{"id":2842,"date":"2021-01-25T19:34:21","date_gmt":"2021-01-25T19:34:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/?page_id=2842"},"modified":"2026-04-16T20:26:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T20:26:57","slug":"criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/","title":{"rendered":"Criticality \/ Consequence of Failure \/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|tablet” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” positioning=”none” horizontal_offset_tablet=”” horizontal_offset_phone=”” horizontal_offset_last_edited=”on|tablet” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_margin_tablet=”” custom_margin_phone=”” custom_margin_last_edited=”on|desktop” custom_padding=”0px|||0px|false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”|||25px|false|false” custom_padding_phone=”” da_disable_devices=”off|off|off” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover_enabled=”on|desktop” theme_builder_area=”post_content” da_is_popup=”off” da_exit_intent=”off” da_has_close=”on” da_alt_close=”off” da_dark_close=”off” da_not_modal=”on” da_is_singular=”off” da_with_loader=”off” da_has_shadow=”on” custom_padding__hover=”0px|||0px|false|false”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings<\/h2>\n

As with\u00a0the probability of failure of an asset, the consequence of failure of that asset also needs to be quantified. Systems can quantify the consequence of failure by creating a rating structure that includes a numeric rating and a degree of impact description for each rating. From an implementation perspective, it may be easiest to use the same scale for both consequence and probability of failure. If a 1 to 5 scale was used for probability of failure, systems may want to use a 1 to 5 scale for the consequence of failure. If a system wishes to weigh one of the factors more heavily than the other, it is possible to have a 1 to 5 rating for probability of failure and 1 to 10 rating for consequence of failure or vice versa. If the scale is 1 to 5 for both probability and consequence, the overall risk will be between 1 and 25. A rating of \u201c0\u201d is never used because it would result in an overall risk of 0 and no asset is completely without any risk of failure or consequence of failure.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the best ways to develop standardized criteria is to\u00a0engage\u00a0a cross-section of\u00a0utility staff\u00a0who have different\u00a0perspectives\u00a0and different experiences with the assets. Staff should choose a rating scale, such as 1 to 5 or 1 to 10, and keep the descriptions broad enough so the ratings can apply to any assets\u00a0(gray and green)\u00a0in the\u00a0utility. Creating these ratings does not have to be a long, time-intensive activity. A small system should be able to complete the process of developing the rating structure by meeting a few\u00a0times for\u00a0a few hours each. A larger system may take longer and may wish to have a more extensive\u00a0rating system.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Once developed, staff will use the structure to assign a rating to each asset based on the\u00a0type and level of consequences a utility may experience if an\u00a0asset\u00a0fails.\u00a0See the following examples\u00a0of\u00a0possible rating\u00a0structures\u00a0below.\u00a0In these examples, 1 is the lowest probability of failure.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200b<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_2,1_2″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

Table 4: Consequence of failure ratings with descriptions<\/h4>\n

This is the simplest example of a rating structure. Utilities that are beginning their asset management journey should consider using this rating structure to start. The structure can be developed more as\u00a0<\/span><\/span>additional<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>information is gathered.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][dvmd_table_maker tbl_row_header_count=”0″ tbl_responsive_break_by=”row” tbl_chead_cell_color=”#2ea3f2″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” tbl_chead_text_font=”|700|||||||” background_color=”#000000″ border_width_all=”2px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” border_width_all__hover=”2px” border_width_all__hover_enabled=”on|hover” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][dvmd_table_maker_item col_label=”Condition Rating” col_content=”Rating
\n

1<\/center>
\n
2<\/center>
\n
3<\/center>
\n
4<\/center>
\n
5<\/center>” col_column_max_width=”0.3fr” col_chead_cell_color=”#2ea3f2 ” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][dvmd_table_maker_item col_label=”Description” col_content=”Description
\nVery Low Consequence of Failure
\nLow Consequence of Failure
\nModerate Consequence of Failure
\nHigh Consequence of Failure
\nVery High Consequence of Failure” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][\/dvmd_table_maker][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

