Sustainment Management Systems

1. Sustainment Management Systems BUILDER, PAVER, RAILER and ROOFER

2. Condition Index Development Condition Assessments and Indexes focused on component level: BUILDER: Roof Membrane, Air Handling Unit, Overhead Door PAVER: Airport taxiway, apron, city block RAILER: Turnout, Grade Crossing, Ties ROOFER: Entire Roof Section To make sure we�re clear, especially depending on how other presenters have presented their approaches, let�s take a moment to cover �what� our condition indexes actually focus on. The base, or foundational, Condition Assessment (and resulting Index) that each of these tools utilize is performed at the individual asset level, not the system, or facility level. This is important, as we�re more closely describing the behavior of one specific asset, and not just the overall performance of the system it is in. To make sure we�re clear, especially depending on how other presenters have presented their approaches, let�s take a moment to cover �what� our condition indexes actually focus on. The base, or foundational, Condition Assessment (and resulting Index) that each of these tools utilize is performed at the individual asset level, not the system, or facility level. This is important, as we�re more closely describing the behavior of one specific asset, and not just the overall performance of the system it is in.

3. Expertise in a Box Condition Indexes developed by interviewing a panel of experts to get a statistical agreement on how defined defects result in a rating (0-100) of the asset�s condition. Results in a system which incorporates experts� experience in objectively rating asset condition using observed distresses. Again, just a history lesson to describe how we arrived at our solution. There�s a lot of talk among facility management programs about �curves� in their system, but questioning them deeper reveals that they are typically talking about lifecycle curves, rather than condition index rating curves. This fundamental difference means they are still based upon a subjective rating and then statistically applying a trend to that subjective rating. In comparison, the SMS (or EMS) approach surveys a panel of experts in the field to get a collective agreement on the numerical rating of component given a defined scenario (of distresses). The experts were given �guidance� that put scores into ranges. This guidance effectively helped relate the two separate, not orthogonal but not aligned, issues of cost to repair and criticality. By providing bands of suggested scores, experts were able to express the differences in criticality of two different similarly-costed defects.Again, just a history lesson to describe how we arrived at our solution. There�s a lot of talk among facility management programs about �curves� in their system, but questioning them deeper reveals that they are typically talking about lifecycle curves, rather than condition index rating curves. This fundamental difference means they are still based upon a subjective rating and then statistically applying a trend to that subjective rating. In comparison, the SMS (or EMS) approach surveys a panel of experts in the field to get a collective agreement on the numerical rating of component given a defined scenario (of distresses). The experts were given �guidance� that put scores into ranges. This guidance effectively helped relate the two separate, not orthogonal but not aligned, issues of cost to repair and criticality. By providing bands of suggested scores, experts were able to express the differences in criticality of two different similarly-costed defects.

4. Condition Prediction BUILDER 3.0 incorporates a new condition prediction engine based upon industry models of failure probability distribution. Using the Weibull cumulative probability distribution function as the basis for condition trend, condition history is used to adjust the curve to the specific asset�s observed behavior.