The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-124X.htm

Effectiveness of infrastructure
asset management: challenges for
public agencies
Daan Schraven, Andreas Hartmann and Geert Dewulf

Infrastructure
asset
management
61

Department of Construction Management and Engineering,

University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this research is to better understand the decisions in infrastructure asset
management at public agencies and the challenges of these agencies to improve the effectiveness of
their decision making.
Design/methodology/approach Based on a literature review on asset management at public
agencies, a case study was used to investigate the decision making of a provincial agency in The
Netherlands. A total of 12 semi-structured interviews with employees of the agency were conducted,
amended by an analysis of policy documents, maintenance contracts, inspection reports, and planning
documents.
Findings The research revealed that key challenges to achieving effective infrastructure asset
management are: the establishment of alignment between infrastructure objectives, situation and
intervention; the formulation of infrastructure objectives; and the management of multiple actors with
different interests.
Practical implications Public agencies should pay more attention to clearly defined infrastructure
objectives which are consistent with the agencies strategic policy goals and interests of multiple
stakeholders. That also includes that public agents need to develop new skills and knowledge to cope
with the various challenges of effective infrastructure asset management.
Originality/value The research clustered decisions in infrastructure management into three
decision areas and showed that effectiveness of the decision making is constituted through the
interrelationship of these areas and depends on clearly defined objectives.
Keywords Assets management, Public agency, Effectiveness, Decision making, The Netherlands
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Across the world the performance of public infrastructure networks
(e.g. transportation, water supply, sewerage systems) strongly affects the economic
viability and social welfare of nations. Over the years, public agencies have continually
allocated large budgets for the maintenance, renovation and reconstruction (MR&R)
work to guarantee a performance level that meets the expectations of the different
infrastructure stakeholders. In recent years, however, many agencies have been
confronted with budgetary constraints that put pressure on the agencies scope of
MR&R activities. At the same time, the expectations in terms of reliability, safety
and availability of the infrastructure networks have steadily increased (Arts et al.,
2008). In order to master these twin challenges, the agencies are seeking new measures
and processes to manage their infrastructure assets more effectively.
Asset management has emerged as an approach in the sector of public
infrastructure, which promises to achieve more value with fewer resources
(Moon et al., 2009). Not surprisingly, asset management principles increasingly
expand into the working practice of public agencies (Switzer and McNeil, 2004), and
a growing body of practice and research-related literature offers models and tools
to support infrastructure decision making (e.g. IIMM, 2006; Garland et al., 2009).

Built Environment Project and Asset

Management
Vol. 1 No. 1, 2011
pp. 61-74
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2044-124X
DOI 10.1108/20441241111143786

BEPAM
1,1

62

Notwithstanding the widespread interest in asset management, scant attention has

been paid to the challenges that the agencies face when striving for an improved
effectiveness of their decision making. That is surprising as the management of public
infrastructure assets is seen to gain in complexity caused by technical, economic,
environmental, political and social factors (Godau, 1999). Many asset management
tools and principles have been developed and applied in manufacturing industries
(Liyanage and Kumar, 2003; Schuman and Brent 2005) serving the sole purpose of
profit making by maintaining production equipment to a performance level directly
related to investments made. However, little is known about how to apply effective
asset management in public infrastructure, which seems to be more challenging since:
(1)

the function of infrastructure assets is complex;

(2)

norms are needed to define failure and benfits of the assets; and

(3)

these norms are hard to quantify or measure (Dekker, 1996).

The present study seeks to shed some more light on the decisions in infrastructure
asset management at public agencies, and to better understand the challenges of these
agencies to improve the effectiveness of their decision making. In order to do so, first
the literature of various asset management approaches in infrastructure for public
agencies is reviewed. Second, the results of a case study on the management of
infrastructure assets in a Dutch public agency are presented. The case study analyzes
how a Dutch public agency copes with asset management decisions. Subsequently,
the case findings are discussed in terms of the challenges to achieve effectiveness in
this decision making. The paper ends with some concluding remarks.
Asset management decisions
Although asset management has been the subject of practice and research for decades,
there is no common understanding of what asset management is. It is conceptualized
as a capability (Wenzler, 2005), process (Amadi-Echendu, 2004) or responsibility
(Vanier, 2001).
A typical way to address asset management is by means of process models that are
meant to guide users into following stepwise activities and making rational choices.
However, decisions are not always clearly pointed out in these models, and the number
and kind of decisions mentioned differ between models. Some scholars only include a
few decisions and relate them in a linear fashion (Vanier, 2001; Rouse and Chiu, 2009),
whereas other authors offer models with multiple decisions and several feedback and
feedforward loops (Neumann and Markow, 2004; Haffajee and Brent, 2008). Despite
these differences, three general areas of decision making can be identified:
(1)

decisions with regard to the infrastructure objectives of the public agencies;

(2)

decisions with regard to the performance-related situation of the agencys

infrastructure; and

(3)

decisions with regard to the interventions applied by the agency to the

infrastructure.

