EAM.Preface:5 - Predictable mistakes, consequences and bias

Starting from “replace this asset” can remove a viable maintenance or service alternative before comparison. Ranking condition scores can spend money on a less useful programme. Comparing purchase prices over unequal horizons can hide operating burden and remaining service value. Adding a generic risk allowance to costs that already include the same response can count them twice.

The positive corrections are small and specific: restate the required contribution, compare qualified whole options, retain separate conditions, and reconcile the complete programme. The CityWater cases show that an individually sound replacement recommendation can coexist with a different programme recommendation.

The process can still privilege those who fund or request a project. Identify whose service, work, access and future costs change. Do not silently turn an unpriced consequence into zero or a missing observation into evidence of no effect. A technology supplier’s claim and an available template establish neither applicable performance nor actual use.

Using the language adds some comparison and coordination burden. Its benefit is a decision whose scope, conditions and consequences the recipient can understand. Retaining a supported option or correcting a small information mismatch can be the useful outcome. The appropriate depth depends on the decision, possible consequences and attainable evidence.