Approach to Public Infrastructure Asset Management John Constance MSc in Project Management, University of Liverpool
Introduction Infrastructure asset management or IAM is to ensure hard assets such as road roads, s, brid bridge ges, s, and and wast waste e wate waterr trea treatm tmen entt plant plant are are comm commis issi sion oned ed as Rodgers (2005, p. 620) classified the activities, and soft assets such as codes, permit permits s and licens licenses es are admini administe stere red d so that that infras infrastru tructu cture re are planne planned, d, designed, constructed, inventoried, operated, maintained a nd decommissioned appropriately. To ensure public infrastructure is managed to the level of services entitled to the the publ public ic,, ther there e must must be stra strate tegi gic c appr approac oach h to the the proc proces ess, s, incl includ udin ing g commissioning, contract handover and signing off, operations and inventory, maintenance and decommissioning. decommissioning. This paper looks at the approach to infrastructure management plan in nine provinces in Northern Afghanistan, and based on best practices identify two critical gaps to the current approach of this plan.
Background My comp compan any, y, cont contra ract cted ed by USAI USAID, D, impl implem emen ents ts a prog progra ram m in nort northe hern rn Afgh Afghani anist stan an call called ed Regi Region onal al Afgh Afghan an Muni Munici cipa pali liti ties es Prog Progra ram m for for Urba Urban n Popula Populatio tions, ns, or RAMP RAMP UP, that that suppor supportt an operat operation ional, al, recept receptiv ive, e, equal, equal, visi visibl ble, e, and and resp respon onsi sibl ble e muni munici cipa pall gove govern rnanc ance e that that incr increa ease ses s capa capaci city ty,, improve services delivery, and increase enabled, supportive, and sustainable economic growth. The infrastructure asset management approach include: • • • • •
Concept development and approval Project proposal development, submittals and approval Procurement Mobilization Implementation and Close out
Description Description of one IAM approach in my Region Commissioning Rodgers (2009) classifies infrastructure project commissioning as the process of: •
Conduc Conductin ting g accept acceptanc ance e tests tests in the factor factory y to ensure ensure produc products ts are compliant to owner-defined function and performance
•
•
•
•
Inspecting and verifying product upon delivery to the site to guarantee products delivered are those purchased and tested during acceptance tests in the factory Field inspections to certify components are assembled into the planned and agreed systems Site demonstration to certify systems operate and function to acceptance criteria Conducting integrated systems testing to confirm interrelated components and the system do function and perform to anticipated and unanticipated irregularities as intended
. Commissioning in my program includes the following: •
•
•
•
Concept development and approval to determine compliance to municipality-defined legal, regulatory and permitting requirements and function and performance criteria, and client project risk and environmental requirements and budget limitations. Project proposal development and approval to determine compliance to local standards, environmental law and social issues, and the readily availability of resources including technology and expertise, and client project environmental mitigation and infrastructure sustainability strategy. Procurement to determine project delivery method based on job requirements, constructors capacity survey results, availability of resources, and the time of the year the project is to be implemented. Implementation is to inspect and guarantee product delivered on site, certify components assembled and system operate and function criteria, and integrated systems testing to confirm function and performance, and close out project and contract.
The gaps Gap #1 Decommissioning is not considered in our approach as Ellis (2006, p.26) described the process as removing from service infrastructure to reduce and/or remove danger to the public and the environment. We do not plan for this approach because, as the author said; there is no actual fixed procedures to permanently or temporarily remove an infrastructure from service, and our contract does not obligate us because this role is undertaken by another implementing partner (the UNDP). Gap #2 We provide operations and maintenance management manuals, which, as Cottrell et al. (2009, p. 130) recommends, includes an inventory of the infrastructure, a strategic maintenance schedule with time and human resource considerations, and a strategy for local volunteering activities.
However, we do not make recommendations that provide a strategic link of infrastructure interdependence as described by Chen et al. (2009, p. 200) nor plan sustainability parameters as recommended by Singh, Upadhyay & Mittal (2010, p.81). We could have provided information on these aspects but again; our contract does not obligate us to do so. Conclusion
The approach to public infrastructure asset management varies from country to country, depending on strategic development strategy, investment planning, risk analysis, asset modeling, and infrastructure operations. Although there will exist gaps from country to country, and as Bratland (2010) indicated the factors of failures maintenance of the infrastructure may be misleading and inevitably neglected, what is certain is infrastructure asset management must consider commissioning preparations, handing over and signing-off of contracts, and commitment to maintenance through applicable techniques and monitoring and evaluation, to guarantee effective infrastructure asset management and sustainability. _____________________________________________________________________________________
References Bratland, J. (2010) “Capital concepts as insights into the maintenance and neglect of infrastructure”, Independent Review, 15 (1), Summer pp 35-51 Chen, P., Scown, C., Matthews, H.S., Garnett, J.H., and Hendrickson, C. (2009) “Managing critical infrastructure interdependence through economic input / output models”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 15(3) pp. 200-210. Cottrell, W., Bryan, S., Chilukuri, B.R., Kalyani, V., Stevanovic, A., and Wu, J. (2009) “Transportation infrastructure maintenance management: Case study of a small urban city”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 15 (2), pp. 120-132 Ellis, R. (2006) “Decommissioning: taking part of a system off-line doesn’t have to get out of hand,” Engineered Systems, 23 (5), May, p. 26 Rodgers, T. (2005) “An owner’s perspective on commissioning of critical facilities” ASHRAE Transactions, 111 (2), pp. 618-626 Singh, M., Upadhyay, V. & Mittal, A. (2010) “Addressing sustainability in benchmarking framework for Indian urban water utilities”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(1), March pp. 81-91
