Ask Your Mates Open Forum

Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

  • 1.  Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

    Posted 18 days ago

    Hi All,

     

    I have not posted any request for information sharing on this site before so my apologies if I don't follow the protocols for this website.

     

    We are in the process of collecting condition data for all our parks, open spaces and sporting facilities. Can I please request for a comprehensive list of attributes that we should be collecting the condition data for. We have all our inspection check lists in place but a bit unsure about the attributes for condition data. Any document or email reply with a list will do.

     

    Kind regards

     

    Oliver Gabriel Cordinator Asset Management

    Devonport City Council 

     137 Rooke Street, Devonport, TAS 7310
     ogabriel@devonport.tas.gov.au |  www.devonport.tas.gov.au 

      +61 (03) 6424 0513

        

     

     

    Disclaimer: This e-mail including all attachments is intended solely for the named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal or other professional privilege. If you receive this email in error, please destroy any copies and contact us to advise you have received the communication. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly prohibited by law without the express permission of the original sender. Any views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the view of the Devonport City Council. The Devonport Council reserves the right to monitor and record e-mail messages to and from this address for the purposes of investigating or detecting any unauthorised usage of our system and ensuring its effective operation.
    BlogPageSpacerBlank


  • 2.  RE: Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

    Posted 15 days ago
    ​Hi Oliver,

    The only protocols I know of are to participate and support other AM professionals around the world. You are spot on so far!

    IPWEA has practice notes specifically focused on these sorts of assets.  It may be worth a quick browse of their library and a purchase (link to library provided). https://www.ipwea.org/publications/bookshop

    I wish I could offer more advice but I work for a utility and we have a pretty heavy focus on infrastructure at the moment as we build our AM system. However, we have been thinking ahead (as any good AM professional should) and our natural assets are certainly on the horizon. I will be paying close attention to the responses to your post. Thank you for posing the question!

    I hope this information is helpful. Good luck!

    Regards,

    Earl DuPriest
    Asset Management Program Manager
    Charleston Water System
    103 St. Philip Street | Charleston, SC 29403
    Tel: 843-727-7202
    Mob: 843-214-4310
    E: dupriester@charlestoncpw.com
    BlogPageSpacerBlank


  • 3.  RE: Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

    Posted 15 days ago
    Hi Oliver, I suggest you get hold of IPWEA's Parks Management Practice Note 10.1- Inventories, Condition and Performance grading. This provides advice on setting up a parks asset inventory hierarchy (together with some examples from a few councils). It also provides a comprehensive guidance for condition assessment. These are available from the IPWEA bookshop for only $100. https://www.ipwea.org/publications/bookshop#practice.
    We're also available to provide specific advice to assist you if you required.

    ------------------------------
    Brian Milne
    Xyst
    brian@xyst.biz
    Ph 410 263 121
    ------------------------------

    BlogPageSpacerBlank


  • 4.  RE: Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

    Posted 12 days ago
    Hello Oliver

    The attributes for which you collect condition data will depend on your needs. In the discussion that follows, I have added information in case your sporting facilities involve buildings.

    One of the most confusing aspects can be what to collect. For example, on the one hand, with roads, the overall condition of a segment's surface (and pavement) is often rolled up from a whole set of constituent conditions (such as environmental cracking condition, structural cracking condition, ravelling condition, plus a few others). The challenge is then to combine these into an aggregate condition representative of the surface. On the other hand, for e.g. park benches there might be a single, more impressionistic condition of the asset (rather than say looking at the wood, at the steel, and then aggregating).

    It's easy to get into a kind of paralysis of analysis about what to collect.

    The best thing when deciding is to come back to first principles. What we are trying to do with condition is obtain a measure that gives an accurate as possible prediction of end of life. The condition gives the progress through the useful life. When combined with the actual useful life, we can determine (or estimate) two fundamental things: (1) remaining useful life, and (2), resulting from that, how much of the asset is used up (depreciation). If the condition you arrive at (either through a single assessment, or through aggregating multiple assessment) achieves that, you are succeeding. And remember that useful life also depends on your organisation's determination of the level of service you will provide.

    One good way to exhaust yourself with asset management is to collect more data than you need. Once collected, data must be managed and maintained.

    The NAMS Practice Note 3 deals with buildings, and has a divide and conquer strategy: adopt a very fine grained collection of multiple components, and record the condition of each. You can generate a lot of data: I once managed a database with over a million components based on the PN3 approach. Other approaches to buildings are based on a notional component strategy (e.g. Substructure, Superstructure, Roof, etc., with short and long life instances of each). You might have about 20 notional components for every building For assets such as footpaths, we tend to use a photo-based approach for different types of footpath (asphalt, concrete, etc.) to guide the assessor in assigning a single overall condition measure.

