• Aucun résultat trouvé

The analytical hierarchy process for eliciting decision preferences in asset management

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "The analytical hierarchy process for eliciting decision preferences in asset management"

Copied!
36
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la

première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at

PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.

https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

INFRA 2005 Urban Infrastructure: Managing the Assets, Mastering the Technology [Proceedings], pp. 1-31, 2005-11-21

READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright

NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=82df7895-66d9-45d7-b3cf-88410762cfde https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=82df7895-66d9-45d7-b3cf-88410762cfde

NRC Publications Archive

Archives des publications du CNRC

This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at

The analytical hierarchy process for eliciting decision preferences in asset management

(2)

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

T he Ana lyt ic a l hie ra rchy proc e ss for

e lic it ing de c ision pre fe re nc e s in a sse t

m a na ge m e nt

N R C C - 4 7 7 2 1

T e s f a m a r i a m , S . ; V a n i e r , D .

A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans :

Infra 2005 Urban Infrastructure : Managing the Assets, Mastering the Technology, Montreal, QC., Nov. 21-23, 2005, pp. 1-34

(3)

An Abstract on

The Analytical Hierarchy Process for

Eliciting Decision Preferences in Asset Management

Solomon Tesfamariam

Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0R6

Tel: (613)-993-2448; Fax: (613)-954-5984 e-mail: Solomon.Tesfamariam@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

and

Dana Vanier

Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0R6

Tel: (613)-993-9699; Fax: (613)-954-5984 e-mail: Dana.Vanier@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

for

Infra 2005

Urban Infrastructure: Managing the Assets, Mastering the Technology Montreal, Quebec, November 2005

(4)

ABSTRACT: There is an increasing awareness in asset management to make use of numerical optimization techniques as a decision support system. In the Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning (MIIP) project, multi-objective optimization (MOO) is carried out using three parameters (performance, life cycle cost, and risk of failure) to prioritize rehabilitation projects. In addition, for each rehabilitation project there are typically six alternative solutions ranging from “complete replacement” to “do nothing”. However, the rehabilitation prioritization should also incorporate the decision maker’s preferences towards the three-optimization parameters and the six rehabilitation

alternatives, as their relative importance should influence the final decision. In this paper, the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) is utilized to elicit decision-making preferences from stakeholders, and to compute the corresponding relative weights of their decision preferences towards the rehabilitation alternatives and the MOO parameters. The decision making approach of the various MIIP consortium project participant are highlighted and discussed. The potential applications of the AHP weights in the optimization problem are highlighted with examples.

(5)

The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Eliciting

Decision Preferences in Asset Management

Solomon Tesfamariam

and

Dana Vanier

I nstitute for Research in Construction

(6)

Outline

• Background

• Decision Support System

• Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

• Case Study

(7)

Background

• This research is supporting MIIP project (Monday presentation)

– To develop prototype software for decision support

• Current state of our infrastructure

– MIIP Survey on Municipal Infrastructure Assets

• http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/b5123.2/b5123.2.pdf

– Survey results (67 municipalities across Canada)

• 77% want to see maintenance funding at recommended 2% to 4% “Level of Investment” for maintenance each year

– 70% are spending less than 2%

– “Actual” average is 1.4% and the “desired” is 2.3%

(8)

…background

• Practitioners need for Decision Support System (DSS)

– Open Forum on Research Opportunities in Asset Management

• http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/b5123.12/b5123.12.pdf

• Research and knowledge acquisition

– GAP: dearth of tools to perform integrated asset management

– OPPORTUNITY: creation of “toolbox” of standard software methods

• IRC’s Strategic Objectives

– “Provide integrated decision-making tools that enable the construction sector to respond to changing performance expectations”

(9)

…background

• How do we incorporate asset management principles?

– What do you own?

– What is it worth ? – What is deferred ?

– What is the condition ?

– What is remaining service life ? – What do you fix first ?

