs expressed by a wide spectrum of states; B. Support the Core of Asset Management. Would the candidate tool provide capabilities that address issues commonly recognized as core asset management prin- ciples and likely to advance the state-of-the-practice in asset management, consistent with the framework set forth in the Asset Management Guide developed for NCHRP Project 20-24(11); C. Fill a Void. Would the candidate tool provide capabil- ities currently not met in existing tools and unlikely to be addressed by other research efforts over the next 3 to 5 years; D. Fit with a Range of Business Processes, Systems, and Data. Would the candidate tool apply to a variety of agencies with different decision-making methods, databases, and existing systems; and E. Minimize Risk. Would the candidate tool build on established techniques likely to be generally accepted by the target user group and would it be feasible to develop within the allotted budget and timeframe? These criteria were useful for establishing a focus for development of candidate tool concepts. They provide a richer basis for screening candidate tools than the two-dimensional “value versus availability” matrix originally envisioned in the research plan for this project. Table 8 summarizes the evaluation of candidate tools con- cepts against these criteria; the candidate concepts are cate- gorized according to the major processes of the asset man- agement decision model identified in Figure 2. Ratings were assigned on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest rating (e.g., relatively low need, hard to adapt to different practices, high risk) and 5 is the highest (e.g., great need, easy to adapt, low risk). The general conclusions from this screening exer- cise are presented in the following paragraphs. Tools to support analysis of investment versus performance levels within individual program categories are embedded in most pavement, bridge, and other management systems. Although some agencies feel that they have pavement and bridge categories covered, others are not satisfied with the cur- rent level of decision support available in their existing tools. A need that several agencies expressed was to have a capa- bility to gain a better understanding of (1) the benefits of pre- ventive maintenance (for life extension and long-term costs) and (2) how routine maintenance needs may increase as asset conditions decline. However, readily available, useful data to support this kind of tool are lacking. Some agencies also were interested in supplementing the condition-based performance measures with measures that were more related to customer outcomes. Some agencies also had gaps in analysis capabilities in certain program cat- egories—including safety, equipment, and buildings, but these needs are likely to be addressed in other initiatives. Agencies expressed a reasonable degree of interest in better tools to analyze cross-program tradeoffs, which is a core prin- ciple of asset management. The challenge is to develop tools that could be used by a variety of agencies with different lev- els of capabilities within the existing single-category manage- ment systems. Tools that address tradeoffs within the highway mode in areas where existing management system information is available would have a lower degree of risk and a higher potential for wide use than tools addressing multimodal trade- offs. Prior research efforts, such as NCHRP Project 20-29(2) (which produced the TransDec tool) and the NCHRP Proj- ect 8-36(7) framework, point to an “impact tableau” approach to looking at multimodal or cross-program tradeoffs. In this approach, a common set of performance measures are estab- lished across all programs, and the impacts of program invest- ment levels are estimated through a variety of quantitative and (text continues on page 33)

31 Type of Analysis Current Tools* Perceived Needs Investment level versus predicted performance within a program category • HDM-4 (highway investments). • NBIAS (national bridge investments). • PMS (pavement). • BMS (bridge). • RQFS (MDOT – Road Quality Forecasting System). • Wisconsin DOT Meta-Manager (safety, bridge and pavement condition, congestion). • NYSDOT Congestion Needs Analysis Module (CNAM). • Ability to analyze benefits of preventive maintenance, determine life-cycle cost and condition-related outcomes from different levels of maintenance expenditures. • Ability to show value of keeping an asset at a given condition level (for all assets). • Tools to incorporate consideration of policy initiatives such as passing lanes and upgrades to roads with seasonal weight restrictions within the condition-based needs assessment method used by management systems. • Tools for tracking ITS equipment condition, replacement needs. • Program-level safety management tool, better predictive capability (though some states are concerned about liability implications). • Network-level what-if analysis tool to understand impacts on pavement lives (and corresponding investment needs) of different truck loadings for variations in soil and snowfall conditions. • Tools for equipment management, buildings, other physical assets not covered by standard management systems. Performance tradeoffs for different budget allocations across program categories (e.g., pavement preservation versus new capacity) • WSDOT Multimodal Investment Choice Analysis (MICA) – prototype. • Ad hoc spreadsheet program analysis tools/manual analysis of results from individual management systems. • HDM-4 (highway investments – segment and network level). • HERS/ST (highway investments). • Cross-program and cross-modal tradeoffs (e.g., state rail/transit versus highway investments) need to find common measure(s) for comparison. • Preservation versus new capacity tradeoffs. • Tool to support analysis of current performance versus targets versus projected performance given investment levels. • What-if analysis tool to test different allocations across functional systems/ classes of facilities, different corridors. • Tradeoff analysis tool that could be used with policy-makers during the budget process. Predicted impacts on system condition, safety, mobility, economic growth, etc., for a set of proposed projects • WisDOT Meta-Management System. • Florida Decision Support System (DSS). • MDT Systems Performance Query Tool. • NYSDOT Program Support System (PSS). • Improved ability to calculate economic benefit for a program of projects. • Tools focused on impacts on customers/users as opposed to facility condition. TABLE 7 Gaps in analysis capabilities for asset management (continued on next page)