    I suggest the following:
    - Especially for assets of few components, consider collecting condition on what you will replace separately. For example a bench on a concrete base will yield two components, but no means an avalanche of data to maintain.
    - If possible, use a photo based approach. Look at a few assets with an experienced works person, and decide how many years it would be before replacement. Take a photo of it to place on a laminated handout. Assign it a condition based on a scale of 1 to 5 to guide assessors.
    - Consider the maintenance that the item would attract. PN3 V2 p65 has an alternative perspective of condition based on actions required that work well for any asset class.
    - As a start, collect only what is needed to get to a rating that allows you to predict end of life.

    Of course, I am answering your question based on what you need to collection condition data for. It could be that you want to collect data for other issues such as statutory maintenance etc. Sports facilities will have smoke detectors and RCDs and fire equipment etc. which must be managed. You might also have other needs such as improving disability access. None of these things determine condition in the purist sense, but you might need to consider those for other reasons.

    I hope this helps. It's not really itemised the answer you were asking for. It might take some refinement before you arrive at a collection regimen which supports your organisation.

    By the way, I have been on IPWEA courses presented by Brian Milne and his colleagues, and their advice is practical, useful, and based on lots of experience.


    ------------------------------
    Regards,

    Hein Aucamp
    Senior Asset Engineer
    City of Kalamunda
    T 9257 9864 M 0429 617 124
    www.kalamunda.wa.gov.au
    BlogPageSpacerBlank


  • 5.  RE: Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

    Posted 12 days ago
    Hello Oliver

    The attributes for which you collect condition data will depend on your needs. In the discussion that follows, I have included information to cover your sporting facilities including buildings.

    One of the most confusing aspects can be what to collect. For example, on the one hand, with roads, the overall condition of a segment's surface (and pavement) is often rolled up from a whole set of constituent conditions (such as environmental cracking condition, structural cracking condition, ravelling condition, plus a few others). The challenge is then to combine these into an aggregate condition representative of the surface. On the other hand, for e.g. park benches there might be a single, more impressionistic condition of the asset (rather than say looking at the wood, at the steel, and then aggregating).

    It's easy to get into a kind of paralysis of analysis about what to collect.

    The best thing when deciding is to come back to first principles. What we are trying to do with condition is obtain a measure that gives an accurate as possible prediction of end of life. The condition gives the progress through the useful life. When combined with the actual useful life, we can determine (or estimate) two fundamental things: (1) remaining useful life, and (2), resulting from that, how much of the asset is used up (depreciation). If the condition you arrive at (either through a single assessment, or through aggregating multiple assessment) achieves that, you are succeeding. And remember that useful life also depends on your organisation's determination of the level of service you will provide.

    One good way to exhaust yourself with asset management is to collect more data than you need. Once collected, data must be managed and maintained.

    The NAMS Practice Note 3 deals with buildings, and has a divide and conquer strategy: adopt a very fine grained collection of multiple components, and record the condition of each. You can generate a lot of data: I once managed a database with over a million components based on the PN3 approach. Other approaches to buildings are based on a notional component strategy (e.g. Substructure, Superstructure, Roof, etc., with short and long life instances of each). You might have about 20 notional components for every building For assets such as footpaths, we tend to use a photo-based approach for different types of footpath (asphalt, concrete, etc.) to guide the assessor in assigning a single overall condition measure.

    I suggest the following:
    - Especially for assets of few components, consider collecting condition on what you will replace separately. For example a bench on a concrete base will yield two components, but no means an avalanche of data to maintain.
    - If possible, use a photo based approach. Look at a few assets with an experienced works person, and decide how many years it would be before replacement. Take a photo of it to place on a laminated handout. Assign it a condition based on a scale of 1 to 5 to guide assessors.
    - Consider the maintenance that the item would attract. PN3 V2 p65 has an alternative perspective of condition based on actions required that work well for any asset class.
    - As a start, collect only what is needed to get to a rating that allows you to predict end of life.

    Of course, I am answering your question based on what you need to collection condition data for. It could be that you want to collect data for other issues such as statutory maintenance etc. Sports facilities will have smoke detectors and RCDs and fire equipment etc. which must be managed. You might also have other needs such as improving disability access. None of these things determine condition in the purist sense, but you might need to consider those for other reasons.

    I hope this helps. It's not really itemised the answer you were asking for. It might take some refinement before you arrive at a collection regimen which supports your organisation.

    By the way, I have been on IPWEA courses presented by Brian Milne and his colleagues, and their advice is practical, useful, and based on lots of experience.