(10)

…background

• Capital and maintenance project prioritization is complex

– Municipal Objectives (Sometimes conflicting)

– Technical Performance – Levels of Service

– Risk of Failure (Consequence, Probability)

– Intervention Alternatives (Do Nothing … Maintain … Replace) – Project Cost

– Life Cycle Costs

– Discipline Choices (Roads, Sewer, Bridges, etc.) – Political

– Financial

(11)

…background

• Many high-level asset management decisions are subjective

• They are based on poor, or little, data

– Condition data (not consistent or available for all disciplines) – Risk data (qualitative, and not quantified or objective)

– Life cycle costs (only initial costs)

• This will change in future with effective asset management and

decision support systems

(12)

Decision support system

• Various definitions and context dependent:

– A computer-based system that aids the process of decision making.

– An information and planning system that provides the ability to interrogate computers on an ad hoc basis, analyze information and predict the impact of decisions before they are made. (ref. Wikipedia)

• Multicriteria decision making:

– Multiple objective programming approach – Value and utility theory approach (e.g., AHP) – Group decision and negotiation theory

(13)

Analytical Hierarchy

Process (AHP)

AHP is introduced in the 70s by Prof. Saaty

AHP is not widely used in infrastructure field

“Strategic implementation of infrastructure priority projects: case study

in Palestine”

– ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems Vol 8(1)

“AHP as a Tool for Infrastructure Management,” case studies

– Selection of concrete mixtures

– Maximizing customer benefits in pavement management – Transportation Research Board (Jan 2006)

(14)

…AHP

• Structuring of a problem into a hierarchy consisting of a goal

and subordinate features

• Establishing pairwise comparisons between elements (criterion)

at each level, and

• Synthesis and establishing the overall priority to rank the

alternatives.

(15)

…AHP

• Capital and maintenance project prioritization is complex

– Municipal Objectives (Sometimes conflicting)

– Technical Performance – Levels of Service

– Risk of Failure (Consequence, Probability)

– Intervention Alternatives (Do Nothing … Maintain … Replace) – Project Cost

– Life Cycle Costs

– Discipline Choices (Roads, Sewer, Bridges, etc.) – Political

– Financial

(16)

…AHP:

structuring a problem

Assessment criteria

Condition

Risk

Cost

Project ranking

Intervention alternatives

Do nothing Maintenance Minor repair Major repair Renewal

Road

Sewer Water

(17)

…AHP:

pairwise comparisons

• In making “general asset management” decision,

– What is the level of influence (or dominance) of condition to risk? – What is the level of influence (or dominance) of condition to cost? – What is the level of influence (or dominance) of risk to cost?

(18)

…AHP:

pairwise comparisons

Intensity

importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective

2 Weak or slight

3 Moderate importance

Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another

4 Moderate plus

5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another

6 Strong plus

7 Very strong or demonstrated

An activity is favoured very strongly over another; its dominance demonstrated in practice

8 Very, very strong

9 Extreme importance

The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Condition Risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Condition Cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Risk Cost

AHP weight

Condition Risk Cost 0.12 0.20 0.68

(19)

Case study

• City of Hamilgaryton

– Four road projects

– Four sewer projects

– Four water projects

– Four bridge projects

(20)
(21)

…case study

Sewers Current Conditon Current replacement value

S1 4 $200,000

S2 3 $100,000

S3 2 $150,000

S4 5 $200,000

Roads Current Conditon Current replacement value

R1 5 $400,000

R2 4 $200,000

R3 3 $300,000

R4 2 $400,000

Water Current Conditon Current replacement value

W1 3 $200,000

W2 2 $100,000

W3 5 $150,000

W4 4 $200,000

Bridges Current Conditon Current replacement value

B1 2 $100,000

B2 5 $50,000

B3 4 $75,000

(22)

…case study:

4 Scenarios

• Scenario 1: Little information is provided

(typical municipal situation)

• Scenario 2: Extra risk and condition data are provided

• Scenario 3: Extra risk and condition data are provided in a

graphical format

(23)
(24)

…case study:

scenario 3

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000

(25)

…case study:

interventions

Roads R1 R2 R3 R4 Durham 1 3 4 4 DND 1 1 3 4 Prince george 1 1 2 5 Regina 1 1 3 4 Halton 1 3 4 4 Ottawa 1 1 3 4 Sewers S1 S2 S3 S4 Durham 3 4 5 1 DND 2 3 4 1 Prince George 2 2 4 1 Regina 2 3 4 1 Halton 2 4 4 1 Ottawa 2 3 4 1 Water W1 W2 W3 W4 Durham 4 5 1 3 DND 2 3 1 2 Prince george 2 3 1 2 Regina 2 3 1 2 Halton 4 5 1 2 Ottawa 3 3 1 1 Complete Replacement (1) Major Repairs (2) Minor Repairs (3) Preventive Maintenance (4) Doing Nothing (5)