Table I shows an overview of various studies that propose an asset management

process model for public agencies and the decisions that are related to the three areas.
First, the infrastructure objective area refers to decisions about what a public
agency attempts to accomplish with its infrastructure assets. Here vision is seen as an

Determination of
policy goals and
asset management
objectives that
reflect these goals
Not explicitly
mentioned

Neumann and
Markow (2004)

Not explicitly
mentioned

Not explicitly
mentioned

Vanier (2001)

Howard (2001)

Rouse and Chiu

(2009)

Not explicitly
mentioned
Determination of
objectives for asset
management
program

Haffajee and
Brent (2008)
Malano et al.
(1999)

References

Decision area
infrastructure
objective

Definition of assets
Definition of capital and
maintenance bounds
Way to assess condition and
revaluation time
Way to express condition
Choice to apply asset information
system

Way to balance performance, risk

and cost of an asset

Not explicitly mentioned

Determination of the unacceptable

asset performance level
Determination of when investment
is required
Determination of required costs,
efficiency and effectiveness of the
asset
Determination of financial model
for actual system cost
Identification of performance
measures

Decision area infrastructure

situation

Alternative projects and services

traded off in performance and cost
Programming funds from various
sources to specific programs,
projects and services
Way to balance costs, production
quantity and quality
Maintenance project activity mix
What to fix first
Planning of maintenance in terms
of period and budget
Allocation of scarce resources
Justification of a project

Choice of types of intervention

projects
Amount of capital required
Prioritization of investments
Choice of types of intervention
projects
Planning day-to-day operations

Decision area infrastructure

intervention

(continued)

Effectiveness is equal to the asset

quality divided by the amount of
work
Reduction of costs for maintenance,
repair and renewal and timely
service delivery with less disruption
Not explicitly mentioned, but it is
associated with a favorable cost level
for operations on an asset to provide
services

Alignment of performance measures

with objectives, which
unambiguously reflect policy

Provision of a well-defined level of

service and best fit of operating
costs

Not explicitly mentioned

Achievement of effectiveness

Infrastructure
asset
management
63

Table I.
Asset management
decisions and
effectiveness

Table I.

Identification of
objective
categories that are
impacted by
renewal projects
Not explicitly
mentioned

Karydas and
Gifun (2006)

Determination of
program and
project goals for
multinational
infrastructure
investments
Determination of
project selection
criteria consistent
with policy

Tsamboulas
(2007)

Iniestra and
Gutierrez (2009)

Choice of goals for

infrastructure
systems

Li and Sinha
(2009)

Piyatrapoomi
et al. (2004)

Not explicitly
mentioned

Determination of
project selection
criteria

Gharaibeh et al.
(2006)

Selih et al. (2008)

Formation of infrastructure
program
Identify prospective projects to
evaluate
Way to identify attractive solutions
Project selection

Not explicitly mentioned

Choice which investment to

consider
Deployment of advanced
technology
Investments for highway system
Project selection

No clear answer recognized, but it is

associated with the evaluation of
projects

Not explicitly mentioned, but is

associated with analyzing risk
scenarios, the alternative with the
most benefits is chosen
Not explicitly mentioned, but it is
associated with a favorable cost
position by optimizing the portfolio
of projects under given constraints
Not explicitly mentioned

Not explicitly mentioned

Choice to renew infrastructure

Prioritization of projects

Fund allocation to diverse asset

classes and programs

Execution of work requires a

minimal cost level upon which it
does not compromise the safety and
comfort of the users
Not explicitly mentioned

Achievement of effectiveness

Selection of intervention projects

across a broad spectrum of assets

Decision area infrastructure

intervention

Not explicitly mentioned

Determination of importance per

performance measure

Way to identify risk impact

Way to inventory assets

Defining the indicators for
condition assessment
Way to rate and assess conditions
Choice of project-level and
network-level performance
indicators to measure
Performance threshold
Not explicitly mentioned

