Image by Mollyroselee from Pixabay
Before finding a solution, we first need to find the problem.
In last month’s post, I looked at two problems that we had solved. The first, insufficient housing and supporting infrastructure in the 1950s, was obvious and the solution simple. The second, asset renewal in the mid 1980s, took some finding, and the solution was far from simple, but once we understood what we had to do, we were able to do it. These are not our problems today, but what is? Fortunately, commentators on that last post have given us some clues. What do you think?
@Hein Aucamp observed that
“The first incarnation of AM tended to be asset-centric, renewal-based. Now it has moved to ever-greater levels of strategic consideration, delivering organisational value and services across an increasing set of measures, including sustainability. If AM stops taking into account emerging areas of value, it will definitely become less useful.”
Q1 Hein is right, it will. The question is, how can we know where to start and which new or emerging area to devote time to? What criteria could we use?
@Gregory Baird agreed with Hein that the AMgr’s work is broadening.
“Leaders can feel it: the work is getting more complex. Rates, regulations, climate, workforce, customer expectations — everything is moving, and everything is connected. Asset management can’t stay in its old lane”.
He suggested, “The next evolution is Integrated Infrastructure Stewardship — a holistic approach that blends financial architecture, demand behaviour, risk modelling, digital intelligence, and governance maturity into one continuous decision system. This is more than planning. It’s the operating model for the next generation of resilient cities and utilities. And it’s where the real opportunity lies for leaders who want to build systems that last.”
As exciting as this sounds, in theory, is it possible in practice? The AMgr, even the AM team, is no superman. Forty years ago, the problem was relatively simple. We knew the focus was asset renewal; we knew what we had to do, at least in principle, to get it. The Life Cycle Renewal Model gave us a tool and an approach.
Q2 Where is today’s ‘key question’ and what tools and approaches do we now need? Is the Life Cycle Renewal Model relevant to our new problems/
@Ian Greenwood challenges the idea that we have to be all things to all men. He argues,
“While the more advanced parts of AM have benefited a small group of infrastructure entities where chasing the 4th decimal point of reliability is of value, IMHO, the vast majority would benefit from just getting the basics right and avoiding the distractions of all the shiny bells and whistles.”
Q3 Do you agree? Is the ‘excitement of the new’ luring AMgrs into fields where they are able to contribute very little? And, if so, how do we, as an industry, cope with that?
@Martin Grey avoided the ‘do everything’ approach and focused on just one, ‘managing uncertainty’. He argued that
“Recognising and actively managing uncertainty is essential for making better decisions in the present and shaping more informed decisions in the future. This, of course, depends on having the right management information in place—supported by a continuous improvement capability that identifies emerging trends early, enabling timely intervention before issues escalate into incidents or crises.”
Q4 This got me thinking. I like the one-point focus, but does ‘managing uncertainty’ really depend on having ‘the right management information in place? ‘ If it truly does, we are done for. Not the least because it is probably impossible to tell in advance what the ‘right’ information is. And whatever it is, we probably don’t have it.
But surely it is right to focus on ‘continuous improvement capability’. Sounds exhausting, doesn’t it? But in the early days of asset management, that was what we were all doing.
@Philip Tiewater. His comment on the Talking Infrastructure blog is qualitatively different from the earlier comments. Philip says,
“This is a timely topic. In many cases, the infrastructure we have is not as necessary as once thought. Shifting commuting patterns, new regulations, and sea-level rise should drive more conversations about devolution (paved roads to dirt roads), repurposing (vehicle bridges to pedestrian bridges), and removal (replacing traffic signals with roundabouts) rather than life extension. The lowest-cost lifecycle decision is often not to (re)build it in the first place.”
Q5 I like this for it applies basic AM thinking to making ‘fit for the future’ AM decisions, and recognises that this applies not only to new assets but also to the replacement and modification of existing assets. What do you think?
OK. Here we have five suggestions. Where do we go from here?
My sincere thanks to Hein, Gregory, Ian, Martin and Philip.
ID 6497422 © Hans Slegers | Dreamstime.com
Several of us on the Talking Infrastructure Board will never write an AMP again.
That is, we are retired from paid AM work; but then we already have maybe 150 years of experience of Asset Management between us.
