Use of Generational Models for Asset Management Strategies in an Australian Metro Rail Organisation

Abstract

The purpose of the following paper introduces and outlines Metro Trains Melbourne’s approach to developing and utilising a ‘Generational Model’ to describe the evolutionary states of the organisation’s asset class and group strategy documentation. It further summaries the results of the various asset developmental states as they are described in the model, as well as the criteria and scoring for evaluating and ascertaining the generational level for asset class and group criticality and developing subsequent strategies. This enables the targeting of specific improvement actions as to what generation each asset class and group strategy should be developed is used to ascertain the minimum generational level based on the criticality of the asset class and group. The rate of progress through to higher generational levels is also based on criticality (high criticality asset classes and groups are given higher priority than medium/low criticality asset classes and groups) and other factors that arise and any additional condition information needs to be compared against the baseline forecast (determined at the previous generational level) to determine the confidence in the forecast and assumptions made in that forecast. The scoring system is based on whether the asset classes and groups comply, partial comply or do not comply with the criteria, the outcomes are that of generational improvement. The paper presents the resulting MTM’s asset class and group strategies that are currently either in the first, second or third generation, strategies of which have been developed for all of the asset class strategies. A variation of this Generational Model is also being utilised in the development of the MTM group strategies. The key benefit of introducing the Generational Model is the ability to manage stakeholder expectations. It is argued that this case study, and accompanying research, is a contribution for the area of strategic asset management and within the International Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset Management.

Appendix 1—Version 3 of ACS Generational Model

Criteria and scoring for evaluating and ascertaining the generational level for Asset Class Strategies including asset class criticality is in Table 2.

Table 2 Criteria for evaluating and ascertaining the generational level for asset class strategies

The target to what generation each Asset Class Strategy (ACS) should be developed is addressed under criteria titled “Target ACS Generational Level”. This is used to first to ascertain the minimum generational level based on criticality of the asset class. The rate of progress through to higher generational levels shall be based on criticality (high criticality asset classes are given higher priority that medium/low criticality asset classes) and other factors that arise from time to time.

Note: For life long assets are reliant on regular condition assessments, the move from one generational phase to the next could take as long as three years. For example, to be able to update the forecasts, the new condition information needs to be compared against the baseline forecast (determined at the previous generational level) to determine the confidence in the forecast and assumptions made in that forecast.

The scoring system is based on whether the asset class strategies comply, partially comply or do not comply with the criteria.

An asset class strategy is deemed:

• 1st generation when the score is between 25 and 44

• 2nd generation when the score is between 45 and 69

• 3rd generation when the score is between 70 and 94

• 4th generation when the score is between 95 and 100

Scores are independently verified by Asset Management Systems and Compliance (AM&S).

Some Criteria met for all or some of the assets in the ACS (Partial Comply)	All criteria met for all assets in ACS (Comply)
No criteria met for all assets in ACS (Not Comply)	All criteria met for some assets in ACS (Partial Comply)