Decision area infrastructure

situation

64

References

Decision area
infrastructure
objective

BEPAM
1,1

important starting point. For example, Sklar (2005) mentions that a first step in
asset management is the establishment of high-level strategic goals, which are often
publicly derived interests such as quality of service, universal access and low price
(Koppenjan et al., 2008). Public agencies often translate these higher level goals into
asset management programs (Li and Sinha, 2009) and more specific infrastructure
objectives such as the increase of pavement condition (Neumann and Markow, 2004).
However, the determination of infrastructure objectives is not often explicitly
addressed in the process models. Instead, the existence of these objectives is often
assumed (as given), and the emphasis lies on decisions within the other two areas,
which although referring to objectives as decision criteria, first and foremost focus
on performance thresholds, resource allocation and project selection.
Second, the infrastructure situation area relates to the technical and functional
performance of an infrastructure asset and its general characteristics (e.g. age,
structure) in the decision making. Information about the technical performance of
assets is required to determine the likelihood and impact of physical failure.
Information about the functional performance describes the extent of the functional
fulfilment of infrastructure (Neumann and Markow, 2004). Many sources acknowledge
that determining measures for performance and conditions is an important
decision (Howard, 2001; Neumann and Markow, 2004) to obtain a picture of the
current infrastructure situation and its development over time that reflects
the formulated infrastructure objectives. In order to evaluate the extent to which the
infrastructure situation complies with these objectives, decisions are required on
the method to assess the infrastructure situation (Selih et al., 2008) and on the
thresholds when the infrastructure situation becomes unacceptable (Haffajee and
Brent, 2008). A preceding decision involves the delimitation of assets and geographical
areas to allow the allocation of resources, e.g. bridges, pavements and tunnels
(Howard, 2001).
Third, the infrastructure intervention area refers to decisions about the
premeditated work on an infrastructure asset throughout its life cycle. That includes
the selection of projects (Li and Sinha, 2009), which can be done for example by ranking
projects according to importance (Karydas and Gifun, 2006). Thus, another decision
deals with the method to apply to select projects and which plays an important part in
justifying a project convincingly (Howard, 2001). Before projects are selected, they
need to be identified. Projects do not exist out there, but are created through the
assembly of the work to be fixed (Vanier, 2001; Iniestra and Gutierrez, 2009). A decision
associated with identifying projects is the choice to use intervention types with
different levels of intensity, for example the renovation or rehabilitation of an asset
(Malano et al., 1999). The levels are not necessarily fixed (Haffajee and Brent, 2008)
and can vary for each public agency. Often intervention projects are defined for a
program (Li and Sinha, 2009). That makes the definition of a program a decision that
precedes project selection, for example to find a predefined ideal mix of projects
at different intervention levels (Rouse and Chiu, 2009). Implementation order of
projects and activity planning decisions within projects represent logical steps that are
associated with the identification and selection of projects (Vanier, 2001).
Besides the three decision area, Table I also shows when effective asset
management is achieved, according to various authors. Although not all authors
explicitly address the effectiveness of asset management decision making, two main
streams of argumentation can be identified. A first group of authors considers the
effectiveness of asset management to be achieved when policy goals, infrastructure

Infrastructure
asset
management
65

BEPAM
1,1

66

objectives, performance measures and intervention selection criteria are directly

