31
INTRODUCTION1
RESEARCH BACKGROUND2
PROBLEM STATEMENT3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5
RESEARCH OUTCOMES6
CONCLUSIONS7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
INTRODUCTION1
Water supply infrastructure in Malaysia has been built progressivelyover the last 50 years.
1
Migration to the new regime, the water infrastructure assets handedover :
Old OR Near towards the end of its life
2
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) set by SPAN as the service regulator3
Increased expectations KPI requires new management practice4
3
PAAB was established in May 2006 with the primary responsibility of developing nation’s water infrastructure in Peninsular Malaysia and Labuan.
1.
PAAB is wholly-owned by the Government of Malaysia (“GoM”)
2.
PAAB is tasked with the following objectives: -3.
Construct / Refurbish / Improve / upgrade / Maintaina.
Source and obtain competitive financing for the development of the nation’s water assets.
b.
Assist the GoM to restructure the nation’s water industry.c.
4
INTRODUCTION1
RESEARCH BACKGROUND2
In early 2003, the Federal Government began the restructuring process in
the effort to create a more effective and
efficient Water Services industry.
The respective States in Malaysia is responsible for their water supply services prior to the amendments to the
Constitution.
The National Water Services Commission
(“SPAN”) Act and Water Services Industry Act
(“WSIA”) were established to provide
framework and regulated the water
services.
The Federal
Constitutions was amended in Jan 2005 whereby water supply services on treatment and distribution are
made to a joint responsibility between the State Government
and the Federal Government.
Establishment of PAAB to hold the Facilities License
under the WSIA and facilitate process of
transformation into new water supply industry
framework.
Existing States’ Water Supply Departments to
be corporatized.
5
Catchment Area
Dam
River
Water Treatment Plant
Balancing Reservoir
Service Reservoir
Under State Authority
State Water Operator
Consumers
State Government Asset
Trunkmain
Distribution Main
RESEARCH BACKGROUND2
6
Catchment Area
River
Service Reservoir
Service Reservoir
Trunkmain
Distribution Pipe
Federal Government Asset (PAAB)
Dam
Water Treatment Plant
Consumers
RESEARCH BACKGROUND2
Under State Authority
State Water Operator
7
RESEARCH BACKGROUND2
8
PROBLEM STATEMENT3
2009 : Desktop Study on GIS & Asset Management
9
10 out of 12 WOs
managing manually
No Proper record
keeping and systematic approach.
No clear knowledge of the condition
of assets
How they are performing
Replacing asset
prematurely
No States Asset System GIS
1 Johor TOMMS Smallworld 4.0
2 Melaka NA Strumap 5
3 Negeri Sembilan NA ESRI
4 Selangor NA ESRI
5 Perak NA Strumap 5
6 Pulau Pinang TOMMS Strumap 5
7 Perlis NA Mapinfo
8 Kedah NA Mapinfo
9 Kelantan NA ESRI
10 Terenggannu NA ESRI
11 Pahang NA ESRI
12 Labuan NA ESRI10
PROBLEM STATEMENT3
PROBLEM STATEMENT3
An audit was conducted in 2011 by NATIONAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT, it has REVEALED
POOR OPERATION and MAINTENANCE has resulted in high operation and maintenance costs as well as premature of asset failures.
11
PROBLEM STATEMENT3
12
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE4
13
•Data model
•HierarchyIdentify
•Criticality
•WeightagesDevelop
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
No Method Papers
1 AHP 142
2 TOPSIS 54
3 MOP 53
4 DSS 44
5 ANP 37
6 FUZZY 33
Abbas and Mahdi (2011) MCDM 1999 - 2009
20 Journals : 682 Papers
27 Methods / 12 Categories /
786 Applied Methods
Non Application
• 242 (38.5%)
Application
• 386 (61.5%)14
ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
To identify the criteria and relative weight for 5 assets categories
water distribution system:-
• Dam
• Intake
• Water treatment plant
• Reservoir
• Pumphouse
15
Advantages :-
1. The result is consistent and rational
2. Minimize uncertainty in the decisions
3. Systematic Analysis
4. Collective decision through expertise participation
5. Avoiding bias or influence from surrounding, background,
experience, etc.
What does it answer ? The question “Which one do we
choose?” or “Which one is best ?” by
selecting the best alternative that
matches all of the decision maker’s
criteria.16
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
8
Collaboration:
Two or more individuals or organizations working together toward
a common goal
Usually required for most important and complex decisions
Consensus:
A decision that is acceptable to all members of the group
Not necessarily complete agreement
17
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
Decompose the decision-making problem into a
hierarchy of criteria and alternatives.
18
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
Planning Area/
ProblemDecision Maker MCDM
GIS
Visualizations
19
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
Problem
Definition
ConstraintsEvaluation
Criteria
AlternativesDecision
Matrix
Decision-
Maker’s
Preferences
Decision Rules
Sensitivity
Analysis
Recommendation
Design Phase
MCDM
Choice Phase
MCDM
Evaluation
Criteria
1. Determine criteria (factors /
constraints) to be included
2. Standardization (normalization) of
factors / criterion scores
3. Determining the weights for each
factor
4. Evaluation using MCDM/AHP
algorithms
5. Sensitivity analysis of results
20
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
1. Verification and Validation the factor/criteria used within a hierarchy of various level
2. Verification and Validation the relative weight forfactor/criteria used.
Currently result produced is from in-house group expert 21
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
22
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
23
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
24
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
25
Assets
Criticalities AHP
Expert
Choice
Improved
Group
Decision
Problem Method Tool More
Systematic and
Logical
Approach
=
Criticality of ReservoirCriticality of Water Treatment Plan (WTP)Criticality of IntakeCriticality of Pump HouseCriticality of Dam
Pairwise Comparison Weightage
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5
26
RESEARCH OUTCOMES6
27
WEIGHTED VALUE
DECISION SUPORT SYSTEM
(DSS)
Asset Criticality Analysis RESU
LT
DECISION MAKING
RESEARCH OUTCOMES6
28
RESEARCH OUTCOMES6
29
CONCLUSIONS7
Water industry will be able to analyse
the criticality of an assets
Available data are
Scarce / Uncertain / Imprecise / Vague
Water Distribution System - Complex
Beneficial in water assets, serve it purposed for
Transparency Effective Efficiency
30
