CAPITAL ASSET INVESTMENT PLANNING SYSTEMS

• US 20130173325A1
• Filed: 12/10/2012
• Published: 07/04/2013
• Est. Priority Date: 12/08/2011
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Copperleaf Technologies Inc.
• Original Assignee: Copperleaf Technologies Inc.
• Inventors: Coleman, Stanley T., Malcolm, Nicholas, Gnocato, Joseph, Spencer, Daryl Norman, Horner, Simon Nesbitt
• Application Number:
  US13/710,011
• Publication Number:
  US 20130173325A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7.22
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06314 Calendaring for a resource
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06315 Needs-based resource requirements planning or analysis
• CPC Class Codes: Y02B 10/30 Wind power

Abstract

Automated systems and methods for use in managing collections of capital assets determine optimal replacement dates for assets based on total cost curves. Replacement dates are adjusted within ranges that avoid unacceptable risk of unmonetizable failures to satisfy constraints. Priority in adjusting replacement dates is determined based on deferral cost metrics which may be based on the total cost curves.

Claims

1. A system for scheduling investments in capital assets, the system comprising:

a database storing information about a plurality of in-place capital assets;

a replacement deferral risk cost model operable to estimate costs associated with failure of one of the in-place capital assets risked by deferring replacement of the one of the in-place capital assets as a function of time;

a first use model operable to estimate use costs of the one of the in-place capital assets as a function of time;

a second use cost model operable to estimate use costs of a replacement for the one of the in-place capital assets as a function of time;

a replacement cost model operable estimate costs associated with replacing the one of the in-place assets with the replacement asset as a function of time; and

a processor configured to process outputs of the replacement deferral risk cost model, the first and second use models and the replacement model to provide a total cost function for the one of the in-place capital assets over a planning period as a function of replacement date for the one of the in-place capital assets and to determine an optimal replacement date for the one of the in-place capital assets based on the total cost function.

2. A system according to claim 1 wherein the processor is configured to, in determining the financially optimal replacement date for the in-place capital assets:

determine a minimum of the total cost functions corresponding to the select in-place capital assets.

3. A system according to claim 1 wherein the processor is configured to:

for a plurality of select ones of the in-place capital assets;

determine deferral cost metrics for the total cost functions corresponding to the select in-place capital assets for the corresponding financially optimal replacement dates; and

automatically generate ranking information prioritizing replacement of the select in-place capital assets based at least in part on the determined deferral cost metrics; and

include the ranking information in the report.

4. A system according to claim 3 wherein the deferral cost metrics comprise slopes of the total cost functions corresponding to the select in-place capital assets at the corresponding financially optimal replacement dates.

5. A system according to claim 3 wherein the deferral cost metrics comprise ratios of the incremental costs for deferring replacement of the select in-place capital assets to the costs indicated by the total cost functions at the financially optimal replacement dates.

6. A system according to claim 1 wherein the asset information for at least one of the in-place capital assets includes unmonetizable failure information, and wherein the processor is configured to:

for the at least one in-place capital asset;

determine one or more unmonetizable risk replacement dates; and

determine an optimal replacement date as the earliest of the unmonetizable risk replacement dates and the financially optimal replacement date, and

for the remainder of the in-place capital assets, determine an optimal replacement date based on the financially optimal replacement date.

7. A system according to claim 6 wherein for the at least one in-place capital asset the unmonetizable failure information comprises unmonetizable failure probability information and consequence risk tolerance information, and wherein the processor is configured to in determining the one or more unmonetizable risk replacement dates for the at least one in-place capital asset:

execute an unmonetizable failure probability model with the unmonetizable failure information as an input, the unmonetizable failure probability model estimating probability of one or more types of unmonetizable failure as a function of time; and

determine from the output of the unmonetizable failure probability model and the consequence risk tolerance information an earliest date of intolerable risk for each of the one more types of unmonetizable failure.

8. A system according to claim 7 wherein each of the one or more types of unmonetizable failure is associated with one of a plurality of severity levels, and wherein the consequence risk tolerance information comprises a plurality of probability thresholds corresponding to the severity levels.