related or the relationship between them is clearly defined (Iniestra and Gutierrez,
2009; Malano et al., 1999; Neumann and Markow, 2004). The majority of authors
focus on cost-effectiveness of interventions, suggesting that asset management is
effective when infrastructure interventions increase the service level at equal cost,
or they maintain the service level but cost less (Vanier, 2001; Malano et al., 1999;
Rouse and Chiu, 2009; Piyatrapoomi et al., 2004; Karydas and Gifun, 2006).
The literature review revealed that asset management decisions can be clustered
around three main decision areas: infrastructure objectives, infrastructure situation
and infrastructure intervention. The distinction of these three areas may act as
comprehensive approach to identify and align important decisions in the asset
management process. However, the proposed process models do not always explicitly
mention decisions in all three areas. Particularly for the infrastructure objective
area they are rather implicitly embraced, and the existence of well-defined objectives
is often taken for granted. Since the review also indicated that a number of
relationships between the three decision areas exist, here the argument is put forward
that the effectiveness of asset management at public agencies is constituted through
the interrelatedness of these three decision areas. That also implies that the challenges
of achieving effective decision making in infrastructure asset management are
associated with the alignment of the decisions within the three areas. However, until
now there has been little empirical support for this argument.
Case study
Research design
Given the scant knowledge on the interrelatedness of the three decision areas in
infrastructure asset management and the challenges associated with it to achieve
effective decision making at public agencies, a case study approach was chosen. Case
studies are particularly appropriate if the holistic nature of real-world contexts
and largely unexplored phenomena are addressed (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
This research relies on a single case study, since it attempts to empirically underpin
the above argument and by doing so to contribute to our understanding of effective
decision making in infrastructure asset management. The case is expected to be a
source of rich data providing detailed insights into the effectiveness of asset
management decision making at a public agency and the associated challenges.
The case that is investigated is a provincial public agency in the Netherlands which
is responsible for the management of approximately 750 km of trunk and back roads
and more than 200 civil engineering objects. MR&R activities are organizationally
and financially separated. One department is responsible for routine maintenance
activities, another for renovation and reconstruction work. Each department employs
approximately 30 persons. The case is primarily interesting for the study due to the
cost-ineffectiveness of the infrastructure asset management as revealed by a study of
the provincial court of audit. The ineffectiveness increases the likelihood of the case to
elicit the challenges of the agency in asset management decision making.
Multiple data collection methods can strengthen the grounds of case findings
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Therefore, interviews and several document types are part of the
data collection. In order to reveal important decisions and their interrelatedness,
12 semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees from the two
departments and different organizational levels including road inspectors (two
interviews), technical managers (five interviews), policy makers (two interviews)

and department managers (three interviews). The interviewees were asked about
the three decisions areas in relation to their own field of working. All interviews were
tape recorded and transcribed for subsequent analysis. The analysis also included
policy documents, maintenance contracts, inspection reports and planning documents.
The documents allowed, on the one hand, the validation of findings from the interviews
and, on the other hand, the extraction of inconsistent relationships between decisions
which could be addressed in the interviews. In the following, it is described how the
agency addresses the three decision areas of asset management.

Infrastructure
asset
management
67

Infrastructure objectives
The traffic and transport policies of the provincial agency set the framework for
infrastructure objectives. An overall vision for the future mobility of the province
was formulated and several strategies were defined to accomplish that vision in
practice. One of the strategies included MR&R of infrastructure that were seen as
important for the economic development and social welfare of the region. In other
words, the provincial infrastructure possesses multiple functions and serves different
interests that made maintenance and upgrading it a strategic goal.
Although in the policy the rationale for asset management decisions is given,
infrastructure objectives are not specified. With the policy for maintenance quality,
the MR&R departments intended to formulate these objectives. However, they only
indirectly defined infrastructure objectives for the daily maintenance by applying a
calculation method for maintenance costs compiled by a nationwide institution for
infrastructure. The starting points of this method are four quality levels for
infrastructure objects such as roads and waterways: optimal, good, average and
fair. The average quality level is defined as what is prevalent in the Netherlands.
The quality levels are linked with six infrastructure objectives: safety, accessibility,
convenience, appearance, quality of life and environment. By choosing a specific
quality level, a statement is made about the objectives to be achieved. The
relationship between quality level and infrastructure objective for roads is depicted
in Table II.

Infrastructure
objective
Safety
Accessibility
Convenience
Appearance
Quality of life
Environment

Quality level
Average

Optimal

Good

Minimal risk of
accidents
Accessibility not
at risk
Very convenient

Low risk of
Low risk of
accidents
accidents
Accessibility not Accessibility
at risk
partly restricted
Convenient
Convenient

Very good
appearance
Quality of life not
at risk
Environmental
danger as low as
possible

Good appearance Sufficient

appearance
Quality of life not Quality of life not
at risk
at risk
Environmental
Environmental
danger according
danger lower
to law
than law

Fair
Low risk of
accidents
Accessibility
restricted
Somewhat
convenient
Moderate
appearance
Quality of life
partly at risk
Environmental
danger according
to law