Using the Waves concept created by Penny Burns and Jeff Roorda, we propose two roads ahead for Talking Infrastructure.
The first, working title The Way of the AMP, is to collate and disseminate what we know about Wave 2 strategic Asset Management in useful formats, including Penny’s SAM archives. But we want to do more than capture current practice: we want to challenge and stretch AM practice within infrastructure organisations, including better risk, strategy and information management. People who are still pioneers in this space include Jeff Roorda and Todd Shepherd.
For this we are bringing in more and younger people still developing in their AM careers around the globe to add and challenge.
The second is to go beyond Wave 2, to ask better questions about infrastructure decision-making in our societies. Here, some current AM thinking may be part of the problem, not the solution to the challenges we face in the 2020s.
What are the infrastructure-related issues now? How have they changed since Penny created AM in the 1980s, to deal with problems inherited from the 1950s post World War II?
What does it mean to be a future friendly infrastructure planner in 2026?
Your input, please.
Our mission at Talking Infrastructure is to promote the good practices of Asset Management Wave 2 and develop thinking on Waves 3 and 4.
It’s an evolutionary model: you need the solid processes of whole life costing, sophisticated risk thinking, and longer-term asset planning both for the sake of your own organisation’s ability to deliver and to underpin (to ground) decisions on new infrastructure and new types of assets.
So we plan to:
- Continue to promote better strategic Asset Management, Wave 2, through re-emphasising the core AM tool of longer-term asset planning as well as development of more sophisticated asset risk and decision-making concepts
- Develop a guidebook to the AMP, to restate and update Penny’s original vision for the changing contexts of the 2020s, with case studies such as Grant County PUD
- We would also like to see campaigning for infrastructure regulators to have more teeth through AMP requirements and audits to encourage agencies to plan ahead
Plan for work on Wave 3, infrastructure decision making especially on new and renewed assets includes:
- Promote work already done, such as the UK Projects and Infrastructure Project Routemap module on Asset Management, https://projectdelivery.gov.uk/library-product/project-routemap-asset-management-module/ and our latest book Legacy: A Decision Maker’s Guide to Infrastructure
- There is a still a long way to go to shift from a construction delivery and short-term profit focus to planning the right assets and asset strategies in the first place. Shout out to Louise Hart working on how to succeed at infrastructure megaprojects (linkedin.com/in/louisehart750), and Johannes Paradza of Infrastructure Asset Management South Africa on how asset managers help meet the challenge of Cape Town’s infrastructure.
Resources on Wave 4, starting with Jeff’s work as Director of Infrastructure and Biodiversity at the Blue Mountains City Council
For all of these, we aim to build on friendly alliances with like-minded people and organisations.
Your input, please, on:
- In your experience, in what ways is Wave 2, strategic Asset Management, still not yet where we should be?
- Anything you already know of on Wave 3, better infrastructure decision-making in our communities?
- Inspiring examples on resilience, biodiversity, radically sustainable thinking on assets – away from grey assets?
What’s in your plan for 2026?
Memorial to Jules Verne, Amiens, ID 381624172 © Linda Williams | Dreamstime.com
One way to put my life in context is: when I was born, Robert Heinlein was king of science fiction.
Not that I knew this until ten or so years later, when I started to read my family’s collection of sci fi Penguins. We, naturally, also favoured British writers, who, if not noticeably more female or non-white, were at least less American gung-ho.
Now, the world of the future is very different, with some ‘non-binary’ writers, Afrofuturism, and radical ecologies. And good aliens, my favourite.
Between then and now, there have been a lot of post-apocalyptic dystopias, which I tend to keep away from. Post-scarcity anarchism is much more my thing (see Ursula K LeGuin, and Iain M Banks’ ‘Culture’, for example).
And hope.
If one defining feature of good Asset Management is developing longer term planning, and infrastructure urgently requires a future vision, can hopeful science fiction help us?
What’s your most inspiring example of a fictional future?
And a vision of future infrastructure?
30199342 | Happy © Michal Bednarek | Dreamstime.com
They say you should not have favourites among your children. But I found it impossible not to have favourite clients.
I always enjoyed some individuals, some asset managers in particular. More than being nice people – which they were – it was about understanding each other, speaking the same language. Many others I worked with over 30-plus years simply didn’t get what we were saying.