9. A system according to claim 1 wherein the processor is configured to determine for each of the in-place capital assets an optimal replacement date based on its financially optimal replacement date.

10. A system according to claim 6 wherein the asset information includes replacement investment information, and wherein the processor is configured to:

determine an optimal replacement investment schedule based on the optimal replacement dates determined for the in-place capital assets and the replacement investment information; and

determine whether the optimal replacement investment schedule exceeds an investment constraint.

11. A system according to claim 10 wherein the processor is configured identify the select in-place capital assets by identifying ones of the in-place capital assets whose replacement investments contribute to the investment schedule exceeding the investment constraint in a time window.

12. A system according to claim 11 wherein the processor is configured to in identifying ones of the in-place capital assets whose replacement investments contribute to the investment schedule exceeding the investment constraint in a time window:

identify only ones of the in-place capital assets whose replacement investments begin in the time window.

13. A system according to claim 10 wherein the processor is configured to defer a scheduled replacement date of at least one of the select in-place capital assets based on the ranking information.

14. A system according to claim 13 wherein the processor is configured to in deferring the scheduled replacement date of the at least one of the select in-place capital assets:

defer scheduled replacement dates of only the select in-place capital assets whose optimal replacement dates do not correspond to the assets'"'"' unmonetizable failure replacement dates.

15. A system according to claim 13 wherein the processor is configured to in deferring the scheduled replacement date of the at least one of the select in-place capital assets:

defer scheduled replacement dates of the select in-place capital assets no later than the assets'"'"' respective unmonetizable failure replacement dates.

16. A system according to claim 13 wherein the processor is configured, in deferring the replacement of the at least one select in-place capital asset based on the ranking information, to:

after deferring the replacement of at least one of the select in-place capital assets, determine, at least for the time window, a revised replacement investment schedule reflecting the deferral of the replacement of the at least one of the select in-place capital assets.

17. A system according to claim 16 wherein the processor is configured to:

determine whether the revised replacement investment schedule exceeds the investment constraint in the time window, and

if the revised replacement investment schedule does not exceed the investment constraint in the time window, identify a divisible portion of the replacement investment deferred by the deferral of the one of the select in-place capital assets, the divisible portion sufficiently small to be accommodated within the investment constraint for the time window; and

restore the previously scheduled replacement of the portion of the one of the select in-place capital assets corresponding to the identified divisible portion of the replacement investment.

18. A system according to claim 17 wherein the processor is configured to update the financially optimal replacement date of the portion of the one of the select in-place capital assets corresponding to the complement of the identified divisible portion of the replacement investment.

19. A system according to claim 16 wherein the processor is configured to:

(a) determine whether the revised replacement investment schedule exceeds the investment constraint in the time window,

(b) if the revised replacement investment schedule exceeds the investment constraint in the time window, defer a scheduled replacement date of at least one other of the select in-place capital assets based on the ranking information,

(c) update the revised replacement investment schedule to reflect the deferral of the scheduled replacement of the at least one other of the select in-place capital assets, and

(d) repeat steps (a) to (c) until the revised investment schedule does not exceed the investment constraint in the time window.

20. A system according to claim 19 wherein the database stores first asset information for each of the plurality of in-place capital assets and second asset information for each of the plurality of in-place capital assets different from the first information, and wherein the processor is configured to:

determine based on the first asset information a first investment schedule that satisfies the investment constraint,

determine based on the second asset information a second investment schedule that satisfies the investment constraint, and

generate a consensus replacement schedule based on first and second investment schedules and at least one difference between the first asset information and the second asset information.

21. A system according to claim 19 wherein two or more of the plurality of in-place capital assets have the same type of replacement asset, and wherein the processor is configured to determine an investment schedule for an asset class comprising the two or more in-place capital assets by combining the investment schedules for the two or more in-place capital assets.

22. A system according to claim 19 wherein two or more of the plurality of in-place capital assets have functions that combine to produce a result, and wherein the processor is configured to determine an investment schedule for an asset class comprising the two or more in-place capital assets by combining the investment schedules for the two or more in-place capital assets.