Table II.
Quality level and
infrastructure objectives
for roads

BEPAM
1,1

68

In its policy for maintenance quality, the agency formulated a quality vision for roads
that aims at an average quality level (defined as good quality in Table II) for all road
maintenance work except for winter maintenance. This quality vision is further
specified in the policy for daily road maintenance that translates the infrastructure
objectives into sub-objectives, provides indicators and maintenance norms to
achieve these sub-objectives, and calculates maintenance cost based on the norms.
However, the policy does not include renovation and reconstruction work, nor does
it include a maintenance policy for civil engineering objects and waterways.
Besides incompleteness, the policy for maintenance quality and the policy for road
maintenance are not consistent and concerted. Since the provincial agency uses a
general method for formulating infrastructure objectives, both policies are not directly
based on the overall policy for traffic and transport. Some of the infrastructure
objectives such as safety and accessibility are not deduced from the traffic and
transport policy, although the policy gives guidance for these objectives. For example,
in the traffic and transport policy the safety objective is stated as having not more
than 32 traffic deaths and not more than 300 injured who need a hospital, whereas
the safety objective in the maintenance policy is formulated as low risk of accidents.
For other objectives such as appearance and quality of life it remains completely
unclear which relationship they have to the overall mobility policy of the provincial
agency. The same holds true for the infrastructure objectives to be achieved (Table II),
which are also based on the general calculation method. This can be illustrated by the
way the objectives are determined. First, a quality level is chosen which leads to a
specific objective. In other words, the means define the objectives. Since the objectives
of the general method are non-specific (e.g. low, sufficient), the agency formulated
additional sub-objectives and indicators to allow for measuring and monitoring.
For example, the general safety objective low risk of accidents is transformed into
the sub-objective no accidents caused by pending maintenance, and road roughness
and levelness are chosen as indicators. However, given the definition of safety extent
to which accidents are prevented road roughness and levelness do not represent
indicators but rather means to achieve the safety objective. The objective itself is
measurable (no accidents) and does not need any indicators. There are also objectives
that are not directly measurable such as a convenient infrastructure for which
indicators are required to determine whether the objective is achieved. If, for
example, convenience is defined as the extent to which road users experience the
infrastructure as convenient, the number of road user complaints may serve as
indicator. The provincial agency, however, identified signage and drainage as
indicator for convenience, which in fact are again means to ensure a certain level
of convenience.
Infrastructure interventions
The agency distinguishes between three major types of intervention, which are
separated as to organization and to budget: daily maintenance activities, renovation
and reconstruction projects. Daily maintenance includes short-term maintenance
work (less than one year), which can be both corrective and preventive. It primarily
aims at maintaining the performance of the infrastructure asset and removing
unsafe traffic situations, which occur unexpectedly. Maintenance work is partly done
by the agencys road inspectors. Renovation projects also include corrective or
preventive activities, but are planned and carried out in a medium-term period (one to
five years) with the aim of maintaining or improving the performance of the

infrastructure. For most civil engineering objects, the annual budget is the basis for
the project planning. If there are no unsafe situations expected, the budget which has
remained stable over the years determines the amount of work to be done. The starting
point for the planning of the annual renovation projects of roads is the deterioration
and based on that, the remaining lifetime of single road sections. By combining several
sections, an attempt is made to find the technically and economically optimal
renovation planning. The annual budget represents the major constraint in this regard.
Reconstruction projects have a long-term orientation (grater than five years), again
with a corrective or preventive nature. Often the aim is to improve the performance or
change the function of the infrastructure. The planning of reconstruction projects is a
continuous process that often takes several years due to the major impact the project
has on the infrastructure environment. Renovation and reconstruction projects are
done by private sector contractors. Although the three interventions suggest a logical
delimitation, each intervention option is characterized by a process starting with the
collection of information about the infrastructure situation, followed by the planning of
the work to be done and the determination of the required budget. Each intervention
shows uncertainties (e.g. deterioration, available budget), which cause changes in the
extent of work or the time planning. As a consequence, all three interventions show
some overlap with each other. A clear separation of budgetary and organizational
responsibility appears to be difficult with the risk of redundancy. For example, the
policy for daily road maintenance applies a long-term perspective through which
actually renovation or reconstruction projects are described.
Infrastructure situation
The agency decided to use different ways of measuring and monitoring the conditions
of their infrastructure assets. Besides daily inspections through which unexpected
occurrences are detected and kept in weekly reports, roads and civil engineering
objects are annually inspected. Civil engineering objects are visually inspected,
whereas for roads specific measuring methods and tools are available and used.
Inspection data from both assets are stored in databases. The database for civil
engineering objects only indirectly reveals the development of the infrastructure
condition by listed observations coming from visual inspections. However, the data
from road inspections allows the agency to calculate the remaining lifetime of road
sections and to determine when maintenance is necessary. For this calculation the
agency can make use of specific deterioration models provided by the aforementioned
nationwide institute for infrastructure. The calculation methods also allow for linking
the condition development to the four quality levels (see Table II). For civil engineering
objects the quality is evaluated by employees and is based on their tacit knowledge
and experience.
Although the agency is conscious of possible political, social and technical changes
and their impact on the situation of the infrastructure assets, a risk analysis of these
factors is not conducted. Clearly defined quality levels for civil engineering objects
and their components do not exist, implying that the agency cannot objectively state
whether maintenance is deferred. It is a judgment made by single employees.
Deviating opinions often occur, and consequently discussions take place about the
necessity, extent and time of maintenance. Moreover, discussions arise about the kind
of intervention activities to be applied. The quality levels can be achieved by different
intervention means that have different consequences for future interventions and
finally for the MR&R costs. For example, the safety of a road section can be attained by

