Infrastructure Management Tools

Life-cycle costing is a way to figure out the total cost of owning, operating, maintaining, and disposing of something over its entire life. This method helps us compare different options so we can choose the best option. It lets us look at construction and material costs or plan for future expenses. It helps us plan for future expenses such as repairs and replacements. By using life-cycle costing, we can make better decisions about how to invest in infrastructure.

The City of Edmonton has a tool called the Risk-based Infrastructure Management System (RIMS), which helps rank the renewal needs of various infrastructure assets. This tool also helps the City decide how and where to spend its renewal funds.

RIMS simulates the deterioration of asset conditions over time. It does this by incorporating different renewal and renewal scenarios and enabling the testing of various funding strategies.

Using this tool, City administration can see how certain funding levels impact infrastructure and assess infrastructure status over time. Performing scenario analysis helps decision-makers make infrastructure investments that will give the most benefit. RIMS uses the following three scenarios in its simulations:

• Do Nothing – gives asset managers an idea of how quickly assets will deteriorate without the required renewal intervention.
• Budget Allocation – identifies a budget amount based on specific prescribed parameters to assets requiring the most re-investment.
• Cost Minimization – provides the best renewal strategy to achieve or maintain certain infrastructure performance levels. For example, RIMS assigns funding, identifies priorities for renewal investment, like the Neighbourhood Renewal Program, and helps develop the City’s capital budget process.

These simulations reveal the amount of money required, the resulting condition based on the investment and the corresponding risk exposure of the asset. They also show the percentage of assets remaining in poor or very poor condition and the number of these assets.

This approach to evaluating infrastructure can help make decisions about necessary repairs, their location, and the right timing to carry them out. This can help keep renewal and construction costs as low as possible. For example, RIMS assigns funding, identifies priorities for renewal investment, like the Neighbourhood Renewal Program, and helps develop the City’s capital budget process.  

Since its implementation in 2011, RIMS has earned provincial and national recognition for its innovation and leadership in infrastructure management. The system has won several awards including:

• Consulting Engineers of Alberta - Award of Excellence: Small Firm-Big Impact Category (January 2013)
• Consulting Engineers of Alberta - Award of Merit: Studies, Software and Special Services Category (January 2013)
• Canadian Society for Civil Engineering - Award for Government Leadership in Sustainable Infrastructure (June 2012)

The City uses a standardized rating system to evaluate the state and condition of existing infrastructure assets. The standardized 5-point rating system rates assets from A to F (very good to very poor). The ranking system helps City Council and administration compare the condition of different infrastructure elements and improves information quality, which helps make more informed decisions and establish priority projects. The rating system was established in 2002 through collaboration with internal and external stakeholders.

All City assets are evaluated, however the quality of data varies and requires some interpretation. The ranking system provides a high-level strategic perspective of the state and condition of the City’s infrastructure. All of the City’s assets are assessed under the physical condition criterion for the renewal program. This information is input into RIMS, which determines a recommended budget allocation based on the asset’s physical condition and other characteristics.

There are 3 important criteria for assessing infrastructure assets:

• Physical condition
• Demand/Capacity
• Functionality

Learn more at Infrastructure State and Condition

Example

This criteria can be easily understood when using a road as an example. The presence of potholes on the road and how much this affects driving would be an example of how physical condition could be affected. Consistent traffic congestion indicates whether the road’s capacity can meet user demand. An example of functionality would be a road with a shared-use path and sidewalk that meets the needs of multiple ways of transportation. 

As part of implementing the City’s Infrastructure Strategy, the City is refining and improving its assessment methodology. The level of service targets and measures for assets are created by developing asset management plans. This information can be incorporated into the current asset assessment categories.

Risk is defined as the possibility of suffering loss (or harm) and the impact that loss would have on the affected party. The City's Risk Assessment Methodology helps determine the level of risk associated with infrastructure failure.

Using data from the City’s Standardized Rating System, the City can forecast future conditions and risks of an asset with various renewal actions. It is a balanced approach that integrates the municipality's social (health and safety of residents), environmental (impact on the environment), and economic (cost of failure) objectives into the decision-making process.

The City's risk methodology addresses only the controllable factors of failure (those closely related to the funding of infrastructure renewal projects) rather than the uncontrollable factors (failures caused by external factors, such as a tornado).

Risks are determined using a method known as the Markov Chain. Assets are grouped according to similarities in performance and deterioration characteristics. Then, the controllable deterioration of each asset type over time (depending on a given renewal strategy) is assessed. Each asset group has a specific deterioration curve based on the asset’s properties, as different conditions and materials deteriorate at different rates.

The deterioration curve analyzes current conditions, the natural aging process, actual use, performance history, and renewal scenarios.

Level of risk is measured using numerous indicators, for example:

• The portion of an asset deemed critical (expected to fail) − is represented by those assets whose condition has declined past the expected service life and are considered unacceptable. 
• Impact of failure of an asset − impacts of assessed failure are measured according to the social (health and safety of residents), environmental (impact on the environment), and economic (cost of failure) indicators, factoring the City’s objectives into the decision-making process.
• Overall condition – categorized by either A (very good), B (good), C (fair), D (poor) or F (very poor) using the standardized rating system.
• Severity – reflects the overall likelihood of asset failure, the expected amount of failure and the impact of the failure on the city. An analytical combination of expected assets in critical condition and the impacts of failure of those assets helps to determine large-scale infrastructure deterioration levels.

Risk assessment provides a consistent approach for dealing with different types of assets and can compare one type against another. This model helps predict the impact of different funding scenarios in the context of other infrastructure needs, enabling the City to determine where available funding can provide the most benefit. The result is an unbiased and objective measure of an asset and the ability to prioritize funding to deal with the most critical assets first.