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

• US 7,734,488 B2
• Filed: 08/02/2005
• Issued: 06/08/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 08/02/2005
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: United States Government Humphreys Engineer Center
• Original Assignee: The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Army
• Inventors: Schneider, Jason M., Marrano, Lance R., Grussing, Michael N., Uzarski, Donald R.
• Primary Examiner(s): Boswell; Beth V.
• Assistant Examiner(s): DELICH, STEPHANIE ZAGARELLA
• Application Number:
  US11/194,655
• Publication Number:
  US 20070033077A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,771 Days
• Field of Search: 705/7, 705/10, 705/11
• US Class Current: 705/7.13
• 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:

providing at least one specially adapted electronic processor;

providing electronically readable storage media accessible to said at least one specially adapted electronic processor;

providing at least one engineering management system (EMS) accessible on said electronically readable storage media accessible by said at least one specially adapted electronic processor;

using said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to develop at least one list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types thereunder that impact functionality of said asset for each said at least one specified use, said at least one list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types thereunder stored on said electronically readable storage media;

using said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to display said list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types to at least one evaluator;

using said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to develop at least one question for each of said functional impact Categories;

providing said at least one list of functional impact Categories, specific Sub-issue Types thereunder and said at least one question for each of said functional impact Categories on said at least one specially adapted electronic processor for use by at least said at least one evaluator;

using said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to permit said at least one evaluator to use said list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types thereunder and said at least one question for each of said functional impact Categories in an evaluation to evaluate functionality of said asset by observing issues of said asset;

recording on at least one said at least one specially adapted electronic processor occurrences of said issues under a corresponding said Sub-issue Type;

using said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to assign a Severity level, S, on a Severity scale to each said Sub-issue Type upon said recording of all said issues for each said Sub-issue Type;

summing on said at least one specially adapted electronic processor, occurrences of said issues by Sub-issue Type to determine a Density, D, of said Sub-issue Type;

using said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to record said evaluator'"'"'s evaluation in said at least one engineering management system (EMS); and

using said recorded evaluation, employing at least one algorithm which takes into account a functionality deduct value and adjustment factor on at least one said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to calculate as said objective measure a numerical value as a functionality index, FI; and

using said functionality index to evaluate said asset.

2. The method of claim 1 providing said numerical value on a scale from 0-100.

3. The method of claim 1 providing at least part of said evaluation as answers to said at least one question for each of said functional impact Categories.

4. The method of claim 1 providing said engineering management system as an application for evaluating buildings.

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

$\mathrm{FI}=100-\underset{i=1}{\overset{I}{\sum <br><br>}}<br><br>\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{\sum <br><br>}}<br><br>a<br><br>\left(d_i,S_j,D_{\mathrm{ij}}\right)\times <br><br>F<br><br>\left(t,d\right)$

Where;

I=Total no. of individual functionality said Sub-issue Types, d

J=Total number of individual said Severity levels, S, present for i^th said Sub-issue Type, d

a(d_i, S_j, D_ij)=Functionality Deduct Value for said Sub-Issue Type, d, said Severity, S, and said Density, D

F(t,d)=Adjustment factor when multiple said Sub-issue Types are present based on the sum of individual Deduct Values, t, and number of said Sub-issue Types, d.

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 issue from a said functional Sub-issue Type.

8. The method of claim 5 further pairing 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 levels of Severity are consistent with levels of Severity of a scale used with said Condition Index (CI) used in said application for evaluating buildings.

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 comprising:

establishing a list of assets for which said functionality index, FI, has been calculated for at least one use for each said asset on said list of assets; and

prioritizing work requirements for each said asset on said list of assets based on said calculated functionality indexes, FI.

12. The method of claim 11 further comprising:

based on said calculated functionality indexes, FI, choosing one modernization configuration from among alternative modernization configurations for at least one said asset on said list of assets.

13. The method of claim 1, employing said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to at least collect and record data for calculating said functionality index, FI, for at least one use of said asset, further comprising:

collecting and recording at least data on obsolescence, user requirement changes, efficiency, and code and regulation compliance for said at least one use of said asset as relates to at least one said functional impact Category and at least one said Sub-issue Type;

categorizing said at least one functional impact Category;

enumerating said at least one Sub-issue Type for at least one said functional impact Category;

employing said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to produce at least one functionality rating sheet;

defining said levels of functionality impact to include lists of sustainment, restoration, modernization (SRM) considerations at a discrete intervals along said scale;

delineating said intervals of said scale on said rating sheet; and

using said rating sheet in determining which said interval is a best fit;

assigning a score within said interval;

presenting said rating sheet, said enumerated functional impact Categories and said enumerated Sub-issue Types, together with at least one functionality impact scenario for at least one said use of said asset, to at least one panel of experts to generate at least one functionality impact rating of said asset to meet said at least one use, given the presence of at least one said Sub-issue Type;

using said functionality impact ratings to develop quantitative functionality deduct value relationships and procedures for assessment by said panel of experts; and

employing said enumerated list of functional impact Categories and said at least one enumerated Sub-issue Type as questions to be incorporated in at least one engineering management system as an assessment tool for use by said at least one panel of experts to establish ratings.