Infrastructure
asset
management
69

BEPAM
1,1

70

preservation measures. Over the short term such measures are less expensive than
more constructive interventions. Over the long term they may have a stronger
budgetary effect since they need to be applied more often. Furthermore, by choosing
preservation measures, this means the actual damage is likely to remain, and it will
become worse and require much more extensive and costly interventions. Without
agreement on the quality levels and the time in which the required interventions are
done, the extent to which maintenance is deferred is hard to determine.
Analysis and discussion
This research was triggered by the attempt of many public agencies to increase the
effectiveness of their decision making on infrastructure. The intention of the research
was to explore the challenges of public agencies, when adopting asset management
principles. Based on the case study results presented in the previous section, a number
of challenges can be identified and are discussed below.
Challenge of aligning decision areas
The case study supports the initial argument that a major challenge for the effectiveness
of asset management at public agencies lies in the alignment of decisions with regard to
infrastructure objective, situation and intervention. All three decision areas cannot be
considered separately; they are interrelated. Neumann and Markow (2004) emphasize
that for decisions to be effective, particularly the relationship between infrastructure
objectives and the other two areas needs to be clearly devised. This relationship is weak
in the case of the provincial agency. The reason is that there were insufficiently
formulated objectives for the management of infrastructure assets. Consequently, an
assessment of infrastructure condition and performance was hardly possible, and
decisions on intervention options could not be justified. For example, the budget for road
renovation projects had been increased in the last years in order to cope with the
accelerated deterioration. However, without a comprehensive set of infrastructure
objectives, the increased budget could not be justified, and the effect of its usage on road
performance could not be determined. It remained unclear what the current road
performance was and which future quality level the province was striving for.
Since no clear objectives were defined, employees relied on their own knowledge
and experiences regarding whether maintenance was overdue and to which extent.
This knowledge and past experience, which is mostly implicit or tacit, determined the
employees picture of what good maintenance is and eventually formed employees
decisions and choices in terms of infrastructure situation and intervention. For
example, several criteria were used to prioritize MR&R work due to the restricted
budget. Often safety had the highest priority and MR&R work, which resolved unsafe
situations, was carried out first. Employees also tried to combine MR&R work to
minimize traffic disturbance. However, these prioritizations were more implicitly
assumed than explicitly determined.
Alignment between decisions of the three areas is not a sequential or straight
forward task as some literature may suggest (e.g. Vanier, 2001; Selih, 2008). Li and
Sinha (2009) refer to asset management as an optimization problem for infrastructure
systems, framed within constraints on budget and benefit to cost ratio. Budgets and
benefits are subject to contextual changes that continuously influence the boundary
conditions of and criteria for the decisions. Changes may include new political
orientations, more strict environmental regulations, new construction technology or a
changed demand. The effectiveness of asset management will depend on the extent

