ASTM E2495-2007 Standard Practice for Prioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition Utilization and Disposition《按优先顺序排列资产资源的采集、利用和部署用标准实施规程》.pdf

《ASTM E2495-2007 Standard Practice for Prioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition Utilization and Disposition《按优先顺序排列资产资源的采集、利用和部署用标准实施规程》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E2495-2007 Standard Practice for Prioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition Utilization and Disposition《按优先顺序排列资产资源的采集、利用和部署用标准实施规程》.pdf（9页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E 2495 07Standard Practice forPrioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition, Utilization, andDisposition1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2495; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the yea

2、r of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.INTRODUCTIONIdentifying assets that are most critical to a mission or practice is challenging for most businessentities. The

3、 ability of a business entity to minimize the gap between its asset portfolio andever-changing organizational missions often determines its success or failure in achieving designedobjectives. The goal of this practice is to provide managers with a disciplined, quantitative approachto an inherently s

4、ubjective decision-making process: determining which assets are critical to anentitys designated mission and are therefore deserving of priority attention or funding.1. Scope1.1 This practice establishes a quantitative process, an assetpriority index (API), for prioritizing asset resources in acqui-

5、sition, utilization, and disposition to provide managers with amethod to prioritize asset resources based on predefinedcriteria.1.2 The API has a wide range of applications including, butnot limited to, use as a basis for capital investment strategies,deferred maintenance approaches, security design

6、 and analy-ses, continuity of business/risk analyses, and disposition deci-sions.1.3 The API model is designed to be applicable and appro-priate for entities holding equipment designated as capitalassets.1.4 In addition to the applicability of moveable and durableassets as defined in this practice,

7、this methodology may inwhole or in part be effectively applied to intangible property,real property, and materiel.1.5 This practice offers instructions for performing one ormore specific operations. This document cannot replace edu-cation or experience and should be used in conjunction withprofessio

8、nal judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may beapplicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is neitherintended to represent or replace the standard of care by whichthe adequacy of a given professional service must be judged,nor should this document be applied without consideration ofa p

9、rojects many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in thetitle means only that the document has been approved throughthe ASTM International consensus process.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E 2135 Terminology for Property and Asset ManagementE 2219 Practice for Valuation and Management of M

10、ove-able, Durable PropertyE 2220 Practice for Establishing the Full Valuation of theLoss/Overage Population Identified During the Inventoryof Moveable, Durable PropertyE 2221 Practice for Administrative Control of Property3. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 analytical hierarchy process (AHP), ndecis

11、ion-making model that reduces complex decisions to one on onecomparisons resulting in the ranking of a list of objectives oralternatives.33.1.2 asset priority index (API), nnumerical value as-signed to an asset reflecting its value to an entitys mission orother critical assignments as defined by the

12、 criteria set forth bymanagement.3.1.3 entity, nagency, company, organization, or institu-tion.3.1.4 equipment, nnonexpendable, tangible, moveableproperty needed for the performance of a task or useful in1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E53 on PropertyManagement Systems and

13、 is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E53.05 onProperty Management Maturity.Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2007. Published March 2007. Originallyapproved in 2006. Last previous edition approved in 2006 as E 2495 06.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcon

14、tact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.3Satty, T.L., Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory ,RWSPublications, 4922 Ellsworth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, 1994.1Cop

15、yright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.effecting an obligation. (E 2135)3.1.5 equipment management, nsystematic planning andcontrol of equipment to optimize its service delivery potential;the management of associated risks and c

16、osts throughout itslifecycle in support of organizational objectives; the processmanagement and operations of acquisition or construction ofthe equipment and its use, maintenance, and modification andits disposal when no longer required.3.1.6 inconsistency measure, ninconsistent scoring withina squa

17、re matrix (the same number of columns and rows, see theexample in Appendix X1, Table X1.3) using a predefinedinterval scale, for example, rating all comparisons high thusdisturbing the logic of the matrix.3.1.7 interval scale, nstandard survey rating scale, basedon real numbers, in which distances b

18、etween data points aremeaningful.3.1.7.1 DiscussionInterval scales have no true zero pointso it is not possible to make statements about how many timeshigher one score is than another.3.2 Acronyms:AHP = Analytical hierarchy processAPI = Asset priority indexSME = Subject matter expert4. Summary of Pr