(scenario 2)

Bridges B1 B2 B3 B4 Durham 4 1 3 4 DND 2 1 1 3 Prince george 3 1 1 2 Regina 3 1 1 2 Halton 4 1 2 4 Ottawa 4 1 1 2

(26)

…case study:

scenario 4 (AHP)

Assessment criteria

Condition

Risk

Cost

Project ranking

Intervention alternatives

Do nothing Maintenance Minor repair Major repair Renewal

Road R1 R2 R3 R4 Sewer S1 S2 S3 S4 Water W1 W2 W3 W4 Project Bridges B1 B2 B3 B4

(27)

…case study:

AHP interface

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sewer Road 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sewer Water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sewer Bridge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Road Water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Road Bridge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Water Bridge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Condition Risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Condition Cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Risk Cost

(28)

…case study:

AHP interface

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Do nothing Preventive maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Do nothing Minor Repairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Do nothing Major Repairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Do nothing Complete Replacement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Preventive maintenance Minor Repairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Preventive maintenance Major Repairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Preventive maintenance Complete Replacement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Minor repair Major Repairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Minor repair Complete Replacement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Major repair Complete Replacement

(29)

…case study:

assessment criteria

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Durham DND Regina Prince George Halton Ottawa

(30)

…case study:

repair alternatives

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Durham DND Prince George Halton Ottawa Doing Nothing Major Repairs Minor Repairs Preventive Maintenance Complete Replacement

(31)

…case study:

project preferences

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Durham DND Prince George Regina Halton Ottawa

(32)

…case study:

project preferences

Repair alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 Conditions 1 2 0 4 3 15 2 3 0 5 11 6 2 4 9 10 5 0 0 5 24 0 0 0 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Condition 5 Doing Nothing Major Repairs Minor Repairs Preventive Maintenance Complete Replacement

(33)

Summary

With increasing deterioration of our infrastructure asset, the industry

needs robust decision support (DS) tools,

The DS tool should incorporate the decision maker’s attitude towards

risk, cost and condition; and intervention preferences,

The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) can assist in eliciting the

decision maker’s attitude,

AHP can incorporate multi-decision maker’s preferences,

AHP can incorporate other subjective criteria (political, municipal

objectives, sustainability, etc…),

(34)

Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning Project (MIIP)

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ui/bu/miip_e.html

MIIP

(35)

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/uir/bu/index.html

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE

Buried Utilities Research

(36)

• Thank you,

• Question?

Solomon Tesfamariam

Phone 613/ 993-2448, solomon.tesfamariam@nrc.ca

Dana Vanier

Phone 613/993-9699, dana.vanier@nrc.ca

Références

Documents relatifs

L’ensemble de ces questions nous ont amenés à nous questionner sur notre future profession en tant que jeune enseignant puisque nous suivons actuellement la formation au sein de notre

As noted in § 4.4 , the photometric evolution of SN 2019yvq is similar to intermediate 86G-like SNe, however, the spectra feature much weaker Si II λ5972 absorption and larger

[ 1 ] We present a new method for estimating particle loading parameters (mass, number, volume) of eruptive jets by inversion of echo power data measured using a volcano Doppler

The measured invariant mass distribution has a clear peak at the J/ψ mass with an experimental width in good agreement with a full geant-based sim- ulation for UPC production

1) lack of knowledge 2) data with preferential meaning 3) modelling Weaknesses in the absence of the community of peers Steering committee chooses certain products

In this paper, we present L-Py, a simulation package that mixes L-systems construction with the Python high-level modeling language.. In addition to this software module, an

To be at a distance of 1400 light years while appearing as bright in our sky as it does, Deneb has to be in a completely different league, with a luminosity of about 200,000..

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India; Indonesian Institute of Science, Indonesia; Centro Fermi - Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico