Functionality index (FI) for use with an engineering management system (EMS)

• US 20070033077A1
• Filed: 08/02/2005
• Published: 02/08/2007
• Est. Priority Date: 08/02/2005
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: United States Government Humphreys Engineer Center
• Original Assignee: United States Government Humphreys Engineer Center
• Inventors: Schneider, Jason, Grussing, Michael, Marrano, Lance, Uzarski, Donald
• Granted Patent: US 7,734,488 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/063 Operations research, analysis or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06311 Scheduling, planning or task assignment for a person or group

Abstract

A top-down tiered process establishes an objective measure of the functional capacity of an asset to address a specified use. The process comprises: developing Issue Categories and lists of functional impact Sub-issue Types and specific issues under each type that may impact functionality of the asset for a specified use; providing the list to evaluators; employing evaluators to evaluate functionality, evaluators assigning a numerical Severity measure to each Sub-issue Type present during the evaluation; recording occurrences of issues under each Sub-issue Type discovered, summing occurrences to determine a Density of each Sub-issue Type; recording the evaluation in one or more engineering management systems (EMS); and using the recorded evaluation, calculating a value to be inserted on a numerical scale as a functionality index, FI. In select embodiments of the present invention, a numerical scale is used with values from 0-100.

Claims

1. A method employing a top-down, tiered, standardized data collection, recording and evaluation process for establishing an objective measure of the functional capacity of an asset to address at least one specified use, comprising:

developing at least one list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types thereunder that may impact functionality of said asset for said use;

providing said list to at least one evaluator;

employing said evaluator to use said list to evaluate functionality of said asset,

wherein said evaluator observes issues of said asset and records occurrences of said issues under the appropriate said Sub-issue Type, and

wherein said evaluator assigns a Severity measure on a Severity scale to each said Sub-issue Type upon recording all said issues for each said Sub-issue Type, and

wherein occurrences of said issues are summed by Sub-issue Type to determine a Density of said Sub-issue Type;

recording said evaluator'"'"'s evaluation in at least one engineering management system (EMS); and

using said recorded evaluation, employing at least one algorithm to calculate as said measure a value to be inserted on a numerical scale as a functionality index, FI.

2. The method of claim 1 providing said numerical scale as values from 0-100.

3. The method of claim 1 providing at least part of said evaluation as answers to questions in said list.

4. The method of claim 1 providing said engineering management system as the BUILDER®

application.

5. The method of claim 1 providing said algorithm as:

6. The method of claim 1 evaluating said assets selected from types of assets consisting of:

buildings, facilities, paving systems, roads, railways, airports, dams, roofing systems, athletic fields, pipelines, transmission lines, public utility systems, communications systems, and combinations thereof.

7. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating at least one objective parametric cost estimate of modernization of said asset to correct at least one said functional Sub-issue Type.

8. The method of claim 4 further combining said functionality index, FI, with a condition index, CI, to establish an objective measure of suitability of said asset for meeting said specified use.

9. The method of claim 8 further comprising setting intervals on said Severity scale such that said degrees of Severity are consistent with those of said Condition Index (CI) scale as used in said BUILDER®

application.

10. The method of claim 1 providing said evaluation by completing at least one facility survey for each said specified use.

11. The method of claim 1 further employing said functionality index, FI, to facilitate prioritizing work requirements.

12. The method of claim 1 further employing said functionality index, FI, to facilitate making investment decisions to choose from among alternative modernization configurations for said asset.

13. The method of claim 1 calculating said functionality index, FI, for at least one use of an asset, further comprising:

researching, categorizing, and enumerating said Issue Categories and Sub-issue Types as relates to at least obsolescence, user requirement changes, lost efficiency, and codes and regulations compliance for said use of said asset;

providing at least one functionality rating sheet that explicitly defines levels of functionality impact and sustainment, restoration, modernization (SRM) considerations at a number of discrete intervals along said scale of said functionality index, FI,

wherein intervals of said rating scale are delineated on said rating sheet, and

wherein said rating sheet facilitates said evaluators in judging functionality scenarios, determining which interval is a best fit, and assigning a score within said interval;

presenting said rating sheet, Issue Categories and Sub-issue Types, together with a number of different functionality impact scenarios for at least one said use of said asset, to at least one panel of experts to provide functionality impact ratings of said asset to meet said use assuming the presence of said Sub-issue Types alone or in combinations thereof;

using said ratings to develop quantitative functionality deduct value relationships and procedures for assessments by said evaluators, and implementing said list in at least one engineering management system as an assessment checklist for use by said evaluators.

14. The method of claim 13 further comprising:

organizing said ratings based on said functionality Sub-issue Type, said Severity, and said Density;

screening outliers;

computing mean Deduct Values for each Sub-issue Type-Severity-Density combination;

plotting said Deduct Values, t, versus said Density; and

fitting said plotted data with a curve to mathematically describe the relationship of said Deduct Value for each said Sub-issue Type and Severity as a function of said Density.

15. The method of claim 14 further developing said Deduct Value to a statistical 95% confidence interval such that the resulting said functionality index, FI, is within ±

5 points of true,

wherein to attain this accuracy, a minimum number of raters are employed.

16. The method of claim 15 providing said minimum number of raters as at least seventeen, on average.

17. The method of claim 14 applying at least one deduct adjustment to the sum of the individual Deduct Values,

wherein said deduct adjustment reflects the nonlinear effect on said asset use of the existence of multiple functionality Sub-issue Types.

18. The method of claim 17, deriving said deduct adjustment for calculating Adjusted Deduct Values by:

establishing at least one panel of expert raters;

providing said raters with multiple scenarios, each said scenario containing at least one said functionality Sub-issue Type;

using said raters to provide an overall rating for each said scenario;

establishing a plot of said sum of said individual Deduct Values versus the direct rating value of each number of said Sub-issue Types to obtain an appropriate said deduct adjustment as represented by the slope of said plot for each discrete number of said functionality Sub-issue Types present in a given assessment,

wherein, depending on the nature and number of said Sub-issue Types, said overall rating yields an adjusted functionality Deduct Value less than the sum of the individual Sub-issue Type Deduct Values.

19. The method of claim 13 further providing at least one software interface flowchart in said engineering management system.

20. The method of claim 1 further comprising reiterating said process for a different said use.

21. The method of claim 1 said tiered process encompassing at least three tiers.

22. The method of claim 21 providing said tiers as asset level, system level, and component level,

wherein said systems are parts of said asset and at least one said component is a part of one said system, and

wherein said system and component levels provide refined estimates of the scope of required modernization, said component level providing the most refined said estimate.

23. The method of claim 1 further presenting each said Sub-issue Type as a question, said evaluator answering said question for each said Sub-issue Type to determine said Density and Severity at which said Sub-issue Type impacts said specified use,

wherein said answers to said questions are used at least partially to determine a rating for said functionality category and to calculate said functionality index, FI, and

wherein at least one said answer is based on observations of said evaluator with input from building users and maintenance personnel.

24. The method of claim 1 further employing said functional index, FI, as an execution metric,

wherein use as an execution metric establishes at least one threshold, such that when said functionality index, FI, for an asset falls below said threshold, a requirement to modernize is generated.

25. A system employing a top-down, tiered, standardized data collection, recording and evaluation process for establishing an objective measure of the functional capacity of an asset to address at least one specified use, comprising:

means for developing at least one list of Sub-issue Types included in at least one issue category, said Sub-issue Types impacting functionality of said asset for said use;

means for providing said list to at least one evaluator;

means for employing said evaluator to use said list to evaluate functionality of said asset,

wherein said evaluator assigns a Severity measure on a Severity scale to each existing said Sub-issue Type, and

wherein said evaluator records occurrences of issues associated with said asset under each said Sub-issue Type, and

wherein said occurrences are summed to determine Density of said Sub-issue Type;

means for recording said evaluator'"'"'s evaluation in at least one engineering management system (EMS); and

means for using said recorded evaluation to calculate as said measure a value to be inserted on a numerical scale as a functionality index, FI.

26. The system of claim 25 in which said numerical scale has values from 0-100.

27. The system of claim 25 in which at least part of said evaluation are answers to questions in said list.

28. The system of claim 25 in which said engineering management system is the BUILDER®

application.

29. The system of claim 25 in which said assets are selected from types of assets consisting of:

buildings, facilities, paving systems, roads, railways, airports, dams, roofing systems, athletic fields, pipelines, transmission lines, public utility systems, communications systems, and combinations thereof.

30. The system of claim 25 in which said means for developing at least one list of Sub-issue Types includes at least one panel of experts.

31. The system of claim 25 in which said means for providing said list to at least one evaluator are selected from the group consisting of:

electronic communications, mail, hand delivery, and combinations thereof.

32. The system of claim 25 in which said means for employing said evaluator to use said list to evaluate functionality of said asset are selected from the group consisting of:

directions to an employee, directions to a contractor, and combinations thereof.

33. The system of claim 25 in which said means for recording said evaluator'"'"'s evaluation in at least one engineering management system are selected from the group consisting of:

electronic devices, manual transcription, laptop computers, personal digital assistants (PDA), computers, barcode readers, purpose-built electronic instruments, and combinations thereof.

34. The system of claim 25 in which said means for using said recorded evaluation to calculate as said measure a value to be inserted on a numerical scale as a functionality index, FI, are selected from the group consisting of:

custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), electronic devices, laptop computers, personal digital assistants (PDA), computers, purpose-built electronic instruments, and combinations thereof.