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 of said ratings;

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

plotting said mean 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 comprising:

developing said Deduct Value to a statistical 95% confidence interval such that the resulting said functionality index, FI, is within ±

5 points of true; and

to attain this accuracy, requiring employment of a minimum number of said experts on said at least one panel of experts.

16. The method of claim 15 providing said minimum number of said experts 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, said deduct adjustment reflecting the nonlinear effect on said asset use due to existence of multiple said 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 at least one panel of expert raters with multiple scenarios, each said scenario containing at least one said Sub-issue Type;

having said at least one panel of expert raters to provide an overall rating for each said scenario;

establishing a plot of a sum of said individual Deduct Values versus a direct rating value of each quantity of said Sub-issue Types to yield an appropriate said deduct adjustment as represented by the slope of said plot for each discrete said quantity of said Sub-issue Types present in said overall rating for each said scenario, said overall rating yielding said Adjusted Deduct Values less than the sum of said individual Sub-issue Type Deduct Values.

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

20. The method of claim 1 further comprising iterating said process for each a said at least one use different from a first said at least one specified use.

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

22. The method of claim 21 further comprising:

establishing said tiers as asset level, system level, and component level, said systems comprising parts of said asset and comprised of at least one said component, and

evaluating down to said system and said component levels to provide refined estimates of required modernization, said component level providing most refined said estimates of required modernization.

23. The method of claim 1 further comprising:

presenting each said Sub-issue Type as a question, said at least one evaluator providing answers to said question for each said Sub-issue Type to permit determining said Density and Severity at which said Sub-issue Type impacts said at least one specified use;

receiving input from users of said asset and personnel responsible for maintenance of said asset to supplement observations of said evaluator in completing said answers; and

using said answers to at least partially determine a rating for a corresponding said functionality impact Category and as input to calculate said functionality index, FI.

24. The method of claim 1 further comprising:

employing said functionality index, FI, as an execution metric, use as said execution metric establishing at least one threshold for said functionality index, FI; and

generating a requirement to modernize when said FI for said asset falls below said threshold.

25. The method of claim 1 further comprising providing said at least one specially adapted electronic processor selected from the group consisting of:

laptop computers, computers, specially programmed computers, personal digital assistants (PDA), application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

26. 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:

at least one specially adapted electronic processor, said at least one specially adapted electronic processor facilitating development of means at least one list of functional impact Categories and Sub-issue Types thereunder, answers to questions within said Sub-issue Types facilitating determination of functionality of said asset for said use;

at least one engineering management system (EMS) accessible to said at least one specially adapted electronic processor;

at least one communications system to provide said list of functional impact Categories and Sub-issue Types to at least one evaluator; and

a combination of hardware and software accessible to said specially adapted electronic processor and having at least the following purposes;

to facilitate use by said at least one evaluator of said list of functional impact Categories and Sub-issue Types to produce at least one evaluation of functionality of said asset,

for said at least one evaluator to assign a Severity measure on a Severity scale to each existing said Sub-issue Type, for said at least one evaluator to record occurrences of issues associated with said asset under at least one said Sub-issue Type,

for summing said occurrences of issues to determine Density of at least one said Sub-issue Type,

for recording said at least one evaluation in said at least one engineering management system (EMS), and

for using said recorded at least one evaluation to calculate as said objective measure a numerical value as a functionality index, FI.

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

28. The system of claim 26 in which at least part of said at least one evaluation are said answers to at least one question for each of said Categories.

29. The system of claim 26 in which said engineering management system is an application for evaluating buildings.

30. The system of claim 26 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.

31. The system of claim 26, said at least one communications system further comprising at least one electronic communications device in operable communication with said at least one specially adapted electronic processor and accessible to said at least one evaluator, further comprising at least one panel of experts to facilitate at least said development of at least one list of Sub-issue Types.

32. The system of claim 26 in which said communications system for providing said list of functional impact Categories and Sub-issue Types to said at least one evaluator is selected from the group consisting of:

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

33. The system of claim 26 in which said recording of said evaluator'"'"'s evaluation in said at least one engineering management system is facilitated by devices selected from the group consisting of:

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

34. The system of claim 26 in which said combination of hardware and software for using said recorded evaluation to calculate as said measure a value to be inserted on a numerical scale as a functionality index, FI, is 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 26 in which said functionality index, FI, is developed for a specified use of an asset, further comprising:

said at least one recorded evaluation further comprising specially developed databases for researching, categorizing, and enumerating said Sub-issue Types and specific issues as relate to at least obsolescence, user requirement changes, efficiency, and code and regulation compliance for said specified use of said asset;

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, said rating sheet delineating specified ranges at intervals along said rating scale, said rating sheet facilitating said at least one evaluator in judging functionality scenarios, determining which said interval is a best fit, and assigning a score within said interval;

at least one display of 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, for use by said at least one panel of experts to provide functionality impact ratings of said asset in meeting said use, given the presence of at least one said Sub-issue Types;

at least one algorithm contained on said electronically readable storage media accessible by said specially adapted electronic processor for using said ratings to develop quantitative functionality deduct value relationships;

at least one checklist of procedures for use of said at least one evaluators in assessment; and

at least one assessment checklist in said at least one engineering management system for use by said at least one evaluators.