23. A system according to claim 11 wherein the processor is configured to:

determine, for at least the time window, an expected cost of replacing failed ones of a plurality of run-to-failure assets, and

wherein the investment constraint, at least in the time window, reflects an expected cost of replacing failed ones of a plurality of run-to-failure assets.

24. A system according to claim 11 wherein the processor is configured to:

forecast, for at least the time window, an investment in replacement of a yet-to-be-installed capital asset based on an expected end of life of the yet-to-be-installed capital asset, and

wherein the investment constraint reflects, at least in the time window, the forecast investment.

25. A system according to claim 24 wherein the yet-to-be-installed capital asset comprises a scheduled replacement for one of the in-place capital assets, and wherein the expected end of life of the yet-to-be-installed capital asset is based on the scheduled replacement date of its corresponding in-place capital asset.

26. A system according to claim 25 wherein the yet-to-be-installed capital asset comprises a scheduled replacement for another corresponding yet-to-be-installed capital asset, and wherein the expected end of life of the yet-to-be-installed capital asset is based on a scheduled replacement date of its corresponding other yet-to-be-installed capital asset.

27. A system according to claim 1 wherein the database stores asset information about a new capital asset, and wherein the processor is configured to, for the new capital asset:

execute a second use model with second use cost information as an input, the second use model estimating use costs of the new capital asset as a function of time;

execute a replacement cost model with replacement cost information as an input, the replacement cost model estimating costs of installing the new asset as a function of time;

determine from outputs of the second use model and the replacement cost model a total cost function for the new capital asset over a planning period as a function of installation date for the capital asset; and

determine a financially optimal replacement date for the new capital asset based on the total cost function.

28. A system according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets comprises a divisible asset.

29. A system according to claim 28 wherein the divisible asset comprises a pool of two or more assets, and wherein the asset information for the at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets is representative of the two or more assets belonging to the pool.

30. A system according to claim 6 wherein the processor is configured to automatically repeat determining the optimal replacement dates for the in-place capital assets when asset information stored in the database is updated.

31. A system according to claim 1 wherein the replacement deferral risk cost information for at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets includes condition information derived from an inspection of the in-place capital asset and the replacement deferral risk cost model is configured to determine the probability of failure based at least in part on the condition information.

32. A system according to claim 1 wherein the replacement deferral risk cost information for at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets includes an estimate of costs of collateral damage to other ones of the in-place capital assets caused by failure of the in-place capital asset.

33. A system according to claim 1 wherein the replacement deferral risk cost information for at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets includes an estimate of lost income resulting from failure of the in-place capital asset.

34. A system according to claim 1 wherein the estimate of lost income for at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets includes an estimate of lost tax credits for generating green power.

35. A system according to claim 1 wherein the replacement cost information for at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets includes a replacement investment profile.

36. A system according to claim 1 wherein the first use cost information for at least one of the plurality of in-place capital assets includes a forecast of demand on the capacity of the at least one in-place asset.

37. A system according to claim 1 wherein the forecast of demand on the capacity of the at least one in-place asset is based on a proxy for demand on the capacity.

38. A system according to claim 6 wherein the asset information includes replacement investment information, and wherein the processor is configured to determine an investment schedule for a time window at least in part by:

scheduling investments in asset replacements whose optimal replacement dates correspond to investment start dates in the time window in order according to the ranking of the deferral cost metrics until scheduling of an investment in a next asset replacement whose optimal replacement date corresponds to an investment start date in the time window would cause the sum of investments scheduled for the time window to exceed an investment constraint.

39. A system according to claim 6 wherein the asset information includes replacement investment information, and wherein the processor is configured to determine an investment schedule for a time window at least in part by:

scheduling investments in asset replacements whose unmonetizable risk replacement dates correspond to investment start dates in the time window; and

then

scheduling investments in remaining asset replacements whose optimal replacement dates correspond to investment start dates in the time window in order according to the ranking of the deferral cost metrics until scheduling of an investment in a next asset replacement whose optimal replacement date corresponds to an investment start date in the time window would cause the sum of investments scheduled for the time window to exceed an investment constraint.