19、actice4.1 Asset prioritizing relies on the analytical hierarchyprocess (AHP), a proven decision-making aid, that providesmanagers with the quantitative information needed to select thebest alternative or to rank/prioritize a set of alternatives.4.1.1 AHP uses pair-wise comparison matrices (see theex

20、ample in Appendix X1, Table X1.3) with judgment measure-ments from a predefined survey scale to derive weights for themanagement-defined criteria used to evaluate assets.4.1.2 AHP pair-wise comparison matrices provide the crite-ria used in the asset prioritization methodology for rankingassets. (Thi

21、s practice can be used to categorize assets accordingto Practices E 2219, E 2220, and E 2221.)4.2 The asset prioritizing methodology follows six discretesteps:4.2.1 Step 1: Develop a set of critical criteria that answer theprioritizing question (whether it is mission alignment, securityrequirements,

22、 and so forth). The criteria shall be mutuallyexclusive and collectively exhaustive, that is, the criteria shalladdress the most important decision-making factors withoutoverlap.4.2.2 Step 2: Create an interval survey scale by which thecriteria can be scored.4.2.3 Step 3: Assign weights to the crite

23、ria based on apredefined scale of judgment or ratio measurements using theAHP.4.2.4 Step 4: Create scoring guidelines for subject matterexperts (SME)s (preferably based on an interval scale withsufficient definition to support a wide gradation) so that thescorers may can evaluate assets per accordin

24、g to themanagement-defined criteria.4.2.5 Step 5: Evaluate each asset according to each criticalcriterion based on scoring guidelines.4.2.6 Step 6: Calculate an API based on the criteria weightsand scoring guidelines.4.3 Should the practitioner wish to apply this method to anentire asset portfolio,

25、a pilot study shall be conducted on arepresentative sample of assets to determine if enhancementsare needed to interval scales and scoring guidelines. The entireasset portfolio should only be scored after a prioritizingframework is established.4.4 The API is a metric used to communicate the relative

26、importance of equipment in terms of mission criticality, secu-rity, or other measures important to the business entity. Itestablishes a basis for evaluating prioritization of asset re-sources.5. Significance and Use5.1 The API is a metric used to communicate the relativeimportance of equipment in te

27、rms of mission criticality, secu-rity, or other measures important to the business entity. It offersa method for ranking assets based on judgment/importancefactors defined by the organization, creating information tojustify compelling arguments for investment, security strate-gies, and disposition p

28、lans.5.2 API also provides a quantitative basis for determiningand documenting operational relationships between an assetportfolio and business objectives capital investment strategies,deferred maintenance approaches, security design and analy-ses, continuity of business/risk analyses, and dispositi

29、on deci-sions.5.3 It enables management to identify critical assets andallocate resources appropriately and should therefore be anintegral process in equipment management.6. Applicability6.1 This practice may be applied to the entire asset portfolioof an entity or any subset in which identifying bes

30、t alternativesor prioritizing a set of alternatives is imperative.6.2 The practice may be applied to a variety of scenariosbecause the criteria used to evaluate assets are selected by theorganization and are dependent on mission and the situationalstudy.6.3 The API for a portfolio can in turn be plo

31、tted againstcondition or security assessments to arrive at an investment,disposition, or other business strategy.7. Procedure7.1 The API criteria an organization selects shall reflect theoverall mission goals that the assets are to support. Criteriaselection is usually a management function but shal

32、l (1) enjoya consensus; (2) be well defined to facilitate scoring; (3) bemutually exclusive (definitions shall not overlap); and (4) becollectively exhaustive, that is, effectively cover those criteriathat will allow the assets to support mission goals. Examples ofAPI criteria include mission suppor

33、t, interchangeability, inter-ruptability, reliability, exclusivity, and asset potential futureneed.7.2 Because the importance of each criterion element isusually not equal, weights must be assigned to each elementaccording to the input of management.E24950727.2.1 Weights are generated by requiring m

34、anagers to evalu-ate the criteria on a predetermined interval scale that reflectsthe importance of the criteria.7.2.2 Results of the evaluation are placed in a square matrix(the same number of columns and rows) to calculate criteriaweights (see the example in Appendix X1, Table X1.3).7.3 To score as

