Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 34
34 Risk Assessment. The risk assessment approach described there is value to be gained in or a case that needs to be in Chapter 3 should be used to prioritize risk mitigation made for improving business processes, it makes most investments for IHS structures, at a minimum. Existing BMS sense to start with the IHS. do model performance risks, but do not consider needs related It points to the likelihood of challenges in implement- to potential system failures from scour, seismic retrofit, fracture ing a new framework, even one that does focus solely on critical bridges or other risks. Realistically, much of the analysis an agency's highest priority network. This issue has of risks of system failure must be handled outside of existing been duly noted in development of the implementation systems. DIETT or a multi-objective approach such as that guidance in Chapter 6. developed by Caltrans and supported using AssetManager It makes the case that the Interstate Asset Management can be used to characterize risks to structures. Framework cannot simultaneously be immediately ap- plicable to all IHS assets and push the technical envelope Additional Guidance. Agencies should integrate data for other assets besides pavement and bridges. To pro- from their management systems for setting performance and vide a framework that is first and foremost of immediate budget targets across asset and investment types. In performing practical value, this report makes a distinction between this analysis, agencies should compare predicted performance "core" and "comprehensive" measures required for an across the full range of asset and investment types for multi- Interstate Asset Management Framework in Chapter 5, ple investment scenarios. AssetManager NT, other emerging and recommends use of a "percent functioning as COTS systems and/or agency-specific systems can be used to intended" as a basic measure for characterizing other support this analysis. assets besides pavement and structures. Projects for implementing safety or capacity improvements · Improvements to the HPMS, consistent with the planned should be evaluated using BCA.Net or comparable approaches. improvements to this system, will provide better data for For major capacity expansion projects, ITS investments, or IHS assets. Specific improvements for enabling improved other candidate projects expected to have significant network IHS asset management include treating all IHS sections effects, network models such as IDAS or STEAM should be as HPMS sample sections and supplementing the pavement used for candidate evaluation. measures in the existing HPMS with measures of rutting, Where analytical tools that explicitly account for uncer- cracking, and faulting. tainty in project costs, outcomes and other parameters are · The RSL approach recommended for pavement analysis unavailable, sensitivity analysis should be used to test the can be implemented using existing management systems. analysis results for variation in key modeling assumptions. Unfortunately, the approach requires data and models that A summary of key assumptions and the sensitivity of the are not yet supported in FHWA systems such as HERS-ST. results to uncertainty should be prepared for each tool used Some COTS pavement management systems can support for analysis. an RSL approach if appropriately configured. · Although there are a number of tools available for ana- lyzing user-defined improvements, there are few tools for 4.5 Gap Assessment high-level investment analysis, particularly across asset and The research team found the following gaps in the avail- investment types. For instance, HERS-ST and HDM-4 ability of data and tools for supporting the Interstate Asset were the only systems identified through the review that Management Framework: simulate generation of new highway capacity. AssetManager NT was the only system identified in the public domain for · Regarding other assets besides pavement and bridges, there combining investment analysis results across asset and is a very large gap between the data and tools needed to investment classes. support asset management concepts and the reality on the · The risk management approach described in Chapter 3 ground. NCHRP Synthesis 371 painstakingly documents assumes that certain risks should be handled programmat- this issue for a selected set of assets. Stated simply, many ically using management systems. Some risks are handled IHS owners do not have ready access to inventory and con- in such a fashion, but many are not. The review included dition data needed to describe their asset inventories or examples of approaches to handling risk programmatically, summarize even rudimentary measures of physical condi- particularly with regard to structures, but more work is tion. The existence of this gap suggests the following with needed to introduce these approaches in COTS systems. regard to an Interstate Asset Management Framework: · Few tools were identified that can be used to support It lends credence to the concept that an agency should analysis of risks of system failure in support of the approach focus improving its asset management approach start- described in Chapter 3, though many quantitative tech- ing with the assets on its highest priority network. If niques do exist for performing risk assessment. Further
OCR for page 35
35 research is needed to develop tools and approaches for hensive support. AssetManager NT can be used to inte- simplifying the process of prioritizing investments in risk grate analysis results for multiple asset and investment types, mitigation. but can work with data from no more than four sources at · The AssetManager tools are valuable tools for supporting a time. AssetManager PT is a valuable tool for project pri- the Interstate Asset Management Framework, but realisti- oritization, but is implemented as a spreadsheet prototype cally will require further enhancement to provide compre- and not integrated with AssetManager NT.