to which these contextual changes are anticipated and lead to adjusted decisions
within and between the three areas.
Challenge of defining objectives
Based on the case study and in line with Dekker (1996), it can be argued that another
challenge for public agencies is the definition of infrastructure objectives which
provide the rationale for the evaluation of infrastructure condition and performance,
and the prioritization of MR&R activities. As explained above, such a definition
represents a prerequisite for the alignment with the situation and the interventions.
Most interesting, however, is that the definition of infrastructure objectives has been
widely neglected in previous studies and that objectives have been taken for granted.
The case study revealed that public agencies face difficulties in formulating
infrastructure objectives that are consistent with the agencies strategic policy goals.
Infrastructure assets possess several functions in the wider context of regions and
consequently serve multiple interests of different stakeholders. This makes
determining the contributions of assets to these interests difficult. In addition, these
contributions are difficult to translate to thresholds and indicators of an assets
functional and technical performance. For example, in the public agency studied here,
the policy for road maintenance was intended to translate infrastructure objectives into
interventions for daily maintenance. The frequency of interventions to achieve a
certain quality level was provided. Most of these frequencies, however, had a mediumterm or long-term perspective that hampered monitoring and maintaining the
infrastructure on a daily basis to implement the interventions. It became much more
difficult without a clear picture of the current infrastructure situation. In addition,
objectives can show conflicts with each other. For example, noise-reducing asphalt
has to be replaced, more often than traditional asphalt, with the consequence of much
more traffic disturbance. For daily practice, it is important that the objectives are
explicit and agreed upon and that they are prioritized.
Challenge of managing multiple actors
The definition of infrastructure objectives is directly related to another challenge. Due
to the multi-functionality of infrastructure assets, multiple actors (e.g. user groups,
political bodies, private sector organizations) are involved in or affected by one or more
asset management decisions, and these actors and their expectations need to be
considered in defining objectives. In addition, they need to be managed to deal with
partly conflicting interests. By definition, a public organization is a legitimate body
funded and owned by government as an agent on its behalf in order to fulfil a specified
responsibility coherent with the public rights and expectations of stakeholders
(Wamsley and Zald, 1973). Many of these services e.g. any renovation and
reconstruction project of the agency under investigation are outsourced to private
parties. This suggests that public agencies are acting as intermediaries between
multiple actors, with distinct inputs, needs and resources to realize their perceived
responsibilities. That also means that MR&R decisions are interconnected with other
decisions. Infrastructure asset management decisions not only have a great impact
on the mobility of citizens, but also on urban development, environmental issues or
economic prosperity of regions. Consequently, many stakeholders are affected by
MR&R decisions. Effective governance, in this case effective asset management,
becomes to some extent the effective management of stakeholder relationships and
interests (Bryson, 2004). Asset management and the definition of infrastructure

Infrastructure
asset
management
71

BEPAM
1,1

72

objectives in particular should then start with a clear identification of the (interests of)
stakeholders.
Conclusions
Public agencies responsible for the management of infrastructure make far-reaching
decisions about infrastructure objective, situation and intervention. The case study
in a Dutch provincial agency showed that striving for an increased effectiveness of the
decision making evokes several challenges. The main challenge can be described as the
alignment between the three decision areas: objective, situation and intervention, with
clearly defined objectives serving as rationale for decisions within the other two areas.
The three decision areas are intertwined, and it is this interrelationship that makes
asset management decision making complex and dynamic. Based on a confrontation
of our case findings and the overview of literature we can conclude that asset
management is effective when:
(1)

infrastructure objectives are used to evaluate the situation of infrastructure

assets and the evaluation criteria are clearly derived from the objectives;

(2)

infrastructure interventions take the current and future situation of

infrastructure assets into account, and decision makers are able to cope with
future uncertainties and changing requirements;

(3)

infrastructure interventions result in an infrastructure situation that is

consistent with the infrastructure objectives; and

(4)

infrastructure objectives are continually monitored and evaluated based on the

infrastructure interventions applied and on unexpected changes of the
infrastructure situation.

Despite the first attempt in this research to pinpoint the relationship between decision
areas in asset management, there is still little understanding on how to align the
decisions related to these areas in order to improve the effectiveness of the decision
making. This topic deserves more attention in future research. A way forward could be
studies on the translation of public and organizational policies in infrastructure
objectives, and the operationalization of these objectives in performance measures to
monitor and evaluate infrastructure situation and prioritize infrastructure interventions.
Moreover, research could also focus on the optimization of decisions between the three
areas, taking the multiple interests of stakeholders of public infrastructure into account.
Besides further research, universities should be encouraged to put more emphasis on
asset management courses and curricula. Public agencies should also provide training
and courses on this topic since the implementation of asset management principles
requires public agents to develop new skills and knowledge to cope with the various
challenges of effective infrastructure asset management. Here technical skills represent
only the basis but they are not sufficient. A good understanding of policy and decision
processes is also needed, as well as negotiation and communication skills and also
capabilities in stakeholder and risk management.
References
Amadi-Echendu, J.E. (2004), Managing physical assets is a paradigm shift from maintenance,
Proceedings of the Engineering Management Conference, International Engineering
Management Conference, New York, NY, pp. 1156-60.

