The Asset Journal

The Asset Journal, Volume 19, Issue 1

According to Infrastructure Australia, there are approximately AUD 110 billion worth of infrastructure projects in the Federal Government’s pipeline, to be built over the next 10 years. Regardless of which of these projects eventually proceed, this still represents a significant volume of future assets, with more to be added by state governments. This scale of new assets suggests that a strong asset management framework should be in place for each asset owner.

Many asset owners recognise the value of asset management and may have implemented a framework. However, it is not yet clear how effectively these frameworks are being applied, as we continue to see many infrastructure projects facing the same challenges as private industry projects, including:
Value erosion due to a lack of focus on asset life cycle support (operations support requirements).
Value erosion occurs when critical operational information—such as comprehensive maintenance programs, operating instructions, failure mode analyses, and other elements that enable life cycle costing and level of service delivery—is missing or insufficient.

An asset management framework should, of course, identify what should be delivered by projects, yet there is often a lack of clearly defined requirements. Requirements set by the asset owner form the foundation for value delivery. In a recent engagement with a client, I encountered a situation where an infrastructure project was delayed, and the project manager stated that he could not deliver all the spares requirements, training requirements, maintenance strategies and programs, and operations and maintenance instructions. He required separate funding for these elements but showed little interest in ensuring their inclusion within project delivery. Instead, he expected the asset owner to manage these aspects after start-up. Does that sound familiar?

Digital project delivery and asset management frameworks have been proven to provide significant benefits. The United Kingdom’s government appears to be ahead of others, having issued strict guidelines for infrastructure and other public utilities, outlining what is required and how projects should ensure the levels of service needed are achieved. The government’s Building Information Modelling (BIM) guidelines are considered best practice for projects, as they stipulate operational requirements as well. They also conduct asset benchmarking to assess effectiveness in asset management and asset performance.

There is perhaps something to be learned here, as infrastructure asset management also encompasses resilience and sustainability. When these factors are incorporated into infrastructure asset requirements, it may become inevitable that asset management frameworks are used to achieve these outcomes. The reality of asset management is that there are still many challenges to overcome in its effective application. Meeting social, financial, technical, health and safety, resilience, and sustainability obligations remains a complex task for those managing infrastructure assets.

Perhaps AMPEAK 2025 presents an opportunity to network and share knowledge. The evolving landscape of asset management presents a chance to implement a step change in your practice. We look forward to seeing you at AMPEAK!

theasset@amcouncil.com.au