Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management

  • Joe E. Amadi-Echendu
Chapter
Part of the Engineering Asset Management Review book series (EAMR, volume 1)

Abstract

The essence of managing engineered physical assets that form our built environment is to provide benefits to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by rapidly changing business strategy, economy, ergonomics, operational and technical integrity, and regulatory compliance. Innovative approaches to enhance and sustain the profile of values required from these assets demands a shift in thinking styles, cognitive and mental processing modes, and the attitudes of engineering professionals if they are to be effective in asset management occupations. This paper describes the results of a 2005 survey of 190 practicing engineers to ascertain what thinking styles should determine behavioural preferences for managers of engineered physical assets. The study confirms other results from cognitive theory and psychology, highlighting the top ten thinking styles as ranked by survey respondents. The paper provides a strategic view of engineering asset management (EAM) within the context of innovation, with particular focus on behavioural alignment towards the modern era of innovation, knowledge and learning economy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amadi-Echendu J E (2005). Physical asset management requires a paradigm shift from maintenance: MESA Tour 2005 and ICOMS 2005 Keynote address. Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth, Sydney, Wollongong and Hobart. 30 May – 10 June 2005.Google Scholar
  2. Amadi-Echendu J E (2003). Developing operational capability during major capital projects: Proceedings of International Conference on Maintenance and Asset Management (ICAMM), Pretoria, South Africa. Oct 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Amadi-Echendu J E (2007). Thinking styles of technical knowledge workers in the systems of innovation paradigm. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74 (2007) 1204–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Maccoby M (1994). From Analyzer to Humanizer: Raising the Level of Management Thinking. Research Technology Management, Vol. 37 No. 5: 57–59.Google Scholar
  5. Herrmann N (1996). The Whole Brain Business Book, McGraw-Hill ISBN: 0070284628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joe E. Amadi-Echendu
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Technology ManagementUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations