State of the Pan SPM User Group 19 March 2014 Andrew Morgan & Michael Ng
description
Transcript of State of the Pan SPM User Group 19 March 2014 Andrew Morgan & Michael Ng
State of the PanSPM User Group19 March 2014
Andrew Morgan & Michael Ng
State of the Pan
Condition survey ofpublic toilet facilitiesin the Auckland region
Also to gain understandingof the quantum, condition and location of public toilets
Outcome Desired• understand the dynamics of the
asset base
• plan for the maintenance and renewals - for funding and investment decisions
• Inform our planning practices by providing reliable base information
Survey Overview• 650 facilities• 4 months to survey• 13,000 components• Surveyors used SPM Mobile on Samsung tablets• GPS on the spot (using tablets)• Sketch of each toilet (floor plan)• Property Quality Survey (PQS) survey• Photos• $36M (GRC) and $104M (CRV)
Survey Output• Property information
– Location (GIS), management, function• Condition data & Condition Grade Index (CGI)• Lifecycle forecasts• Photos• Surveyor comments• PQS (Star rating based on 30 questions)• Valuation
– Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) total of all surveyed components
– Added estimated Capital Replacement Value (CRV)
Spatial View [http://easysolutions.co.nz/toilets2013]
The Good, Bad and Ugly!
Issues for us
• Lifecycle analysis are based purely on condition. In reality, performance and perception driver
• Political Decision Making- 21 local boards (region wide vs local needs)
• Renewal Strategy
• Still not customer focused, but departmental
Issues – Condition Results
With so little in Poor and Very poor, not much $ are showing in lifecycle analysis.
Q: Is this a true reflection of reality?
Lifecycle Renewals
• For over 700 facilities- seems low
Realistic Renewal Programme?
Lifecycle Analysis versus Renewals
Lifecycle Analysis versus Renewals
Lifecycle outputs will
only consider this
Analysing Performance - PQSNETWORK
AE DT FK HB HM HW KP MO MT MU OP OR PT
ACCESIBILITY 4.2 4.7 3.8 3.7 4.5 3.8 4.1 4.3 3.3 4.2 3.3 4.6 4.7 4.6
AMENITY VALUE
4.4 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.1 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.1
FUNCTIONALITY 3.1 3.2 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.8 3.8 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.5
HYGEINE 5.0 4.8 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.2 5.0 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0
SAFETY 4.2 4.0 3.7 2.9 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.3 3.7 3.7 4.6 5.0 4.3 3.7
PQS 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.5 4.1 4.0 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.4 4.2
Comparing Performance – PQS
Renewal Strategy
Consolidating the Scores
Property_codeAge CGI PQS Age
ScoreCGI
ScorePQS
ScoreCONSOLIDATED OVERALL SCORE
Proposed Year
T.AE.001 8 1.23 4.3 4.7 3.77 4.3 4.26 2026T.AE.002 8 1.19 4 4.7 3.81 4 4.17 2024T.AE.004 33 2.51 3.7 3.6 2.49 3.7 3.26 2016T.AE.005 23 2.2 3.5 4 2.8 3.5 3.43 2017T.AE.007 38 1.84 4.6 3.3 3.16 4.6 3.69 2019T.AE.008 33 3.24 3.3 3.6 1.76 3.3 2.89 2015T.AE.009 43 2.21 4.1 3.1 2.79 4.1 3.33 2017T.AE.011 73 1.15 4.6 1.8 3.85 4.6 3.42 2017
Age-based score + CGI (condition) + PQS (performance)
Resulting Programme
Lessons
• Data collection- consider how you want to report and outcome
• Data analysis- consider holistic approach. Condition is only one piece of the jigsaw.
• Asset knowledge- The more you analyse your data. The more you understand about your assets.