Ten years ago, after 20 years, I brought SAM to a close. I asked past contributors what the key issues then were, and what we – as asset managers – should do. What did they say – and what would you say today?
Here is that issue, SAM 400. What are your favourites? Top of the list for me was Melinda Hodkiewizc, Professor of Engineering at the University of Western Australia, who bluntly stated it was time to ante up and provide evidence to support our claims for asset management. I could not agree more, but have we done it?
Several referred to the need to make things simpler – both in terms of action and communication and Peter Way, then Chairman of the IPWEA, while recognising the difficulty, spoke of the critical need for asset managers to speak out whenever they see their political masters moving in a questionable direction. If only! After all, if we who know don’t do it, who can?
Many recognised the importance of the quality of our people in AM and the need for us to continue to think and to develop our abiliies, not mindlessly react. The ever practical Ashay Prabhu, implored us to ‘stop measuring the gap and start plugging it’.
While most focused on developed countries, Jo Parker, the only engineer I know who has had to build a bridge under duress with limited resources – whilst wearing a burka! – argued that “To spread AM to developing countries, first understand their world!” Is it ignorance or arrogance that drives so many ‘advisors’ from developed countries to assume what works for us will work everywhere?
What were the key issues then? Alan Butler, then Director of the Australian Center of Value Management, now retired, identified the following:
- depletion of core skills and the resultant dumbing down of the asset portfolio “clients” who need to be responsible for effective briefing and critical review of solutions being delivered on their behalf – the asset client must remain an informed client;
- the politicising of the public service where whole agencies are wrapped up in the short term priorities of the incumbent colour of government at the expense of strategic, portfolio-wide context – impartial advice, without fear or favour must exist;
- changing the procurement models that place specialist consultants in a position of technical influence where smaller solutions or non-build solutions are not in their commercial interest to present to the engaging “client” – no matter whether the arrangement is called an Alliance, Strategic partnership, Design & Construct, the “non-asset” or smaller solution must always be sought and tabled for real consideration;
- not understanding what “value for money” means for each client – these words are written everywhere including White Papers, policy, business cases and project briefs with very little understanding or ability to explain, measure or demonstrate what levels are sought and achieved – We have the tools and institutions to address this.
I think that this was a pretty good list for the time. What are the most critical issues we should now address? Thoughts?
The main issue facing is poor Infrastructure Decision Making. We have sufficient understanding of infrastructure to build, maintain, and retire it as needed; as well as the ability to understand the services infrastructure delivers, as well as the drivers for the public desire for the service. Where we don’t succeed is in the application of this knowledge and ability in the decision making for new infrastructure, and retirement of the unneeded or under-performing. While linked to “the politicising of the public service” the issue is exacerbated by (sometimes wilful) ignorance on behalf of the decision makers. The inputs to the decision making process do not include advice from experts, but are made using a simplistic model based on assumption and inference; a model that suits the current political cycle.
The solution is education. Not so much for senior officials, as they are time-poor, but of the upcoming decision makers. Simple education on how infrastructure decisions should be made, how the desire for services can be understood, how the public good is best served. This way the debate can include the decision making process. Debate on new roads can include the reasons for journeys, rather than accepting that congestion is inevitable. Where does this education start? High school is ideal, not through new subjects, but change in the existing. An inclusion of rational decision making as a component to existing study, in much the same way as environment, and prejudice are included, and for much the same reasons and outcomes.