1、Designation: E2495 13Standard Practice forPrioritizing Asset Resources in Acquisition, Utilization, andDisposition1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2495; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year
2、of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.INTRODUCTIONIdentifying assets that are most critical to a mission or practice is challenging for most businessentities. The ab
3、ility of a business entity to minimize the gap between its asset portfolio andever-changing organizational missions often determines its success or failure in achieving designedobjectives. The goal of this practice is to provide managers with a disciplined, quantitative approachto an inherently subj
4、ective decision-making process: determining which assets are critical to anentitys designated mission and are therefore deserving of priority attention or funding.1. Scope1.1 The asset priority index (API) establishes aquantitativeeprocess for prioritizing asset resources in acquisition,utilization,
5、 and disposition to provide entities with a provenmethodology to prioritize asset resources.1.2 The API is a metric used to communicate the relativeimportance of equipment in terms of mission criticality,security, or other measures important to the business entity. Itoffers a method for ranking asse
6、ts based on judgment/importance factors defined by the organization, creating infor-mation to justify compelling arguments for investment, secu-rity strategies, and disposition plans.1.3 The API also provides a quantitative basis for determin-ing and documenting operational relationships between ana
7、sset portfolio and business objectives capital investmentstrategies, maintenance approaches, security design andanalyses, continuity of business/risk analyses, and dispositiondecisions.1.4 The API enables management to identify critical assetsand allocate resources appropriately.1.5 The API model is
8、 designed to be applicable and appro-priate for entities holding equipment with a material impact onthe entitys mission.1.6 In addition to the applicability of moveable and durableassets as defined in this practice, this methodology is similarlyused in the analysis of investments in buildings and bu
9、ildingsystems (see Practice E1765).1.7 This practice offers instructions for performing one ormore specific operations. This document cannot replace edu-cation or experience and should be used in conjunction withprofessional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may beapplicable in all circumst
10、ances. This ASTM standard is neitherintended to represent or replace the standard of care by whichthe adequacy of a given professional service must be judged,nor should this document be applied without consideration ofa projects many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in thetitle means only that th
11、e document has been approved throughthe ASTM International consensus process.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E1765 Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of InvestmentsRelated to Buildings and Building SystemsE2135 Terminology for Prope
12、rty and Asset ManagementE2811 Practice for Management of Low Risk Property(LRP)3. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 asset portfolio, nassets that are within the scope ofthe asset management system.1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E53 on PropertyManagement Systems and is the
13、direct responsibility of Subcommittee E53.05 onProperty Management Maturity.Current edition approved Jan. 1, 2013. Published February 2013. Originallyapproved in 2006. Last previous edition approved in 2007 as E2495 07. DOI:10.1520/E2495-13.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www
14、.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States13.1.2
15、asset priority index (API), nnumerical value as-signed to an asset reflecting its value to an entitys mission orother critical assignments as defined by the criteria set forth bymanagement.3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:3.2.1 analytical hierarchy process (AHP), ndecision-making m
16、odel that reduces complex decisions to one on onecomparisons resulting in the ranking of a list of objectives oralternatives. Satty, 199433.2.2 inconsistency measure, ninconsistent scoring withina square matrix (the same number of columns and rows, see theexample in Appendix X1, Table X1.3) using a
17、predefinedinterval scale, for example, rating all comparisons high thusdisturbing the logic of the matrix.3.2.3 interval scale, nstandard survey rating scale, basedon real numbers, in which distances between data points aremeaningful.3.2.3.1 DiscussionInterval scales have no true zero pointso it is
18、not possible to make statements about how many timeshigher one score is than another.3.3 Acronyms:AHP = Analytical Hierarchy ProcessAPI = Asset Priority IndexECM = Equipment Control MatrixLRP = Low Risk PropertySME = Subject Matter Expert4. Summary of Practice4.1 Asset prioritizing relies on the ana