35、sets against each criterion, a detailed intervalscale shall be developed. Normally, organizational SMEs arewell positioned to create an asset scoring guide to ensure avalid and reliable method. This scoring guide shall define eachcriterion, including its weight, and provide a clear explanationof eac

36、h interval of the scale, for example, very importantthrough very unimportant for each criterion. Management mayprovide scorers with specific asset examples from the organi-zations asset portfolio to aid in this process.7.4 Once the API criteria, weights, and scoring guidance aredeveloped, it is prud

37、ent to pilot the framework on a represen-tative sample of assets if the intent is to use the methodologyon the organizations entire asset portfolio.Additions to criteriaor refinement of the interval scale may be required based onfeedback received from participants and observations madeduring the sco

38、ring session pilots because many factors affect-ing the analysis can arise such as geographic or securityconsiderations.7.5 Management shall decide on the correct population todesignate as scorers. In some instances, only SMEs are anappropriate choice. In other instances, other stakeholders maybe as

39、signed as scorers. Once the API criteria framework(criteria, weights, and scoring guidance) has been finalized,SMEs or other stakeholders score the entitys assets anddetermine theirAPI. The preferred method is to have all scorersphysically present and to score assets one by one against eachAPI crite

40、ria. This method typically returns lower inconsistencymeasures and tends to receive higher credibility throughout theorganization.7.6 For simple studies with a small number of comparisons,the example in Appendix X1 will suffice in understanding howto calculate AHP. For larger more sophisticated stud

41、ies, thereare many AHP heuristic software packages available to assistwith the calculations. The mathematical variations on thistechnique are endless and numerous.8. Analytical Measures8.1 Management creates a definitive list of criteria toevaluate assets against a project or organizational mission

42、(seeTable X1.3).8.2 The practitioner devises an interval scale for weighingthe criteria giving the management team a definitive range thatindicates a degree of difference between the intervals (such as“absolutely important” through “unimportant”) (see TableX1.5).8.3 Weights for each criterion are ca

43、lculated by manage-ments pair-wise comparisons using the AHP (see Table X1.3).8.4 The practitioner devises criterion unique interval scalesto give those SMEs/stakeholders who are scoring assets adefinitive range that indicates a degree of difference betweenthe intervals (such as “very high” through

44、“very low”) (seeTable X1.7, Table X1.9, and Table X1.10).8.5 SMEs or other stakeholders evaluate each asset againsteach criterion using the interval scale and criterion-uniqueinterval scales (see Table X1.5, Table X1.7, Table X1.9, andTable X1.10).8.6 API for each asset is calculated and equals the

45、sum ofthe products of the criteria weights and the asset item rank percriterion (see Table X1.10).8.7 The resulting rank provides management with quantita-tive information to use in business process decision making.9. Keywords9.1 AHP; analytical hierarchy process; asset priority; equip-ment; equipme

46、nt management; property; tangible assetsAPPENDIXES(Nonmandatory Information)X1. EXAMPLE 1: IDENTIFYING CAPITAL ASSETS THAT SUPPORT THE CORE/PRIORITY MISSIONS OF A BUSINESSENTITYX1.1 EvaluationLaboratory Assets 1, 2, and 3 are to beevaluated for alignment with the business entitys mission. Inthis exa

47、mple, management has established the following con-siderations for evaluation: (1) the ability of the equipment itemto support advanced technology research, (2) the exclusivity ofthe item, and (3) its ability to meet future needs. Scoring wascompleted by using the interval scale of importance.X1.2 S

48、implified Steps: The following steps can be followedin evaluating the asset alternatives:X1.2.1 Step 1: Choose the Evaluation CriteriaSee TableX1.1.TABLE X1.1 Criteria for Evaluating Laboratory Equipment withRespect to MissionCriteriaAdvanced TechnologyExclusivityFuture NeedsE2495073X1.2.2 Step 2: D

49、esign an Evaluation ScaleThe scaleshown in Table X1.2 displays the interval scale designed todetermine how important each criterion is to the evaluation ofan asset.X1.2.3 Step 3: Apply the Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP) Method to Determine Criteria Weights:X1.2.3.1 Management converted the criteria considerationsinto pair-wise comparisons as shown in Table X1.1, thatconsiders advanced technology versus exclusivity, advancedtechnology versus future needs, and exclusivity versus futureneeds (Table X1.3). (You can assume that the scores given arethe average of all