Condition Assessments
Service history questionnaires are created to address typical inspection points, concerns, or issues based on the kind of asset, type of inspection, and so on, and is used by the system to assess the condition of the asset.
See Service History Questionnaires for more information.
Technicians would enter answers to the predefined questions on the service history record. Answers are typically chosen from a set of pre-defined values that are configured when the questions are designed for the assessment. Condition Assessment Groups and Condition Assessment Classes are used to ‘bundle’ the various kinds of inspections that are available for an asset. All of the data that is collected is used to calculate a final condition score.
Condition scores are on a 1–5 scale where 1 is Very Good and 5 is Very Poor. Also, scores have an associated “confidence rating” which drops as the input data ages. This is based on the premise that the older the data, the less reliable it is.
Refer to Understanding Asset Types in the Administrative User Guide for more information about Condition Assessment Classes and Condition Assessment Groups.
- Percent of New (maps a percent value to the 1-5 scale): The condition of the asset is based on passing or failing characteristics of a new asset. A “like new” asset would pass all characteristics and be awarded the maximum points resulting in a 100% rating. A severely broken asset would fail all characteristics of a new asset and be awarded zero points resulting in a 0% rating.
- General Weighted : The condition of the asset is based on a general assessment of potential defects using a weighted scale of 1 - 5. Each potential defect is assigned a weight value based on the impact to the service level. A potential defect that has significant impact on the service level will have a higher weight value than a potential defect with minimal impact on the service level. A “like new” asset would exhibit none of the potential defects and be awarded the minimum points resulting in a rating of 1. A severely broken asset would exhibit the highest severity of each potential defect and would be awarded the maximum points resulting in a rating of 5.
- Deficiency Scoring (noting various defects on the asset, which can be summed): The condition of the asset is based on accumulated defect points. As with the general weighted method, each potential defect is assigned a weight value based on the impact to service level. Then each defect is broken down into specific severity levels with a point value assigned to each. The more severe the nature of the defect, the higher the associated point value. Normally, the point scale is a range of 1 - 10, allowing for at least 10 different definitions or levels of severity. Unlike the general weighted method, each defect and severity identified during inspection is accumulated for the final “deficiency score”. That is, if there are 5 defects with a severity of 2 points each, then the deficiency score for the asset would be 10. A “like new” asset would exhibit none of the potential defects and be awarded a deficiency score of 0 (i.e., absolutely no defects were noted). A severely broken asset would exhibit the highest severity of each potential defect, probably numerous times, and would be awarded a higher deficiency score.
- Reset Condition Rating: After the asset is rebuilt or renewed it is treated as if it were a new asset. The assessment process is started over and the condition of the asset is based, once again, on the passing or failing characteristics of a new asset.