Speaking

Utilities routinely rely on scoring systems to evaluate asset condition, criticality and risk within condition assessments and capital planning processes. While common 1–5 rating systems provide a simple framework, they often introduce subjectivity and limit the ability to clearly differentiate between levels of risk. This subjectivity can allow bias to influence prioritization and creates challenges when communicating the significance of risk to non-technical stakeholders.

An alternative approach replaces traditional scoring systems with a cost-based criticality model, using estimated dollar impact to quantify the consequences of asset failure. This methodology integrates factors such as repair and replacement costs, service disruption, lost revenue and broader economic impacts. By translating criticality into financial terms, the framework allows risks to be more consistently compared across assets while reducing reliance on subjective interpretation.

Application of this approach in condition assessment, capital planning and utility risk analysis has demonstrated improved prioritization outcomes. Assets not initially perceived as high priority—particularly those serving critical customers such as hospitals, correctional facilities or major event venues—can emerge as significant risks when evaluated based on potential financial impact. Expressing these risks in dollar terms enhances clarity for decision-makers and strengthens alignment between engineering analysis and organizational priorities.

The purpose of the session will be to:

• Evaluate limitations of traditional scoring-based criticality systems 
• Present a framework for quantifying criticality using dollar-based impact
• Demonstrate how cost-based metrics improve prioritization and reduce bias
• Illustrate how this approach strengthens funding justification and stakeholder communication