Table 6: Consequence of failure ratings with descriptions<\/h4>\n

These ratings combine numerical and qualitative measures\u00a0<\/span><\/span>that can further describe the consequences of failure. Both qualitative and quantitative ratings<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>can support justification for repair and replace plans and spending.<\/span><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][dvmd_table_maker tbl_row_header_count=”0″ tbl_responsive_break_by=”row” tbl_chead_cell_color=”#2ea3f2″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” tbl_chead_text_font=”|700|||||||” background_color=”#000000″ border_width_all=”2px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” border_width_all__hover=”2px” border_width_all__hover_enabled=”on|hover” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][dvmd_table_maker_item col_label=”Condition Rating” col_content=”Rating
\n

1<\/center>
\n
2<\/center>
\n
3<\/center>
\n
4<\/center>
\n
5<\/center>” col_column_max_width=”0.4px” col_chead_cell_color=”#2ea3f2 ” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][dvmd_table_maker_item col_label=”Description ” col_content=”Description
\nInsignificant disruption
\nMinor disruption
\nModerate disruption
\nMajor disruption
\nCatastrophic disruption” col_column_max_width=”0.5fr” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][dvmd_table_maker_item col_label=”Level of Effect” col_content=”Level of Effect
\nNegligible effect on costs; no significant consequences or impact on level of service
\nMinor effect, some loss of system capacity, but minimal costs or impacts
\nModerate effects, loss of some system capacity, yet important level of service still achieved
\nMajor effect, loss of system capacity, major consequences or costs, level of service compromised
\nMassive system failure, severe economic, environmental, health, and\/or social consequences, persistent and extensive damage, unable to meet level of service goals” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][\/dvmd_table_maker][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Asset Management Technical Guide<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″ custom_margin=”-19px||||false|false”]<\/p>\n

Table 5: In-depth consequence of failure ratings with descriptions<\/h4>\n

This is a more detailed rating structure. This structure is often suited to utilities who are further along in their asset management journey. A more descriptive rating structure helps to ensure that ratings are as objective as possible.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][dvmd_table_maker tbl_row_header_count=”0″ tbl_responsive_break_by=”row” tbl_chead_cell_color=”#2ea3f2″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” tbl_chead_text_font=”|700|||||||” background_color=”#000000″ border_width_all=”2px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” border_width_all__hover=”2px” border_width_all__hover_enabled=”on|hover” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][dvmd_table_maker_item col_label=”Condition Rating” col_content=”Rating
\n

1<\/center>
\n
2<\/center>
\n
3<\/center>
\n
4<\/center>
\n
5<\/center>” col_column_max_width=”0.3fr” col_chead_cell_color=”#2ea3f2 ” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][dvmd_table_maker_item col_label=”Description” col_content=”Description
\nNo identifiable consequences.
Less than $10,000 in repair costs. (use the appropriate monetary amount for your system. A smaller system will want to set a lower monetary threshold).
\n$10,000 to $49,999 in repair costs.
Short term disruption to traffic or business or operations (less than 4 hours).
Bypassing (without violating permit) for less than 3 days.
\n$50,000 to $99,999 in repair costs.
Disruption to businesses.
Disruption to traffic.
Disruption to septic haulers.
Disruption to staff or regular operations.
Bypassing (without violating permit) for more than 3 days.
\n$100,000 or more in costs related to repair.
Damage to other assets and\/or private property.
Potential to negatively harm the environment; potential to cause impacts to endangered species.
May make some minor news report.
\nHealth and safety of employees and\/or public at risk.
Exceedance of permit limits.
Politically problematic\/becomes a major news story.” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][\/dvmd_table_maker][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”||||false|false” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

