When categorizing criticality levels using a numerical scale, the numbers can either increase (e.g., 1 being of low criticality) or decrease (e.g., 1 indicating high criticality). Have you encountered any scenarios indicating which approach is more effective? A common perception is to associate the highest level of criticality with the number "1" due to its connotation of being the "first." However, in a mathematical context, is it more logical to correlate higher criticality with a higher numerical value? While this may seem like a minor issue, ensuring the effectiveness of the system is crucial to avoid complications in sorting and calculations in the future. As I evaluate our current system and contemplate potential revisions, I aim to avoid any limitations that may impede adherence to sorting and arithmetic principles. Mark
Yes Mark, there are two main approaches to analyzing risk. Personally, I prefer focusing on high levels of criticality. By conducting a matrix analysis and multiplying frequency by consequence, you can obtain a numerical value that corresponds to the level of risk. Typically, high-risk scenarios are represented on the left side of the x-axis, while high-consequence events are positioned higher on the y-axis. This correlation results in higher numerical values indicating greater risk. To simplify this process, you can use a scalar number to re-scale the values back to a more manageable 1-10 scale or something similar.
I prefer using different approaches in various situations. When conducting a risk analysis or determining RPNs in an FMECA analysis, I designate high as critical due to its similarity to APM. Conversely, for equipment criticality and work order prioritization in our CMMS, I prefer low as critical as it is more intuitive for planners, mechanics, and operators. For instance, in our CMMS, equipment criticality is categorized as A, B, or C, with A signifying the highest level of criticality. Work order priorities are ranked as 1, 2, or 3, with 1 indicating the highest priority (0 for emergency work). This system helps planners identify A1 work orders as their top planning priority.
It is a smart move to align equipment criticality with work order priority, such as implementing a system like A1. This approach is particularly beneficial when equipment criticality is not explicitly stated in work orders.
Interesting points, Mark. In my experience, the choice between these two approaches largely depends on the audience and the application. If the numerical scale is being used by engineers or technical folks who deal regularly with numeric data, it might be more intuitive to them to associate higher numbers with higher criticality - aligning it with standard mathematical practice. But if the scale is to be used primarily by management or those more attuned to rank orderings (e.g., 1st place being the best), the reverse scale could be more intuitive. It's crucial to make the scale clear and user-friendly to avoid misinterpretations. Likewise, taking into consideration the system you plan to use for sorting and calculating data is hugely significant.
Hi Mark, I think your question really hits on the tension between mathematical logic and human interpretation. While it may mathematically make more sense for a higher number to relate to a higher level of criticality, I've often found in my experience that people understand "1" as the most critical. I think it's Prime Directive of usability: A design should match the user's model, not force the user's to match the design. In other words, adopt the solution that best suits the people who will be interpreting the criticality levels. If a lowest number = highest criticality model is more intuitive to them, it may be best to adhere to this despite the potential mathematical inconveniences. Remember, our main goal is to facilitate comprehension and use – sorting and calculations can be programmed to handle either case.
I see what you mean, Mark! It really does boil down to clarity for the end users. While using “1” for the highest criticality can make intuitive sense, it can indeed clash with how we typically interpret numerical scales mathematically. One approach I’ve found effective is to clearly label each level in terms of criticality rather than relying solely on numbers (like labeling them low, medium, high, etc.), which can help eliminate confusion. That way, you get the best of both worlds—easy sorting and clear communication. Plus, when training users on the system, having visual aids or examples can reinforce their understanding, reducing the risk of mistakes in those critical moments.
Great points, Mark! I’ve definitely seen both approaches in various industries, and each has its own set of challenges. Personally, I lean towards the increasing scale where a higher number indicates greater criticality, as it aligns better with general mathematical principles, making it intuitive for calculations, especially when sorting or averaging. However, onboarding new users can be tricky if they're accustomed to the opposite, so clarity in communication and documentation is essential. Maybe a hybrid approach, where you clearly define your scale in context, could help bridge the gap?
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: There is a debate on whether higher criticality levels should be associated with higher or lower numerical values. It's important to consider the implications for sorting and calculations in the system.
Answer: The common perception is to associate the highest level of criticality with the number "1" due to its connotation of being the "first," but this may not always align with mathematical logic.
Answer: Ensuring a logical correlation between criticality levels and numerical values is crucial for effective categorization to avoid complications in sorting and calculations in the future.
Answer: Adjustments to the criticality scale can impact adherence to sorting and arithmetic principles, so it's essential to carefully evaluate and potentially revise the system to avoid limitations.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.