ASTM E2495-2018 Standard Practice for Prioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition Utilization and Disposition.pdf

《ASTM E2495-2018 Standard Practice for Prioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition Utilization and Disposition.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E2495-2018 Standard Practice for Prioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition Utilization and Disposition.pdf（13页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E2495 13E2495 18Standard Practice forPrioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition, Utilization, andDisposition1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2495; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, t

2、he year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () 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

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

4、nherently subjective decision-making process: determining which assets are critical to anentitys designated mission and are therefore deserving of priority attention or funding.1. Scope1.1 The asset priority index (API) establishes aquantitativee a quantitative process for prioritizing asset resourc

5、es in acquisition,utilization, and disposition to provide entities with a proven methodology to prioritize asset resources.disposition.1.2 The API is a metric used to communicate the relative importance of equipment in terms of mission criticality, security, orother measures important to the busines

6、s entity. It offers a method for ranking assets based on judgment/importance factors definedby the organization, creating information to justify compelling arguments for investment, security strategies, and disposition plans.1.3 The API also provides a quantitative basis for determining and document

7、ing operational relationships between an assetportfolio and business objectives capital investment strategies, maintenance approaches, security design and analyses, continuityof business/risk analyses, and disposition decisions.1.4 The API enables management to identify critical assets and allocate

8、resources appropriately.1.5 The API model is designed to be applicable and appropriate for entities holding equipment with a material impact on theentitys mission.1.2 In addition to the applicability of moveable and durable assets as defined in this practice, this methodology is similarly usedin the

9、 analysis of investments in buildings and building systems (see Practice E1765).1.3 This practice offers instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace educationor experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of t

10、his practice may be applicablein all circumstances. This ASTM standard is neither intended to represent ornor replace the standard of care by which the adequacyof a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a projects manyunique aspects.

11、The word “Standard” in the title means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM Internationalconsensus process.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardizationestablished in the Decision on Principles for the D

12、evelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issuedby the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:21 This practice is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E53 on Asset Management and is the direct responsi

13、bility of Subcommittee E53.01 on Process Management.Current edition approved Jan. 1, 2013July 1, 2018. Published February 2013August 2018. Originally approved in 2006. Last previous edition approved in 20072013 asE2495 07.E2495 13. DOI: 10.1520/E2495-13.10.1520/E2495-18.2 For referencedASTM standard

14、s, visit theASTM website, www.astm.org, or contactASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. ForAnnual Book ofASTM Standardsvolume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page on the ASTM website.This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM st

15、andard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Becauseit may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current versionof the standard as published by A

16、STM is to be considered the official document.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States1E1765 Practice forApplyingAnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute DecisionAnalysis of Investments Related toProjects, Products,

17、 and ProcessesE2135 Terminology for Property and Asset ManagementE2811 Practice for Management of Low Risk Property (LRP)3. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 asset portfolio, nassets that are within the scope of the asset management system.3.1.2 asset priority index (API), nnumerical value assigned t

18、o an asset reflecting its value to an entitys mission or othercritical assignments as defined by the criteria set forth by management.3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:Definitions:3.1.1 asset priority index (API), nnumerical value assigned to an asset reflecting its value to an enti

19、tys mission or othercritical assignments as defined by the criteria set forth by management.3.1.2 analytical hierarchy process (AHP), ndecision-making model that reduces complex decisions to one on one one-on-onecomparisons resulting in the ranking of a list of objectives or alternatives. Satty, 199

20、433.1.3 inconsistency measure, ninconsistent scoring within a square matrix (the same number of columns and rows, see theexample in Appendix X1, Table X1.3) using a predefined interval scale, for example, rating all comparisons high thus disturbingthe logic of the matrix.3.1.4 interval scale, nstand

21、ard survey rating scale, based on real numbers, in which distances between data points aremeaningful.3.1.4.1 DiscussionInterval scales have no true zero point so it is not possible to make statements about how many times higher one score is thananother.3.2 Acronyms:Definitions of Terms Specific to T

22、his Standard:AHP = Analytical Hierarchy ProcessAPI = Asset Priority IndexECM = Equipment Control MatrixLRP = Low Risk PropertySME = Subject Matter Expert3.2.1 asset portfolio, nassets that are within the scope of the asset management system.4. Summary of Practice4.1 Asset prioritizingprioritization

23、relies on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), a proven decision-making aid, (AHP) thatprovides managers with the quantitative information needed to select the best alternative or to rank/prioritize a set of alternatives.4.1.1 AHP uses pair-wise comparison matrices (see the example in Appendix X1

24、, Table X1.3) with judgment measurementsfrom a predefined survey scale to derive weights for the management-defined criteria used to evaluate assets.4.1.2 AHP pair-wise comparison matrices provide the criteria used in the asset prioritization methodology for ranking assets.(This practice can be used

25、, for example, used to categorize assets according to PracticesTerminology E2135 and Practice E2811.)4.2 The asset prioritizing methodology follows six discrete steps:4.2.1 Step 1: Develop a set of critical criteria that answer the prioritizing question (whether it is mission alignment, securityrequ

26、irements, and so forth). The criteria shallmust be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, that is, the criteria shallmustaddress the most important decision-making factors without overlap.4.2.2 Step 2: Create an interval survey scale by which the criteria can be scored.to score the criteria

27、.4.2.3 Step 3: Assign weights to the criteria based on a predefined scale of judgment or ratio measurements using the AHP.4.2.4 Step 4: Create scoring guidelines for subject matter experts (SME)s (preferably based on an interval scale with sufficientdefinition to support a wide gradation) so that th

