Inspire : Public Works Mar Apr 2015
43 0-10 SCALE FOR CONDITION RATING, OR NOT? HANSON NGO SENIOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ARRB GROUP ASKS: I've encountered a report on management of road bridges in Victoria in which one of the comments from East Gippsland Shire is that a condition rating of 1-4 is being converted to a 1-10 rating as per the National Framework guidelines. Has anyone got any idea on which National Framework guidelines were mentioned? Is there anyone using a 1-10 scale for condition rating? Any feedback is appreciated. PETER WAY CHAIR NAMS.AU IPWEA AUSTRALASIA I have been watching with interest the discussion on this topic. I think it salient that we look again at the IIMM 2011, (page 2/79 to 2/82) which devotes quite a lot on the question of grading scores. It quite rightly advocates ranking of 1 to 5 for the core approach and notes that for many assets (depending on their criticality) such will be all that is necessary. It then goes on to talk about intermediate approaches where ﬁner gradings of the rank are applied particularly at rankings 3, 4 and 5. Again this is intended to reﬂect where additional effort may be warranted on particular asset types. Finally for the advanced approach, the IIMM talks about even more sophisticated data collection techniques available for asset classes such as property and provides examples of gradings from 1 to 100. As already noted, IPWEA promotes the core level 1 to 5 in all our Condition Assessment Practice Notes but we do highlight that more sophisticated systems are available if needed. So where does that leave us? My view is that it needs to be 'horses for courses'. You need to be satisﬁed that whatever the grading system being applied, it is being assigned consistently and by all,carrying out such work. KNOWLEDGE CENTRE ASK YOUR MATES THE HOT TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ON THE IPWEA ONLINE FORUMS. JOIN THE DISCUSSION NOW AT www.ipwea.org/askyourmates ALSO UP FOR DISCUSSION • Project close out process • Light ﬂeet management policies # Be cautious about too much subjectivity creeping in. Be sure that the effort required is warranted in terms of the criticality of the assets involved. Finally a good point made in the IIMM is that regardless of the condition grading system selected, a common str ucture should be in place to allow more detailed information to be consolidated into a common scale. Such is important to allow comparisons and decision making across various asset classes. DAVID GRASBY ASSET STRATEGIST SYDNEY WATER Funnily enough, years ago in our stormwater asset condition assessment we had a 1-3 scale which very closely approximated [the] Good-Transitional- Bad (ours was Good-Fair-Poor). We have since moved to a 1-5 based on the IIMM information and in keeping with other asset classes in Sydney Water (adding Very Good and Very Poor). Again coming to Peter's contribution, the main value I ﬁnd with our 1-5 is in the pragmatic engineering and asset management space of: • being able to report on asset condition in a way that is comparable with other asset classes • argue cogently for funding to rectify problems based on this comparable "baseline" • plan for future renewals based on degradation rather than using the (arbitrary) notion of "asset life" In terms of accounting versus asset management, I wonder whether the accountants have learnt what the asset managers were doing and decided to use the data for their own functions. This makes sense (reduce duplication of effort), but only so long as the original asset management intent isn't lost or distorted in the process.
Public Works Nov Dec 2014
Public Works May June 2015