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.