Why We Need Wave 3

How do we get AM into decisions and projects for new assets?

I fear we haven’t quite got there yet. The lure of shiny new things means that even in those organisations where Asset Management is almost business as usual… any thinking about the whole ‘lust to dust’ lifecycle management, even basic on-going costs, goes out the window as soon as opportunities to access money for new (such as Biden’s 2021 Infrastructure Plan) arise.

It’s almost as if organisations can tolerate Asset Management – as long it does not impinge on their fun. 

And so we continue to build long-term liabilities.

Wave 3 is ensuring that Asset Management, and Asset Managers, have their seat at the top table in decisions about growth and shiny new things.  And once we are there, to ask very hard questions about both of them.

I would like to explore how we get to be at that table, and that ‘future friendly assets’ start, but don’t end, with a healthy scepticism about building anything new.

  • What are they really going to cost over their whole life?
  • Who really benefits from them?
  • What do we rule out by investing in them, as opposed to something else?
  • And what might we actually destroy in the process?

How do we make sure we are at the table to be able to ask them?

For a longer article on what goes wrong when Asset Management is not on the table, please see:

Why We Need Another Wave (or Two) | Talking Infrastructure

Waves Plus

In May 2018, Penny Burns and Jeff Roorda wrote here about three revolutions in Asset Management later renamed ‘waves’, because that captures better the idea that one wave doesn’t supersede another.

Since then, we have discussed with each other and many others how Wave 1, Asset Inventory, is more successful if you already have in mind the vision of Wave 2, Strategic Asset Management and how you are going to use all of the information you collect. 

We have looked at what Asset Management practitioners need to develop to move on from this, to be able to look beyond our own organisations, to a bigger role in supporting our communities. We called this Wave 3, supporting better ‘Infrastructure Decision Making’

We have even begun to imagine Wave 4.

As Penny puts it: whereas Wave 1 looked at WHAT we had, and Wave 2 looked at HOW we needed to manage it, Wave 3 started to ask WHO we were serving by our efforts. This has brought us now to start thinking more deeply about this question and about the next move, looking at the critical question of WHY.

As Asset Management practitioners, we have to ensure we are in the right positions of influence to be able to challenge existing infrastructure assumptions, which is what I think Wave 3 is all about. To look ‘up and out’, as Lou Cripps of RTD puts it.

But we can already spot that there is no point in being able to ask hard questions, if we don’t have the right questions to ask….

What do we mean by ‘better’?

Legacy

Jos van Ouwerkerk, pexels.com

People like us who are responsible for managing public infrastructure assets always leave a legacy. Good or bad, that depends on how well we do our jobs now.

Famously politicians, along with billionaires, are attracted to the idea of a shiny new asset with their name on it. They see themselves remembered and honoured every time anyone drives down a road named for them.  But this is often not true.

Firstly, if the road is poorly designed and badly maintained, no-one will be honouring your memory.

Secondly, if this puts the community into long-term debt, or wrecks other community benefits such as a stream or potential for other services – anything that will prevent them from doing what is needed in future: this is a poor legacy.  Even if not everyone remembers it was your doing, they will not think kindly about whoever was responsible for such short-sightedness.

Thirdly, by definition, it is a poor public servant who puts their own ego against the needs of their community.

What would be a good legacy?

What would you like to leave for future generations?