35. The system of claim 25 in which said functionality index, FI, is developed for at least one use of an asset, further comprising:

means for researching, categorizing, and enumerating said Sub-issue Types and specific issues as relate to at least obsolescence, user requirement changes, lost efficiency, and codes and regulations compliance for said use of at least one typical said asset;

means for providing at least one functionality rating sheet that explicitly defines levels of functionality impact and sustainment, restoration, modernization (SRM) considerations at a number of discrete intervals along said scale of said functionality index, FI,

wherein said rating sheet delineates intervals along said rating scale, and

wherein said rating sheet facilitates said evaluators in judging functionality scenarios, determining which said interval is a best fit, and assigning a score within said interval;

means for presenting said rating sheet, Sub-issue Types and specific issues, together with a number of different functionality impact scenarios for at least one use of said asset, to at least one panel of experts to provide functionality impact ratings of said asset in meeting said use assuming the presence of said Sub-issue Types;

means for using said ratings to develop quantitative functionality deduct value relationships and procedures for use of evaluators in assessment, and

means for implementing said list in at least one engineering management system as an assessment checklist for use by said evaluators.

36. The system of claim 35 in which said means for researching, categorizing, and enumerating said Sub-issue Types and specific issues are selected from the group consisting of:

manual searches, computerized searches, interviews, literature reviews, surveys, polls, and combinations thereof.

37. The system of claim 35 in which said means for using said ratings to develop quantitative functionality deduct value relationships and procedures for assessments by said evaluators are selected from the group consisting of:

computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

38. The system of claim 35 in which said means for implementing said list in at least one engineering management system as an assessment checklist for use by said evaluators are selected from the group consisting of:

electronic devices, personal digital assistants (PDA), laptop computers, computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

39. The system of claim 35 incorporating at least one software interface flowchart in said engineering management system.

40. The system of claim 35 further comprising:

means for organizing said ratings based on said Sub-issue Type, said Severity, and said Density;

means for screening outliers;

means for computing mean Deduct Values for each Sub-issue Type-Severity-Density combination;

means for plotting said Deduct Values versus said Density;

means for fitting said plotted data with a curve to mathematically describe the relationship of said Deduct Value for each said Sub-issue Type and Severity as a function of said Density.

41. The system of claim 40 in which said means for organizing said ratings based on said Sub-issue type, said Severity, and said Density are selected from the group consisting of:

electronic devices, personal digital assistants (PDA), laptop computers, computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

42. The system of claim 40 in which said means for screening outliers are selected from the group consisting of:

COTS software, laptop computers, computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

43. The system of claim 40 in which said means for computing mean Deduct Values for each Sub-issue Type-Severity-Density combination are selected from the group consisting of:

laptop computers, computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

44. The system of claim 40 in which said means for plotting said Deduct Values versus said Density are selected from the group consisting of:

COTS software, laptop computers, computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

45. The system of claim 40 in which said means for fitting said plotted data with a curve to mathematically describe the relationship of said Deduct Value for each said Sub-issue Type and Severity as a function of said Density are selected from the group consisting of:

COTS software, laptop computers, computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

46. The system of claim 40 further including means for developing said Deduct Value to a statistical 95% confidence interval such that the resulting said functionality index, FI, is ±

5 points of true,

wherein to attain this accuracy, a minimum number of raters are employed.

47. The system of claim 46 in which said minimum number of raters is at least seventeen, on average.

48. The system of claim 40 in which a deduct adjustment for calculating Adjusted Deduct Values is derived using:

means for establishing at least one panel of expert raters;

means for providing said raters with at least one scenario, each said scenario containing at least one said functionality Sub-issue Types;

means for said raters to provide an overall rating for each said scenario;

means for establishing a plot of said sum of said individual Deduct Values versus the direct rating value of each number of said Sub-issue Types to obtain an appropriate said deduct adjustment as represented by the slope of said plot for each number of said Sub-issue Types present in a given assessment.

wherein, depending on the nature and number of said Sub-issue Types, said overall rating yields an adjusted functionality Deduct Value less than the sum of the individual Sub-issue Type Deduct Values.

49. The system of claim 48 in which said means for establishing at least one panel of expert raters is selected from the group consisting of:

requests for support of experts, direction to experts to serve, contracts for experts to serve, and combinations thereof.

50. The system of claim 48 in which said means for providing said raters with at least one scenario are selected from the group consisting of:

laptop computers, computers, personal digital assistants (PDA), software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

51. The system of claim 48 in which said means for said raters to provide an overall rating for each said scenario are selected from the group consisting of:

laptop computers, computers, personal digital assistants (PDA), software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

52. The system of claim 48 in which said means for establishing a plot of said sum of said individual Deduct Values versus the direct rating value of each number of said Sub-issue Types are selected from the group consisting of:

COTS software, laptop computers, computers, software programs, custom algorithms, application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.