An alternate method for conducting asset criticality ranking for use on industrial assets and public infrastructure can result in staff time savings of up to 70% as compared to traditional methods, which are time consuming and sometimes misleading. The methodology proposed in this paper does follow many of the traditional approaches, including the use of cross-functional teams. Its primary differences are related to the use of preference ballots for system level evaluation and the subsequent use of a function-based scoring system at the asset level. The authors suggest that the uses of a relative asset criticality ranking as it applies to industrial assets and public infrastructure does not require the detailed and time consuming analysis that has been traditionally promoted.