Its the data, stupid

I spent a happy day at an asset management conference at a UK University recently. Several of the presentations were from doctoral and post doctorate research students. It was really uplifting to witness their enthusiasm to find ‘the answer’ to the problem they were investigating. For a moment the weight of cynicism from years of dealing with asset management lifted from me and I remembered my own days as a student and later years carrying out research.

Then the Professor came to the rostrum. In a forensic analysis of data he demolished the credibility of most of information the industry is currently using. I found one slide in the presentation particularly devastating. It recorded that in a trial (in the USA) approximately two-thirds of the assessors sent to look at a structure observed and recorded a painting defect, that is a third missed a painting defect! In addition less than five percent noticed a design defect which was suspected of being the cause of a recent notable failure, meaning over ninety-five percent missed it. Salutary stuff and it did have us questioning whether we were trying to run before we could walk.

How can we resolve problems without reliable information?

The example here was taken from a visual inspection. Sensors will obviously improve the situation and other information can be more objective. On the other hand factors such as the aging of data can introduce more uncertainty. The whole field is a minefield. One useful source of help is “Asset Information Guidelines: Guidelines for the Management of Asset Information” published by the Institute of Asset Management. But if you just want a few words of advice then proportionality is the first that comes to mind, clarity is the second, availability is the third and currency is the fourth.