19、lytical hierarchyprocess (AHP), a proven decision-making aid, that providesmanagers with the quantitative information needed to select thebest alternative or to rank/prioritize a set of alternatives.4.1.1 AHP uses pair-wise comparison matrices (see theexample in Appendix X1, Table X1.3) with judgmen
20、t measure-ments from a predefined survey scale to derive weights for themanagement-defined criteria used to evaluate assets.4.1.2 AHP pair-wise comparison matrices provide the crite-ria used in the asset prioritization methodology for rankingassets. (This practice can be used, for example, to catego
21、rizeassets according to Practices E2135 and E2811.)4.2 The asset prioritizing methodology follows six discretesteps:4.2.1 Step 1: Develop a set of critical criteria that answer theprioritizing question (whether it is mission alignment, securityrequirements, and so forth). The criteria shall be mutua
22、llyexclusive and collectively exhaustive, that is, the criteria shalladdress the most important decision-making factors withoutoverlap.4.2.2 Step 2: Create an interval survey scale by which thecriteria can be scored.4.2.3 Step 3: Assign weights to the criteria based on apredefined scale of judgment
23、or ratio measurements using theAHP.4.2.4 Step 4: Create scoring guidelines for subject matterexperts (SME)s (preferably based on an interval scale withsufficient definition to support a wide gradation) so that thescorers can evaluate assets per according to the management-defined criteria.4.2.5 Step
24、 5: Evaluate each asset according to each criticalcriterion based on scoring guidelines.4.2.6 Step 6: Calculate an API based on the criteria weightsand scoring guidelines.4.3 Should the practitioner wish to apply this method to anentire asset portfolio, a pilot study shall be conducted on arepresent
25、ative sample of assets to determine if enhancementsare needed to interval scales and scoring guidelines. The entireasset portfolio should only be scored after a prioritizingframework is established.4.4 The API is a metric used to communicate the relativeimportance of equipment in terms of mission cr
26、iticality,security, or other measures important to the business entity. Itestablishes a basis for evaluating prioritization of asset re-sources.5. Significance and Use5.1 The API is a metric used to communicate the relativeimportance of equipment in terms of mission criticality,security, or other me
27、asures important to the business entity. Itoffers a method for ranking assets based on judgment/importance factors defined by the organization, creating infor-mation to justify compelling arguments for investment, secu-rity strategies, and disposition plans.5.2 The API also provides a quantitative b
28、asis for determin-ing and documenting operational relationships between anasset portfolio and business objectives capital investmentstrategies, maintenance approaches, security design andanalyses, continuity of business/risk analyses, and dispositiondecisions.5.3 It enables management to identify cr
29、itical assets andallocate resources appropriately and should therefore be anintegral process in equipment management.6. Applicability6.1 This practice may be applied to the entire asset portfolioof an entity or any subset in which identifying best alternativesor prioritizing a set of alternatives is
30、 imperative.6.2 The practice may be applied to a variety of scenariosbecause the criteria used to evaluate assets are selected by theorganization and are dependent on mission and the situationalstudy.6.3 The API for a portfolio can in turn be plotted againstcondition or security assessments to arriv
31、e at an investment,disposition, or other business strategy.7. Procedure7.1 The API criteria an organization selects shall reflect theoverall mission goals that the assets are to support. Criteriaselection is usually a management function but shall (1) enjoya consensus; (2) be well defined to facilit
32、ate scoring; (3) be3Satty, T.L., Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, Pittsburgh,PA: RWS Publications, 1994.E2495 132mutually exclusive (definitions shall not overlap); and (4) becollectively exhaustive, that is, effectively cover those criteriathat will allow the assets to support m
33、ission goals. Examples ofAPI criteria include mission support, interchangeability,interruptability, reliability, exclusivity, and asset potential fu-ture need.7.2 Because the importance of each criterion element isusually not equal, weights must be assigned to each elementaccording to the input of m
34、anagement.7.2.1 Weights are generated by requiring managers to evalu-ate the criteria on a predetermined interval scale that reflectsthe importance of the criteria.7.2.2 Results of the evaluation are placed in a square matrix(the same number of columns and rows) to calculate criteriaweights (see the