In another lifetime, I would love to figure out why I warmed to some regions more than others: why I loved asset managers in Indonesia, Malaysia, some Canada, west coast USA – and New Zealand, of course.
But favourite clients also include organisations run by the more visionary executives.
I did not always get near the C suite, or councillors. But my fondest working memories now are for those who were engaged. Taking me back to almost my earliest discussions about Asset Management change, about what is and is not possible unless there is a CEO who gets it.
Sometimes there were executives who almost got it, and those are not such happy memories. Some of them even know who they are, because I got to the point when I said this out loud, that they were not succeeding at Asset Management because of the bizarre choices they made. That they were the problem.
Happier to think about how much is possible if the top guys get it.
As opposed to industry sectors which believe in rapid turnover of CEOs who don’t stay around long enough to care about longer term plans.
Makes me think the ‘high reliability’ thinkers got it right about commitment.
How much real improvement on Asset Management is possible unless there is long-time leadership that cares?
Our communities have delegated the management of physical infrastructure assets to us – including the worrying about the systems, the future, and change.
A key AM principle is not to kick the can down the road. For example, if you can see you will have a shortage of resources to manage the assets in ten years’ time, you have to start to deal with that now. (It will take you ten years to sort out.)
In the world of physical assets, things generally only get worse when you ignore them.
Assets degrade, and what is a small risk one day becomes a bigger risk simply through time. A failing asset that you don’t deal with becomes a more seriously failing asset.
However, human beings in general are not very good about time.
- We focus more on present benefits than future benefits
- We are not naturally good at understanding risks
- We are poor at noticing and paying attention to anything that changes relatively slowly, as opposed to immediate crises.
Generally, the people in the communities we serve won’t always have a great understanding about physical assets anyway, and are not good at thinking ahead for their future.
Communities need to be able to delegate the responsibilities to people who are good at it: who specialize not only at the engineering and maintenance of physical systems, but at managing through time, for the future as well as today.
We need to tool ourselves up, flex our through-time mental muscles. What will the decisions we make now look like to ‘future us’?
We will not always get it right, but with physical infrastructure we need to be the ones who can start to think about risk and benefits in four dimensions.
It is not obvious who else is ever going to do this!
What tools have you successfully used to manage the future?
Summarised from Legacy, our latest publication
Legacy: A Decision Maker’s Guide to Infrastructure is published!
It’s a slim, elegant book aimed at councillors and C-suites to convey the realities of infrastructure, and the vital support a good Asset Management can provide to them.
Available as ebook or print on demand through Amazon.
‘Legacy: A Decision-Maker’s Guide to Infrastructure is not another technical manual. It’s a clear-eyed, call to rethink how we lead and make decisions about the physical assets that shape our daily lives – from water systems and roads to hospitals, parks, and transit networks.
Written by respected infrastructure thinkers, Ruth Wallsgrove and Lou Cripps, Legacy distills decades of frontline experience into practical guidance for those who carry the weight of stewardship. This isn’t about technology or buzzwords. It’s about responsibility. Clarity. Purpose. And asking better questions.’
Design by the wonderful Matt Miles – much gratitude again
see Resources
From script by Lou Cripps
Bad news for techies, but infrastructure is mostly money, business and politics.
Yes, Asset Management is about making better decisions on our physical assets. But not just any decisions: the wider, longer-term, strategy and co-ordination that organisations struggle with.
Operations already take care of immediate responses. Engineers are more than happy to focus on the technical details. Finance counts the money – but struggles to do more because it doesn’t get the honest information about the assets that it needs.
The gap that Penny Burns identified in 1984 was, first of all, planning for capital renewals to maintain the infrastructure base we already have, beyond the next year. A need most people didn’t even notice, let alone take on to fill.
In the forty years since, Penny has talked extensively about decisions for new infrastructure as well. About how the overall system needs to change to meet changing demands for service. And the impact of physical assets on the economy, the environment, our communities.
In other words, Strategic Asset Management.
In the past few years I have been asked to develop webinars and other support for better asset strategy and planning. My fundamental message is A. Strategy and planning are not the same, and B. they are complementary, and we need them both.