32 Type of Analysis Current Tools* Perceived Needs Impacts of alternative policies/ standards for project scope, timing and design • QuickZone (work zone delay estimation software – project-level analysis). • Life-cycle cost analysis tools (see life- cycle cost analysis below) can analyze alternative project designs, scopes, and timing. • HDM-4 (alternative design and maintenance standards). • Tool to easily analyze alternative work packaging and timing options – impacts of delaying projects. Project [or strategy] evaluation • MicroBENCOST (highway projects). • StratBENCOST (highway improvement strategies – segment and network level). • TransDec (generic multicriteria evaluation of multimodal investment strategies). • IDAS (ITS strategies). • STEAM (post-processor tool to calculate costs and benefits of multimodal or demand management strategies analyzed with four-step travel demand models). • NET_BC (similar capabilities as STEAM). • RSAP – B/C analysis for roadside safety improvements; integrated with AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. • California Life-Cycle B/C Analysis Model (highway and transit projects). • WSDOT Mobility Project Benefit/Cost Software (highway projects, including HOV, park-and-ride lots, safety projects). • Improved capabilities to quantify life- extension impacts and benefits of routine and preventive maintenance. • Representation of vulnerability costs (risks) in bridge management systems. • Tool focused on freight-related impacts and benefits of multimodal investment alternatives. • Improved estimation of economic development impacts assessment. • Improved tools for analyzing new interchanges (using results of special studies). • Need for better, more reliable input data to feed models. • Evaluation of drainage projects. Project prioritization within a single project type (e.g., pavement preservation) or across different project types Within Project: • PMS – pavement. • BMS – bridge. • CMS – congestion. • SMS – safety. • Benefit/Cost analysis tools above may be used for prioritization as well. • Many agencies have developed in-house methods and tools. Across Project: • TOPSIS (WSDOT) – used in conjunction with B/C software. • Benefit/Cost analysis tools above also may used for prioritization across project types. • Capability to prioritize across project types. • Given a set of candidate pavement/ bridge/mobility/safety projects, capability to recommend where the marginal dollar should go? TABLE 7 (Continued)