35、 example in Appendix X1, Table X1.3).7.3 To score assets against each criterion, a detailed intervalscale shall be developed. Normally, organizational SMEs arewell positioned to create an asset scoring guide to ensure avalid and reliable method. This scoring guide shall define eachcriterion, includi
36、ng its weight, and provide a clear explanationof each interval of the scale, for example, very importantthrough very unimportant for each criterion. Management mayprovide scorers with specific asset examples from the organi-zations asset portfolio to aid in this process.7.4 Once the API criteria, we
37、ights, and scoring guidance aredeveloped, it is prudent to pilot the framework on a represen-tative sample of assets if the intent is to use the methodologyon the organizations entire asset portfolio.Additions to criteriaor refinement of the interval scale may be required based onfeedback received f
38、rom participants and observations madeduring the scoring session pilots because many factors affect-ing the analysis can arise such as geographic or securityconsiderations.7.5 Management shall decide on the correct population todesignate as scorers. In some instances, only SMEs are anappropriate cho
39、ice. In other instances, other stakeholders maybe assigned as scorers. Once the API criteria framework(criteria, weights, and scoring guidance) has been finalized,SMEs or other stakeholders score the entitys assets anddetermine theirAPI. The preferred method is to have all scorersphysically present
40、and to score assets one by one against eachAPI criteria. This method typically returns lower inconsistencymeasures and tends to receive higher credibility throughout theentity.7.6 For simple studies with a small number of comparisons,the example in Appendix X1 will suffice in understanding howto cal
41、culate AHP. For larger more sophisticated studies, thereare many AHP heuristic software packages available to assistwith the calculations. The mathematical variations on thistechnique are endless and numerous.8. Analytical Measures8.1 Management creates a definitive list of criteria toevaluate asset
42、s against a project or organizational mission (seeTable X1.3).8.2 The practitioner devises an interval scale for weighingthe criteria giving the management team a definitive range thatindicates a degree of difference between the intervals (such as“absolutely important” through “unimportant”) (see Ta
43、bleX1.5).8.3 Weights for each criterion are calculated by manage-ments pair-wise comparisons using the AHP (see Table X1.3).8.4 The practitioner devises criterion unique interval scalesto give those SMEs/stakeholders who are scoring assets adefinitive range that indicates a degree of difference betw
44、eenthe intervals (such as “very high” through “very low”) (seeTable X1.7, Table X1.9, and Table X1.10).8.5 SMEs or other stakeholders evaluate each asset againsteach criterion using the interval scale and criterion-uniqueinterval scales (see Table X1.5, Table X1.7, Table X1.9, andTable X1.10).8.6 AP
45、I for each asset is calculated and equals the sum ofthe products of the criteria weights and the asset item rank percriterion (see Table X1.10).8.7 The resulting rank provides management with quantita-tive information to use in business process decision making.9. Keywords9.1 AHP; analytical hierarch
46、y process; API; asset manage-ment; asset portfolio; asset priority; assets; equipment; equip-ment management; property; tangible assetsAPPENDIXES(Nonmandatory Information)X1. EXAMPLE 1: IDENTIFYING CAPITAL ASSETS THAT SUPPORT THE CORE/PRIORITY MISSIONS OF A BUSINESSENTITYX1.1 EvaluationLaboratory As
47、sets 1, 2, and 3 are to beevaluated for alignment with the business entitys mission. Inthis example, management has established the following con-siderations for evaluation: (1) the ability of the equipment itemto support advanced technology research, (2) the exclusivity ofthe item, and (3) its abil
48、ity to meet future needs. Scoring wascompleted by using the interval scale of importance.X1.2 Simplified Steps: The following steps can be followedin evaluating the asset alternatives:X1.2.1 Step 1: Choose the Evaluation CriteriaSee TableX1.1.E2495 133X1.2.2 Step 2: Design an Evaluation ScaleThe sca
49、leshown in Table X1.2 displays the interval scale designed todetermine how important each criterion is to the evaluation ofan asset.X1.2.3 Step 3: Apply the Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP) Method to Determine Criteria Weights:X1.2.3.1 Management converted the criteria considerationsinto pair-wise comparisons as shown in Table X1.1, thatconsiders advanced technology versus exclusivity, advancedtechnology versus future needs, and exclusivity versus futureneeds (Table X1.3). (You can assume that the scores given arethe average of all scorers polled). Notice the na