Arts, G., Dicke, W. and Hancher, L. (2008), New Perspectives on Investment in Infrastructures,
WRR Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Bryson, J.M. (2004), What to do when stakeholders matter, Public Management Review, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 21-53.

Infrastructure
asset
management

Dekker, R. (1996), Applications of maintenance optimization models: a review and analysis,

Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 229-40.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Garland, A., Flintsch, G., Garvin, M.J. and Sotelino, E. (2009), Characterization of network
topology to support infrastructure asset management, Public Works Management &
Policy, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 81-92.
Gharaibeh, N.G., Chiu, Y. and Gurian, P.L. (2006), Decision methodology for allocating funds
across transportation infrastructure assets, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Godau, R.I. (1999), The changing face of infrastructure management, Systems Engineering,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 226-36.
Haffajee, M. and Brent, A.C. (2008), Evaluation of an integrated asset life-cycle management
(ALCM) model and assessment of practices in the water utility sector, Water SA, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 285-90.
Howard, R.J. (2001), Infrastructure asset management under Australian Accounting Standard
27 (AAS27), Municipal Engineer, Vol. 145 No. 4, pp. 305-10.
IIMM (2006), International Infrastructure Management Manual, 3rd ed., Association of Local
Government Engineering N.Z. Inc (INGENIUM), National Asset Management Steering
(NAMS) Group, Thames.
Iniestra, J.G. and Gutierrez, J.G. (2009), Multicriteria decisions on interdependent infrastructure
transportation projects using an evolutionary-based framework, Applied Soft Computing,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 512-26.
Karydas, D.M. and Gifun, J.F. (2006), A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure
renewal projects, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 91, pp. 84-99.
Koppenjan, J., Charles, M. and Ryan, N. (2008), Editorial: managing competing public
values in public infrastructure projects, Public Money and Management, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 131-4.
Li, Z. and Sinha, K.C. (2009), Application of shackles model and system optimization for
highway investment decision making under uncertainty, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Vol. 135 No. 3, pp. 129-39.
Liyanage, J.P. and Kumar, U. (2003), Towards a value-based view on operations and maintenance
performance management, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 333-50.
Malano, H.M., Chien, N.V. and Turral, H.N. (1999), Asset management for irrigation and
drainage infrastructure: principles and case study, Irrigation and Drainage Systems,
Vol. 13, pp. 109-29.
Moon, F.L., Aktan, A.E., Furuta, H. and Dogaki, M. (2009), Governing issues and alternate
resolutions for a highway transportation agencys transition to asset management,
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25-39.
Neumann, L.A. and Markow, M.J. (2004), Performance-based planning and asset management,
Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 156-61.

73

BEPAM
1,1

74

Piyatrapoomi, N., Kumar, A. and Setunge, S. (2004), Framework for investment decision-making
under risk and uncertainty for infrastructure asset management, in Bekiaris, V. and
Nakanishi, Y.J. (Eds), Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Innovations
and Case Studies, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 8, Elsevier, Kidlington
Oxford, pp. 199-214.
Rouse, P. and Chiu, T. (2009), Towards optimal life cycle management in a road maintenance
setting using DEA, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 196 No. 2, pp. 672-81.
Schuman, C.A. and Brent, A.C. (2005), Asset life cycle management: towards improving
physical asset performance in the process industry, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 566-79.
Selih, J., Kne, A., Srdic, A. and Zura, M. (2008), Multi-criteria decision system in highway
infrastructure management, Transport, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 299-305.
Sklar, D.C. (2005), Starting an asset management plan: objectives a water or wastewater utility
should meet, Public Works, Vol. 136 No. 5, pp. 190-2.
Switzer, A. and McNeil, S. (2004), Developing a road map for transportation asset management
research, Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 162-75.
Tsamboulas, D.A. (2007), A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure
investments, Transport Policy, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Vanier, D.J. (2001), Why industry needs asset management tools, Journal of Computing and
Civil Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Wamsley, G.L. and Zald, M.N. (1973), The political economy of public organizations, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 62-73.
Wenzler, I. (2005), Development of an asset management strategy for a network utility company:
lessons from a dynamic business simulation approach, Simulation Gaming, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 75-90.
Corresponding author
Geert Dewulf can be contacted at: g.p.m.r.dewulf@utwente.nl

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.