qualitative methods. In the NCHRP 8-36(7) framework, these results are simply displayed in a format that highlights the tradeoff to be made. In the NCHRP 20-29(2) TransDec tool, ratings can be calculated based on user-defined weights. New York State is developing a tradeoff tool based on the concept of excess user costs, which calculates reductions in delay costs, accident costs, and vehicle operating costs (with respect to a base acceptable level) attributable to pavement, bridge, safety, and mobility improvements. The MICA effort in Washington State, perhaps the most ambitious undertak- ing in cross-program analysis, uses a mix of standard benefit 33 calculations (tailored to different project categories) and a variety of other qualitative evaluation criteria to compare alternative program scenarios. However, this project is still in the research phase. Tools to summarize aggregate impacts of a program of projects are seen as valuable by states but would likely need to be highly tailored to each individual agency’s needs. Agencies expressed a moderate level of interest in tools to analyze project scope and timing decisions. Some of these needs could be met by existing tools for LCCA and work zone analysis. There is a gap in program-level, sketch-planning– Type of Analysis Current Tools* Perceived Needs Life-Cycle Cost • FHWA Pavement LCCA. • NCHRP 12-43 Bridge LCCA. • EAROMAR (High-standard roadways). • NCHRP 1-33 Pavement LCCA. • NIST Bridge LCCA. • Need for better, more reliable input data to feed models. • Tools for transit LCCA. Monitoring actual project costs and effectiveness (to provide feedback into management systems) • MMS – maintenance management systems. • Construction management/estimation systems, e.g., AASHTO Trns•port BAMS/DSS and Estimator. • PMS and BMS (Some systems have modules for recording actual project costs and updating cost models). • Improved tracking of the impacts of maintenance on facility life. • Improved ability to track outcomes and outputs. • Improved accuracy of cost estimates used in needs, project evaluation, prioritization and program tradeoffs, account for typical project amenities, add-ons (possibly using outputs from bid tabulations, maintenance management systems) – use activity- based costing, separate out different project elements (e.g., paving versus safety improvements). • Support for GASB-34 requirements by providing a tool to tie together capital and betterment investments by asset type and location. • Cradle-to-grave project tracking systems. • Query tools to provide easy access to estimated versus actual costs, past experience, lessons learned. Other • Several states—including CA, MT, WI, and FL—have in-house tools for consolidating results of individual management systems in a GIS framework for use in project identification/program development. • Tool/approach to overlay customer satisfaction and priorities with engineering decisions for use in program planning and prioritization. • User-friendly statistical analysis tools, e.g., to estimate sample size requirements for condition surveys. *Detailed summaries are provided for tools listed in italic in Appendix B. TABLE 7 (Continued)

oriented tools, but such tools would be more of a challenge to develop generically so that they could integrate with diverse agency systems and data. Improvements to existing tools for analyzing impacts of projects or strategies may be desirable and straightforward to implement in a manner that can be used by a number of dif- ferent agencies. However, these types of improvements would not be viewed by most practitioners as addressing core asset management needs, and they may be addressed by other efforts. A tool that would assist with project prioritization across project types would interest some agencies, but it would not have universal appeal. This need is generally best addressed via benefit/cost analysis tools that handle a diverse set of proj- ect types such as those in place in Washington and California. Agencies wishing to improve their capabilities to compare diverse projects could certainly use the tools in place in those states (and others available internationally) as a starting point. Existing LCCA products for pavement and bridges have recently been released, and some agencies have developed their own methods. The candidate initiative in this area would be to facilitate the use of these tools (which require an exten- sive array of inputs) by providing some rules of thumb and sample default values that would be of assistance to users of these tools. A nearly universal need was expressed for better tools to track actual costs and effectiveness, bringing together infor- mation on both maintenance and capital projects in a form that facilitates understanding of activity costs by asset over time and in a form that could be used to update assumptions in management systems. However, because cost-tracking methods are not standardized and the level of data varies con- siderably across agencies, solving this problem generically with an add-on tool would be a significant challenge. 4.3 SELECTED TOOL CONCEPTS Based on the screening results and discussion with the research panel, two tool concepts were selected for develop- ment. These concepts were developed with an understanding of the myriad reasons why existing tools have not been used to their full potential. To avoid the same pitfalls, they were designed to be simple and flexible, to build on existing data and tools that are in use, and to provide answers to critical tradeoff questions. The need for these kinds of tools was clearly evident through the state interviews and was con- firmed by the research panel, which represent a diverse set of agencies and perspectives. The following tool concepts were recommended: • A network tradeoff tool to analyze investment versus performance across categories for the highway mode and 34 • A program tradeoff tool that can be used to easily demon- strate the impacts that changes in a program of projects would have on a set of basic performance measures. (The decision was made to limit the initial development for this tool to a functional spreadsheet-based proof-of- concept system.) Both of these tools support investment versus performance tradeoff analysis within the highway mode and are designed to make use of available management systems and project- level analysis tool results. The two tools are complementary. The first tool supports decisions about the relative mix of expenditures on different assets over the long term and works with aggregated network-level information from existing management systems. The second tool supports shorter-term program adjustment decisions that frequently must be made within a short timeframe and with limited information on how a given change would impact the program’s overall out- comes. The two tools are envisioned to be part of a family of tools or “toolbox” for analyzing transportation asset tradeoffs. To reinforce this idea, the name “AssetManager” was selected to represent the family of tools and “NT” and “PT” was selected to designate the network tradeoff and program-level tradeoff tools, respectively. The two tools can be used in a coordinated fashion, as illustrated in Figure 3 and explained in the following paragraphs: 1. Individual management systems or simulation tools (e.g., bridge and pavement management systems, HERS/ST) are run to produce inputs for AssetManager NT. These inputs would include both outcome-oriented perfor- mance measures (e.g., pavement and bridge condition) and output-oriented measures (e.g., miles of resurfacing, number of bridges replaced). 2. AssetManager NT’s what-if capabilities are used to sup- port resource allocation decisions, providing an under- standing of the performance outcomes and outputs (work done) that can be achieved with the chosen investment levels. This analysis is used to establish per- formance targets. 3. AssetManager PT is used to explore the performance implications of short-range (1- to 3-year) programs of projects. The output-oriented work targets from Asset- Manager NT are input into AssetManager PT and used as a reference point to see how close a given set of projects is tracking with targets established as part of longer-range performance versus investment analysis. The tools that were developed are described in detail in Section 5.