Finding a balance between\u00a0general and specific descriptions can be challenging. Each consequence descriptor should be\u00a0generic enough\u00a0to\u00a0describe the impact from a green or gray asset failure\u00a0and specific enough to be as objective as possible.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • \n
      \n
    • Generic descriptions\u00a0allow systems to assess\u00a0whether the impact from a specific degraded green asset\u00a0renders\u00a0the same degree of impact to the system as a specific degraded gray asset.\u00a0See the tables above for generic, qualitative examples.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    • Specific descriptions often apply to\u00a0measurable\u00a0consequences, such as dollar amounts, number of homes\u00a0impacted,\u00a0number of road closures, number of buildings affected, etc. See the tables above for examples of specific, quantitative examples.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      There are no industry standards for\u00a0the consequence\u00a0of failure for given assets, so they are best defined by\u00a0utility staff.\u00a0Consider how many levels of ratings will work best for your utility.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      • \n
          \n
        • An even number of ratings can deter staff from the natural temptation to pick a middle value (e.g., 3 on a scale of 1-5).\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n
        • Avoid\u00a0too many levels in a rating structure. The difference between levels could be so minute that it is challenging to\u00a0determine\u00a0what its probability of failure is. A 1-4, 1-5, or 1-6 scale\u00a0are\u00a0often the highest recommended.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          Utility\u00a0staff will assign\u00a0a consequence of failure to\u00a0an asset rating based on the rating structure they create. Staff must consider all\u00a0<\/span>three consequence categories<\/span>\u00a0when assigning a rating\u00a0to\u00a0make informed judgements about the\u00a0consequences\u00a0of failure across all types of assets. If the system\u00a0can\u00a0collect and store\u00a0information, it is also valuable to\u00a0identify\u00a0which types of consequences (financial, environmental, social) are likely to dominate the analysis. For example, Asset A has the potential for serious social\u00a0consequences,\u00a0and the likelihood is rated a 4. Asset B has minor financial consequences, and the consequence is rated 2. There are no industry standards\u00a0for\u00a0consequence of failure\u00a0of\u00a0given assets, so they are best defined by\u00a0system personnel as described previously. However, the more applicable empirical data\u00a0that is\u00a0collected on an asset, the more\u00a0accurate\u00a0and objective the consequence of failure estimate will\u00a0be\u00a0and the more consistent they will be with industry best practice.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Collecting data to help\u00a0determine\u00a0the consequence of failure for green assets may be more challenging initially because their inclusion in this type of analysis is a\u00a0relatively new\u00a0practice compared to gray assets. Additionally, collecting the\u00a0appropriate data\u00a0may require\u00a0expertise\u00a0that is outside the typical knowledge of a water or wastewater system (e.g., fire, forestry, geomorphology).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          It is\u00a0not advisable to compare\u00a0consequence\u00a0of failure rating from unrelated facilities. Different geographies, types of treatment provided, size of community, age of system, etc. would prohibit a direct\u00a0comparison. Consequence of failure ratings must be aligned with individual treatment plants and the communities in which they\u00a0operate.\u00a0It may make sense to have the same rating\u00a0structure across all systems within one community.\u00a0If a community operates two drinking water treatment plants and two wastewater treatment plants, it\u00a0can and should use the same rating system across all facilities.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          The goal is to\u00a0determine\u00a0which of your assets\u00a0have\u00a0more\u00a0consequence\u00a0if they\u00a0fail\u00a0than other assets in your system.\u00a0View the examples below to see how different failures can have different consequences and\u00a0different consequence ratings.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” width=”100%” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][dvmd_table_maker tbl_row_header_count=”0″ tbl_responsive_break_by=”row” tbl_chead_cell_color=”#2ea3f2″ _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” tbl_chead_text_font=”|700|||||||” background_color=”#000000″ hover_enabled=”0″ border_width_all=”2px” border_color_all=”RGBA(0,0,0,0)” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” border_width_all__hover=”2px” border_width_all__hover_enabled=”on|hover” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″][dvmd_table_maker_item _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” col_content=”

          Failure<\/center>
          \nLarge distribution line break
          \nSmall valve serving less than 50 people
          \nFire hydrant leak” col_label=”Failure ” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][dvmd_table_maker_item _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” col_label=”Consequences ” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″ col_content=”
          Consequences<\/center>
          \nHigh costs to repair, disruption of service to large area and critical services, water loss, legal expenses, other infrastructure damage
          \nDisruption of service to small residential area, low repair costs, no environmental or infrastructure damage
          \nWater loss, no fire pressure, no environmental or infrastructure damage, minimal flooding, redundant hydrant within one block”][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][dvmd_table_maker_item _builder_version=”4.27.6″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” col_content=”
          Consequence rating<\/center>
          \n
          5<\/center>
          \n
          1<\/center>
          \n
          3<\/center>” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][\/dvmd_table_maker_item][\/dvmd_table_maker][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

          Consequence of failure ratings – Stacy Gallick, Asset Management Director, Johnson County Wastewater, Olathe, KS<\/p>\n