Over the next few weeks, we’d like to explore them both further. Starting with understanding why organisations are so bad at them.
- Asset Management planning is about the allocation of budget and resources. It therefore has plenty of opponents who only care that their own projects and assets get the money.
- Asset Management strategy requires standing back to think strategically, which many people (including CEOs) are not good at doing.
- There isn’t a formula, or a template. There are good questions, but some of them are hard, and many of them require saying no to some things, and some people. Not going along with the political clamour for simplistic solutions.
- There are vested interests – some of it bordering on corruption (who will make money from this decision?) And more who feel challenged on how they have done things in the past. Even on what they were trained to do.
What are your experiences of asset planning? What works – and what gets in the way?
Is any of it really a technical problem we can solve at our desks?
At least the pet duck enjoyed it
When we moved into our house, we first realised the problem when the mortgage company said we needed flood insurance, and discovered that would cost ten times the normal building and contents policy.
Until a smarter insurance company here sold us a cheaper policy based on postcode (in other words, by group of two or three houses), not Environment Agency flood areas: they spotted a market opportunity for a more precise risk assessment. Smug us!
Until six years later, and the house actually did flood.
And four years on, in late 2024, the water came to our front door twice, and overtopped the sand bags the second time.
And the risk of flooding in England is predicted to increase five-fold in the next decades under current projections for global warming.
However, Newport Pagnell is not Miami.
To be clear, our flooding is due to rain, and living next to where two rivers meet. Unfortunate timing of river surges – or someone getting the timing off on floodgates. We are nowhere near the sea and don’t get hurricanes, and so far the extent of our flooding is a few inches of water at the front of the house.
A few houses flooding a bit: you start thinking about resale values, and whether getting wet every year or so will do the brick walls and wood floorboards any good.
In South Florida, they face losing whole towns to the sea and the swamps. Many people live only a few feet above current sea levels, and the infrastructure is similarly low and at risk. They have to worry about overwhelmed sewerage systems and nuclear power plants.
Florida has such a tax-averse politics that it will come down to money for school education versus money for flood action soon for some towns. They continue to build right up to the sea and in areas only just above sea level, even as they watch the hurricanes track towards them. And of course the ruling Republicans also mostly deny climate change.
It would seem a perfect storm of human inability to face the facts.
But it is striking just how much of an issue it is for infrastructure. And that involves use of tax dollars, national insurance schemes, building codes, politics and Politics: so much more than simply technical questions.
Do we speak the right language/s to manage this?
Just a reflection on our own institutions.
I have been involved with the IAM on and off for almost 25 years. I attended Asset Management Council meetings and conferences (under different names) when I lived and worked in Australia in the 2000s. I have been impressed by the IPWEA since someone brought back a copy of the IIMM to the UK around 2001. My boss was instrumental in setting up the GFMAM.
These are just the most obvious AM institutions. (But shout out to Canadian AM networking here, too.)
They have not always been particularly friendly to each other, but at roughly 30 years old at their oldest, we seem to have developed some institutional maturity.
I was heartened to realise that, for all its limits – well delineated by Richard Edwards and others at the recent IAM UK conference – the revisions and new ISO 55000 documents involved hugely more people this time around.
The IAM itself has grown and now functions in more European and Asian countries, as well as succeeding in the USA; it has a truly excellent CEO in Ursula Bryan. I love the IPWEA ‘Ask Your Mates’, the kind of practical support we need from out networking.
But perhaps the best sign of all was a workshop last month on ‘Peak Infrastructure?’. A room full of Asset Managers asking what infrastructure we really need. And how there is work still to be done to make a lasting difference. Changing national government policies not to incentivise (or give in to developers and construction companies) building new when we can maintain what we have.
All physical assets come at a cost, often a very steep one in impact on the environment and communities. We have to take the lead to make sure we understand costs versus benefits.
That’s the real question when we get together as Asset Managers.
*IAM: Institute of Asset Management, HQ in UK. IPWEA: Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia. GFMAM: Global Forum on Maintenance and Asset Management, established by the IAM, Asset Management Council and others. Asset Management Council in Australia. Canadian Network of Asset Managers, plus Provincial AM networks such as AMBC and AMOntario.
Recent Comments