Evaluation Type of Analysis Candidate Tool Concepts A Need B AM C Void D Fit E Risk Investment versus performance within categories • Preventive/Routine maintenance (all assets). • Pavement needs versus loadings. • Safety. • Equipment/Building management. • ITS. 5 3 4 3 3 5 5 1 3 3 4 1 2 1 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 1 1 Investment versus performance across categories • Multimodal, multiobjective cross-program category tradeoffs. • Highway Mode: Impacts of marginal changes in budgets by category (based on asset type, work type, geographic area, etc.). 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 3 Predicted impacts for a set of proposed projects • Tool to produce aggregate condition/ performance measures given a set of projects in the program. 4 5 3 2 3 Impacts of alternative policies/standards for project scope, timing, and design • Tool to test alternative project scoping policies at the program level. • Tool to analyze impacts of project timing options on user costs. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 Project [or strategy] evaluation • Supplemental modules for existing tools to address freight-related impacts and economic development impacts. • Extension of tool capabilities to handle additional project types (e.g., drainage projects, new interchanges). 3 3 1 1 2 3 5 5 4 4 Project prioritization • Cross-project prioritization tool. 2 3 4 3 2 Life-cycle cost • Tool to support development of needed inputs to existing LCCA models – e.g., default values for different facility classes. 3 5 3 4 3 Monitoring actual project costs and effectiveness (to provide feedback into management systems) • Model database with information on activity- based costs and effectiveness in format needed to support asset management system updating, with query tools and sample procedures for populating from maintenance and construction management systems. 5 3 5 2 1 TABLE 8 Screening evaluation of candidate tool concepts Pavement and Bridge Management Systems AssetManager NT AssetManager PT Project Planning and Evaluation Systems Performance-Based Resource Allocation Performance-Based Programs $$ vs. performance over time Annual Work Targets Work Candidates Figure 3. Coordinated use of AssetManager NT and PT. 35

Next: Section 5 - Tool Descriptions »
Analytical Tools for Asset Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 545: Analytical Tools for Asset Management examines two tools developed to support tradeoff analysis for transportation asset management. The software tools and the accompanying documentation are designed to help state departments of transportation and other transportation agencies identify, evaluate, and recommend investment decisions for managing the agency’s infrastructure assets.

The software tools associated with NCHRP Report 545 are available in an ISO format. Links to instructions on buring an .ISO CD-ROM and the download site for the .ISO CD-ROM are below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the NCHRP CRP-CD-57.ISO CD-ROM Image

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!