(1) The need to determine the optimum – or most adequate-level of reliability for a
group of users. Reliability, as an economic concept, which suppliers and users
wish to optimise because of cost. This requires a cost-benefit analysis of
reliability – connecting supply and demand in individual markets.
(2) To evaluate in a particular case whether an action program concentrated only on
enhancing reliability would be different from a conventional program focused
at enhancing the productivity of a whole infrastructure service.
Thus, a study of reliability should also involve productivity from a different
perspective which might be more effective.
9.5.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cost-benefit analysis of reliability can be conducted through a whole activity
cycle – subdivided into smaller cycles – which could be the unit of analysis. For
example, a whole cycle can be a multisectoral one dedicated to an export product, or
to any farm-to-market or factory-to-market cycle. The perception of the whole cycle
remains in the hands of the user – or a planning agency – but each step might be the
concern of a different supplier. Thus, a railway system, comprises just one
subsystem of an international trade chain.
The next stage of a cost-benefit analysis is to analyse the suppliers’ options for
enhancing reliability. Apart the evident way of increasing reliability by enhancing
operational efficiency, suppliers can add redundancy (see Sect. 9.6.5) at the design
and investment stages. Although apparently complex, this is a key concept to
ensuring reliability of several infrastructure components. The conceptual framework
then examines the user’s options for reacting to unreliability. The user may have
several possibilities, which include:
(1) Continue to use the unreliable service, for lack of options
(2) Provide alternative facilities, if feasible
(3) Exert individual or collective (vocal) pressure on the supplier
(4) Reduce or stop use of the service
(5) Change location, if feasible.
The framework then comprises the evaluation of the costs – private and social –
of unreliability and the cost-benefit determinations.
9.5.4 Focusing on Reliability to Improve Productivity
A sharp focus on reliability may draw attention to the productivity of one or a few
activities executed by a supplier, most likely those on which the prospective pay-off
of higher-quality service is greater – such as one generating plant in a power system
266
9 Quality and Reliability of Infrastructure
group of users. Reliability, as an economic concept, which suppliers and users
wish to optimise because of cost. This requires a cost-benefit analysis of
reliability – connecting supply and demand in individual markets.
(2) To evaluate in a particular case whether an action program concentrated only on
enhancing reliability would be different from a conventional program focused
at enhancing the productivity of a whole infrastructure service.
Thus, a study of reliability should also involve productivity from a different
perspective which might be more effective.
9.5.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cost-benefit analysis of reliability can be conducted through a whole activity
cycle – subdivided into smaller cycles – which could be the unit of analysis. For
example, a whole cycle can be a multisectoral one dedicated to an export product, or
to any farm-to-market or factory-to-market cycle. The perception of the whole cycle
remains in the hands of the user – or a planning agency – but each step might be the
concern of a different supplier. Thus, a railway system, comprises just one
subsystem of an international trade chain.
The next stage of a cost-benefit analysis is to analyse the suppliers’ options for
enhancing reliability. Apart the evident way of increasing reliability by enhancing
operational efficiency, suppliers can add redundancy (see Sect. 9.6.5) at the design
and investment stages. Although apparently complex, this is a key concept to
ensuring reliability of several infrastructure components. The conceptual framework
then examines the user’s options for reacting to unreliability. The user may have
several possibilities, which include:
(1) Continue to use the unreliable service, for lack of options
(2) Provide alternative facilities, if feasible
(3) Exert individual or collective (vocal) pressure on the supplier
(4) Reduce or stop use of the service
(5) Change location, if feasible.
The framework then comprises the evaluation of the costs – private and social –
of unreliability and the cost-benefit determinations.
9.5.4 Focusing on Reliability to Improve Productivity
A sharp focus on reliability may draw attention to the productivity of one or a few
activities executed by a supplier, most likely those on which the prospective pay-off
of higher-quality service is greater – such as one generating plant in a power system
266
9 Quality and Reliability of Infrastructure