28、e scorers can evaluate assets per according to the management-defined criteria.4.2.5 Step 5: Evaluate each asset according to each critical criterion based on scoring guidelines.4.2.6 Step 6: Calculate an API based on the criteria weights and scoring guidelines.4.3 Should the practitioner wish to ap

29、ply this method to If this method is to be applied to an entire asset portfolio, a pilot studyshallmust be conducted on a representative sample of assets to determine if enhancements are needed to interval scales and scoringguidelines. The entire asset portfolio should only be scored after a priorit

30、izing framework is established.3 Satty, T.L., T. L., Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications, 1994.E2495 1824.4 The API is a metric used to communicate the relative importance of equipment in terms of mission criticality, security, orother measures impor

31、tant to the business entity. It establishes a basis for evaluating prioritization of asset resources.5. Significance and Use5.1 TheAPI is a metric used to communicate the relative importance of equipmentassets in terms of mission criticality, security,or other measures important to the business enti

32、ty. It offersestablishes a method for ranking assets based on judgment/importancefactors defined by the organization, creating information to justify compelling arguments for investment, security strategies, anddisposition plans.basis for evaluating prioritization of asset resources.5.2 API offers a

33、 method for ranking assets based on judgment/importance factors defined by the entity, creating information toprioritize investments, security strategies, and disposition plans.5.3 The API also provides a quantitative basis for determining and documenting operational relationships between an assetpo

34、rtfolio and business objectives entity capital investment strategies, maintenance approaches, security design and analyses,continuity of business/risk analyses, and disposition decisions.5.4 It The API enables managemententities to identify critical assets and allocate resources appropriately and sh

35、ould thereforebe an integral process in equipment management.appropriately.5.5 TheAPI model is designed to be applicable and appropriate for entities holding assets with a material impact on the entitysmission.6. Applicability6.1 This practice may be applied to the entire asset portfolio of an entit

36、y or any subset in which identifying best alternativesor prioritizing a set of alternatives is imperative.6.2 TheThis practice may be applied to a variety of scenarios because the criteria used to evaluate assets are selected by theorganizationentity and are dependent on mission and the situational

37、study.6.3 The API for a portfolio can in turn be plotted against condition or security assessments to arrive at an investment,disposition, or other business strategy.7. Procedure7.1 The API criteria an organizationentity selects shallmust reflect the overall mission goals that the assets are to supp

38、ort.Criteria selection is usually a management function but shallmust (1) enjoy a consensus; (2) be well defined to facilitate scoring;(3) be mutually exclusive (definitions shallmust not overlap); and (4) be collectively exhaustive, that is, effectively cover thosecriteria that will allow the asset

39、s to support the entitys mission goals. Examples of API criteria include mission support,interchangeability, interruptability, reliability, exclusivity, and asset potential future need.7.2 Because the importance of each criterion element is usually not equal, weights Weights must be assigned to each

40、 elementaccording to the input of management.based on importance.7.2.1 Weights are generated by requiring managers to evaluate evaluating the criteria on a predetermined interval scale thatreflects the importance of the criteria.asset to the mission.7.2.2 Results of the evaluation are placed in a sq

41、uare matrix (the same number of columns and rows) to calculate criteria weights(see the example in Appendix X1, Table X1.3).7.3 To score assets against each criterion, a detailed interval scale shallmust be developed. Normally, organizationalentity SMEsare well positioned to create an asset scoring

42、guide to ensure a valid and reliable method. This scoring guide shallmust define eachcriterion, including its weight, and provide a clear explanation of each interval of the scale, for example, very important throughvery unimportant for each criterion. Management may provide scorers with specific Sp

43、ecific asset examples from theorganizationsentitys asset portfolio may be used to aid in this process.7.4 Once the API criteria, weights, and scoring guidance are developed, it is prudent to pilot the framework on a representativesample of assets if the intent is to use the methodology on the organi

44、zationsentitys entire asset portfolio. Additions to criteria orrefinement of the interval scale may be required based on feedback received from participants and observations made during thescoring session pilots because many factors affecting the analysis can arise such as geographic or security con

45、siderations.7.5 Management shallmust decide on the correct population to designate as scorers. In some instances, only SMEs are anappropriate choice. In other instances, other stakeholders may be assigned as scorers. Once the API criteria framework (criteria,weights, and scoring guidance) has been f

46、inalized, SMEs or other stakeholders score the entitys assets and determine their API.The preferred method is to have all scorers physically present and to score assets one by one against each API criteria.criterion.This method typically returns lower inconsistency measures and tends to receive high

47、er credibility throughout the entity.7.6 For simple studies with a small number of comparisons, the example in Appendix X1 will sufficeassist in understanding howto calculate AHP. For larger more sophisticated studies, there are many AHP heuristic software packages available to assist withthe calcul

48、ations. The mathematical variations on this technique are endless and numerous.E2495 1838. Analytical Measures8.1 Management creates Create a definitive list of criteria to evaluate assets against a project or organizationalentity mission (seeTable X1.3).8.2 The practitioner devises Devise an interv

49、al scale for weighing the criteria giving the management team providing a definitiverange that indicates a degree of difference between the intervals (such as “absolutely important” through “unimportant”) (see TableX1.5).8.3 Weights Calculate weights for each criterion are calculated by managements pair-wise comparisonspair-wise comparisonusing the AHP (see Table X1.3).8.4 The practitioner devises criterion unique Devise criterion-unique interval scales to give those provide SMEs/stakeholderswho are scoring assets a definitive range that indicatesindicate