Julie and I produced this after a recent discussion with Ruth. I think it’s a discussion we’ve been having for years.
Todd Shepherd & Julie DeYoung
Once upon a time, or so the story goes, Asset Management started to take sprout at our organizations with a bold promise. It came to guide us toward long-term thinking, to help us look beyond next year’s budget and into the decades ahead. It came with principles and frameworks, a philosophy that assets are not isolated items, but interconnected parts of a whole. The decisions we make today shape the quality of life for future generations. It was a different way of seeing how investing in the right place, at the right time, could save money, and public trust.
But then Asset Management met The System. And The System did what it always does: it absorbed the new idea and bent it back into something familiar.
Instead of being a strategy for long-term stewardship, Asset Management became a new label for what we were already doing. We turned it into a more refined version of the same habits: squeezing the last bit of life out of aging assets, reacting quickly to failures, and deferring investment until the next crisis hit. We framed these actions as efficiency, as cost savings, as smart business. But they were just survival tactics. And so, when Asset Management started to bloom, it was quietly, subtly, reshaped.
What was meant to be transformational became transactional.
Long-term planning? That would have to wait. We needed to fix the latest failure, explain the recent cost overrun, patch the emergency before the news cycle caught wind. The capital planning calendar was full of yesterday’s fires. Asset Management was drafted into service as a better way to react.
Rather than change The System, Asset Management was absorbed by it. It was translated into the language of short-term cost savings and immediate returns. “Get more life out of your assets” became a directive, not to optimize lifecycle value, but to defer replacement as long as humanly possible. And The System applauded. Budgets tightened. Work orders increased. Failure response times improved…until they didn’t.
This isn’t a failure of individuals. It’s what happens when a new idea runs headlong into The System. The System reward firefighting over fire prevention. It promotes leaders who solve today’s crises, not those who quietly prevent tomorrows. It allocates resources to what is visible, immediate, and politically expedient. And so, Asset Management is quietly reshaped until it fits.
A discipline focused on resilience and long-range value becomes a sophisticated way to do what we’ve always done: squeeze, stretch, defer, and repeat.
Asset Management, instead of being a disruptor, became domesticated.
The truth is, Asset Management requires a paradigm shift. It requires a new way of thinking about value, responsibility, and time. It asks us to see past short-term wins and start building for long-term resilience. It asks leaders to stop managing symptoms and start addressing root causes. It asks organizations to measure success not by how fast they respond to failure, but by how rarely failure occurs at all.
That’s a hard shift to make. It means unlearning habits, changing incentives, and having the patience to invest in what won’t pay off this quarter. It means making space for new voices, new metrics, and sometimes uncomfortable truths.
But if we want Asset Management to be more than a buzzword, we need to protect it from the status quo. We need to give it space to grow before we ask it to perform. And most of all, we need to let it change us before we change it.
To do that, leaders must become designers of systems, not just managers of outcomes. They must ask: What behaviors are we rewarding? What stories are we telling? Are we building a future, or just managing decline?
Asset Management didn’t fail. It simply wasn’t given a chance to take root. But the story isn’t over. It’s still being written. And if we’re willing to change the system, we might just change the ending.
Welcome, Todd! Hello Julie!
Todd is our latest Talking Infrastructure board member from Tacoma, Washington State
If asset management is still struggling for recognition and full integration,
Maybe we have either got it wrong or haven’t evolved.
Hi Ashley, Thank you for the comment. I don’t think we have it wrong, but I do feel like it needs to evolve, that is the thinking behind the blog. I feel as a community we need to think of asset less of process we do to assets, and more of a mindset for how we think about our assets and how we make decisions about them. We’ll be posting more on this in the near future (at least I know Ruth and I will be.) If you have ideas on how to shift that mindset, or have had successes doing so, I’d love to hear about them.
Thanks Todd, I am very interested in this subject myself. When the boffins sat around and started developing asset management, as we know it, it fell into the infrastructure managers role and it was a bit divorced from the service managers. Too focused on the asset and not the service it provides.
I strongly believe AMP’s need a rewrite/rethink and need to be including in a service/business plan along with a maintenance plan, I see maintenance and asset management as seperate – as in Ruths other book. Even decentralising AM to each service area or have a centre of expertise that moves around the services rather than having it centralised under infrastructure or finance. I believe AMPs are something Ruth is also working on.
If the AMP is the responsibility of the service managers they will take more care and interest in what they have to say, which may resolve the integration issues. It becomes their plan not one written for them.
I often say that it was hijacked by the engineering profession when its more a strategic planning function and remember Penny is an economist after all.