36. The system of claim 35 in which said specially developed databases for researching, categorizing, and enumerating said Sub-issue Types and specific issues are stored on said electronically readable storage media as input from sources selected from the group consisting of:

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

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

38. The system of claim 35 said combination of hardware and software further providing software at least incorporating specially programmed algorithms for:

organizing said ratings based on said 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 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.

39. The system of claim 35 in which said minimum number of experts is at least seventeen, on average.

40. The system of claim 38 providing a deduct adjustment for calculating Adjusted Deduct Values by:

providing at least one panel of expert raters;

providing said electronically readable storage media incorporating at least one scenario, each said scenario containing at least one said functionality Sub-issue type, said expert raters to provide an overall rating for each said scenario;

providing said electronically readable storage media further incorporating 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 said overall rating yields an adjusted functionality Deduct Value less than the sum of the individual Sub-issue Type Deduct Values.

41. The system of claim 26 further comprising selecting said at least one specially adapted electronic processor from the group consisting of:

laptop computers, computers, specially programmed computers, personal digital assistants (PDA), application specific integrated circuits (ASIC), and combinations thereof.

42. Electronically readable storage media tangibly embodying instructions which when executed by a at least one specially adapted electronic processor:

accesses at least one engineering management system (EMS) accessible by said at least one specially adapted electronic processor;

develops at least one list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types thereunder that impact functionality of said asset for each said at least one specified use, said at least one list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types thereunder stored on said electronically readable storage media;

displays said list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types to at least one evaluator;

develops at least one question for each of said functional impact Categories;

provides said at least one list of functional impact Categories, specific Sub-issue Types thereunder and said at least one question for each of said functional impact Categories on said at least one specially adapted electronic processor for use by at least said at least one evaluator;

permits said at least one evaluator to use said list of functional impact Categories and specific Sub-issue Types thereunder and said at least one question for each of said functional impact Categories in an evaluation to evaluate functionality of said asset by observing issues of said asset;

records on at least one said at least one specially adapted electronic processor occurrences of said issues under a corresponding said Sub-issue Type;

assigns a Severity level, S, on a Severity scale to each said Sub-issue Type upon recording all said issues for each said Sub-issue Type;

sums occurrences of said issues by said Sub-issue Type to determine a Density, D, of each said Sub-issue Type;

records said evaluation of said at least one evaluator in said at least one engineering management system (EMS); and

uses said recorded evaluation and employs at least one algorithm which takes into account a functionality deduct value and adjustment factor, to calculate as said objective measure a numerical value as a functionality index, FI; and

uses said functionality index to evaluate an asset.

43. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 in which said numerical scale has values from 0-100.

44. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 in which at least parts of said at least one evaluation incorporated on said electronically readable media are said answers to at least one question for each of said Categories.

45. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 in which said engineering management system incorporated on said electronically readable media is an application for evaluating buildings.

46. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 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.

47. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 in which said communications system for providing said list of functional impact Categories and Sub-issue Types to said at least one evaluator is selected from the group consisting of:

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

48. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 accessible by devices selected from the group consisting of:

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

49. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 in which said combination of hardware and software for using said recorded evaluation to calculate as said measure a value to be inserted on a numerical scale as a functionality index, FI, is 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.

50. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 in which said functionality index, FI, is developed for a specified use of an asset, further comprising:

said at least one recorded evaluation incorporated in specially developed databases stored on electronically readable media accessible to said specially adapted electronic processor, said databases facilitating researching, categorizing, and enumerating said Sub-issue Types and specific issues as relate to at least obsolescence, user requirement changes, lost efficiency, and code and regulation compliance for said specified use of said asset;

at least one functionality rating sheet accessible by at least said at least one specially adapted electronic processor, said rating sheet explicitly defining levels of functionality impact and sustainment, restoration, modernization (SRM) considerations at a number of discrete intervals along said scale of said functionality index, FI, said rating sheet delineating specified ranges at intervals along said rating scale, said rating sheet facilitating said at least one evaluator in judging functionality scenarios, determining which said interval is a best fit, and assigning a score within said interval;

at least one display in operable communication with at least said at least one specially adapted electronic processor to display 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 and for use by at least one panel of experts to provide functionality impact ratings of said asset in meeting said at least one use, given the presence of said Sub-issue Types;

at least one algorithm contained on said electronically readable media accessible to said at least one specially adapted electronic processor, said at least one algorithm facilitating use of said ratings to develop quantitative functionality deduct value relationships;

at least one checklist of procedures accessible by at least said at least one specially adapted computer, said checklist for use of said evaluators; and

at least one assessment checklist in said at least one engineering management system for use by said evaluators.

51. The electronically readable storage media of claim 42 incorporating on said electronically readable media at least one software interface flowchart in said at least one engineering management system.