          [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/youtu.be\/IWEquorY_mE” _builder_version=”4.16″ _module_preset=”default” border_radii=”on|25px|25px|25px|25px” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][\/et_pb_video][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings As with\u00a0the probability of failure of an asset, the consequence of failure of that asset also needs to be quantified. Systems can quantify the consequence of failure by creating a rating structure that includes a numeric rating and a degree of impact description for each rating. From an implementation perspective, it may be easiest to use the same scale for both consequence and probability of failure. If a 1 to 5 scale was used for probability of failure, systems may want to use a 1 to 5 scale for the consequence of failure. If a system wishes to weigh one of the factors more heavily than the other, it is possible to have a 1 to 5 rating for probability of failure and 1 to 10 rating for consequence of failure or vice versa. If the scale is 1 to 5 for both probability and consequence, the overall risk will be between 1 and 25. A rating of \u201c0\u201d is never used because it would result in an overall risk of 0 and no asset is completely without any risk of failure or consequence of failure.\u00a0 One of the best ways to develop standardized criteria […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2842","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nCriticality \/ Consequence of Failure \/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings - Integrated Asset Management Framework<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Criticality \/ Consequence of Failure \/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings - Integrated Asset Management Framework\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings As with\u00a0the probability of failure of an asset, the consequence of failure of that asset also needs to be quantified. Systems can quantify the consequence of failure by creating a rating structure that includes a numeric rating and a degree of impact description for each rating. From an implementation perspective, it may be easiest to use the same scale for both consequence and probability of failure. If a 1 to 5 scale was used for probability of failure, systems may want to use a 1 to 5 scale for the consequence of failure. If a system wishes to weigh one of the factors more heavily than the other, it is possible to have a 1 to 5 rating for probability of failure and 1 to 10 rating for consequence of failure or vice versa. If the scale is 1 to 5 for both probability and consequence, the overall risk will be between 1 and 25. A rating of \u201c0\u201d is never used because it would result in an overall risk of 0 and no asset is completely without any risk of failure or consequence of failure.\u00a0 One of the best ways to develop standardized criteria […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Integrated Asset Management Framework\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-16T20:26:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\\\/\",\"name\":\"Criticality \\\/ Consequence of Failure \\\/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings - Integrated Asset Management Framework\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-01-25T19:34:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-16T20:26:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Criticality \\\/ Consequence of Failure \\\/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/\",\"name\":\"Integrated Asset Management Framework\",\"description\":\"Combining Green and Gray Assets\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/swefc.unm.edu\\\/iamf\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Criticality \/ Consequence of Failure \/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings - Integrated Asset Management Framework","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Criticality \/ Consequence of Failure \/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings - Integrated Asset Management Framework","og_description":"Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings As with\u00a0the probability of failure of an asset, the consequence of failure of that asset also needs to be quantified. Systems can quantify the consequence of failure by creating a rating structure that includes a numeric rating and a degree of impact description for each rating. From an implementation perspective, it may be easiest to use the same scale for both consequence and probability of failure. If a 1 to 5 scale was used for probability of failure, systems may want to use a 1 to 5 scale for the consequence of failure. If a system wishes to weigh one of the factors more heavily than the other, it is possible to have a 1 to 5 rating for probability of failure and 1 to 10 rating for consequence of failure or vice versa. If the scale is 1 to 5 for both probability and consequence, the overall risk will be between 1 and 25. A rating of \u201c0\u201d is never used because it would result in an overall risk of 0 and no asset is completely without any risk of failure or consequence of failure.\u00a0 One of the best ways to develop standardized criteria […]","og_url":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/","og_site_name":"Integrated Asset Management Framework","article_modified_time":"2026-04-16T20:26:57+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/","url":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/","name":"Criticality \/ Consequence of Failure \/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings - Integrated Asset Management Framework","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-01-25T19:34:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-16T20:26:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/criticality-consequence-of-failure-creating-consequence-of-failure-ratings\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Criticality \/ Consequence of Failure \/ Creating Consequence of Failure Ratings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/#website","url":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/","name":"Integrated Asset Management Framework","description":"Combining Green and Gray Assets","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2842"}],"version-history":[{"count":28,"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25824,"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2842\/revisions\/25824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/swefc.unm.edu\/iamf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}