    ------------------------------
    Regards,

    Hein Aucamp
    Senior Asset Engineer
    City of Kalamunda
    T 9257 9864 M 0429 617 124
    www.kalamunda.wa.gov.au

    ------------------------------
    Regards,

    Hein Aucamp
    Senior Asset Engineer
    T 9257 9864 M 0429 617 124
    www.kalamunda.wa.gov.au

    City of Kalamnunda
    ------------------------------

    BlogPageSpacerBlank


  • 6.  RE: Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

    Posted 11 days ago
    Hi Oliver,
    In terms of standard parks items and granularity most can be kept as a single item. Where more granularity should be applied is where there are different lives involved. For instance a BBQ could be made up of the Mechanism (live of 10 years), Concrete base (live of 25yrs), Shelter (live of 25yrs). The average condition of all three would provide for the overall condition for the BBQ but the individual condition assessed on each part will influence the remaining life and year of renewal.
    We also apply three different aspects to each asset. The first is the standard Condition Grade (1 to 5) followed by an interception point (1-5) and finally a ranking for Environmental Conditions (1-5).
    The condition grade is as per the IPWEA Practice Note 10.1 and is fully explained there as well as asset categories, information to collect etc. While worth the read.
    The interception point is simply used to inform when the asset should be replaced based on the condition grade. What this means in practice is that not all assets we manage are allowed to run to failure (Condition grade 5). For instance playground equipment is renewed at a condition 4 to reduce the risk of failure and possible resulting injury to users. We have also set some of our assets in our higher profile areas (premier reserves, CBD) to a 3 as these always need to be in good condition or better at all times.
    The environmental conditions grade is used to further influence the remaining life. Rotorua is built around an active geothermal area and this has a highly corrosive effect on electrical, mechanical and metal based assets. The closer to geothermal activity an asset is the higher the environmental condition influence is set (at the highest setting it halves the expected base live of an asset. I would imagine the same thing can be said for coastal environments and salt spray effects.

    All three of these factors are used to influence the remaining life and renewal year for each asset to achieve a closer prediction to reality for the end of life of the assets.

    In terms of buildings I would agree with Hein Aucamp that it is important to consider the level of granularity you want to achieve. For buildings we apply a simple rule. If it is something that will be renewed as an individual item then it needs to be collected and again condition is based on a whole item assessment (not parts) of the individual item. We choose to deliberately avoid items that if renewed would basically mean a whole new building (structural walls, floors etc) these are dealt with under an end of life plan for the building.  We have also introduced a fourth element into buildings recently which is a Criticality Score. This actually creates a hierarchy within the individual items in terms of which are critical to keep the building functional and which can be sweated (fail) if need be. Depending on how this pans out we may introduce this into other types of assets that are managed by us.

    I hope that this gives you more to think about and consider in collecting the condition information for your assets.

    Cheers
    Robert Atkinson
    Assets Advisor - Open Spaces
    Rotorua Lakes Council
    www.rotorualakescounci.nz


    ------------------------------
    Robert Atkinson, Open Spaces Asset Adviser
    Rotorua Lakes Council, New Zealand
    ------------------------------

    BlogPageSpacerBlank


  • 7.  RE: Request for List of attributes - Parks and sporting facilities

    Posted 7 days ago

    Hi Oliver

    Do you have an open space plan?  I think you have. This typically is the guiding document for core service levels for open spaces of  different functions and catchment hierarchies and the facilities they include. Also  the asset life for seats and bins fences and BBQs etc are not unique to parks so you  shouldnt  have these in other asset plans - related to other locations. Also asset life info is readily available based on material etc.,  

    In parks and sports facilities there is a need to understand the difference between asset life  and whether it is fit for purpose. Sporting standards and leisure behaviour change quickly and  whilst you may think it has considerable life remaining - like your two stadiums their useful life may something quite different and you cant  replace  sports or play  infrastructure with like for like.  Also sorry to complicate things but natural playing fields also have a life - typically 15 yrs as do trees, and yet most don't get replaced.  Synthetic surfaces- like hockey  only have a life of about 7 years.  Depending on the code of sport there are also specific requirements for associated infrastructure. Cricket, Afl and tennis have done audits of all their sites in Tas in the last year. My advice is for the very specific  sport, play and rec infrastructure - get your rec people to give you the asset life and  use the all the other pavement bins fences etc.from other  plans.  Happy  to chat. 



    ------------------------------
    [Sally ] [Jeavons]]
    [Director]
    [@leisure Planners ]
    [Melbourne ]
    ------------------------------

    BlogPageSpacerBlank