Development of Tools for Infrastructure Asset Management Cross-Asset Trade-off Analysis and Universal Performance Measure for Public Agencies

Abstract

While the modern monetary system, the limited liability corporation, and modern public infrastructure trace their beginnings to past centuries – use of the term “asset” when referring to public infrastructure started at the end of the 20th Century. With advances in computer technology, New Zealand and Australian public agencies were initial adopters and were the first to benefit from mass data availability on road infrastructure. Soon after, North America and the rest of the developed world followed in adopting what today is commonly referred to as infrastructure asset management practices. Infrastructure’s purpose remains the same as before – to support economic growth and societal accessibility. However, the new perspective of viewing it as an asset rather than an almost naturally occurring - passive societal commodity - has brought forth demand for increased transparency and evidence-based decision-making. Appropriate timing and action relative to asset’s performance and societal growth demands require a complex socio(org)-technical system to maximize the asset’s benefits to society and minimize the risk of it turning into a societal liability. The thesis presents an original approach to improving an organization’s decision-making capabilities by operationalizing asset management processes within vertical and horizontal public agency structures. One which uses organizational behaviour theory and operational analysis while leveraging civil engineering industry experience and engineering risk and reliability knowledge to develop-corporate data driven-asset performance measures. A novel horizontal information flow is mapped and introduced as the operationalizing asset management framework. It is used as a guide to shine a light on the asset management process complexities at tactical and operational levels of organizations. A new operational perspective on the definition of asset management is argued, one which sees it as an equal partnership between engineering and financial professionals reinforced with administrative policies and procedures. The effects of division of labour are reflected in the academic fields of engineering as well. Intra-departmental specializations within civil engineering include transportation, structural, hydrology, and further branching within each. With respect to infrastructure asset management this is a necessity as public agencies typically have a portfolio of varying assets ranging from roads, water distribution, sewer management, facilities, and parks - to name a few. For which different knowledge and skills are necessary in order to provide expert level management sought and claimed by managing agencies. As such, subject matter experts along with finance professionals make up the core team which functions within a compartmentalized structure of administrative policies and procedures. The two degrees of compartmentalization, one in the academic, other in the corporate setting has yielded organizationally silo-ed asset management processes competing for a single source of funding – public monies. Provided that all assets are equally important in providing a singular infrastructure system - as experienced by citizenry – the questions of which and why one is a priority over the other arise when there is a lack of funding for all within a particular time span. The research originally argued the need to use the inherit objectivity of monetary value to provide an objective method of cross-asset trade-off analysis to answer the “which”. While organizational theory and engineering experience is used to create new value from untapped potentials of existing organizational processes in creating one objective level playing field from which evidence-based decisions can rapidly be made and cataloged in answering the “why”. The research journey identified a significant bottleneck with the cross-asset item. Specifically, “field inspection of information” showed that the forecasting tools available to municipalities – within single asset classes – do not satisfy minimal scientific standards. Subsequently, it is argued that this is a naturally occurring limitation of the sample space, rather than a “continuous improvement item”. The research found that forecasting infrastructure spending needs according to the scientifically unreliable Age-Based approach overestimates them by 335%. This is compared to the scientifically reliable Consumer-Based approach that is based upon engineering risk and reliability.