Asset Management Reform Through Policies, Regulations, and Standards: The Need for ‘Soft’ Interface

  • Diaswati Mardiasmo
  • Jayantha Liyanage
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Asset management practices within a country or a region are under continuous reform, particularly with the introduction of new ‘hard controls’—rules, law, regulations, and policies, in various sectors. They are expected to provide the necessary foundation for safety, efficiency and other performance needs as well as the frame conditions for managing assets. To a certain extent they also reflect the expectations of international standards. Despite the availability of abundance of documents, organizations tend to spend much time in reality, for instance on analysing the minute detail of policy and regulation, to ensure the compliance as well as validity in terms of expected results. In the modern roles of technical and operational managers, the efforts involving compliance has become a daunting task due to various conditions and complexities in organizational environments. This sheds the light right on the asset reformation process, particularly in terms of feasibility and adoptability Empirical research of 76 regional government officers, acting as state asset managers, in twelve Indonesian provinces and district governments confirmed this standpoint. It was found that despite the availability of comprehensive set of laws, regulations, and technical guidelines; there is a high level of uncertainty, ambiguity, inconsistency, and ultimately non-compliance in asset management practice in these regional governments. It seems that there are other types of absorbed/embedded complexities that tend to remain implicit in the nature of transforming systems, and thus far has been difficult to interpret due to lack of knowledge or understanding of these hidden interfaces that asset managers may have inherit. For instance, a closer analysis of regional government officers reveals other variables in play: ingrained asset management culture, political history of government, religion, and the capability of the asset manager itself; all of which impact the level in which changes in the system are received, interpreted, processed, and implemented. What this suggests is that there may have been too much focus on perfectly ‘mechanising a hard control’ through policies, regulations, and standards. This implies little or no focus on core attributes of the system in which implementation takes place, and even more on addressing the needs of those who bear major stakes during as well as after implementation process. Thus, this paper argues that acknowledgement and development of ‘softer’ measures and instruments are just as important, if not even more so, as ‘hard controlled’ approach to realize the best benefit of ongoing reforms in Asset management practices.


Asset management policy Soft control Asset reform Compliance Systems approach Resilience Adaptive change 


  1. 1.
    Siddik M (2009) Kebijakan Awal Desentralisasi Fiskal 1999–2004. In: Abimanyu A, Megantara A (eds) Era Baru Kebijakan Fiskal: Pemikiran, Konsep, dan Implementasi. Jakarta, PT Kompas Media NusantaraGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devas N (1997) Indonesia: what do we mean by decentralization? Public Adm Dev (1986–1998) 17(3):351Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Federspiel HM (2005) Regionalism in Post-Suharto Indonesia. Contemp Southeast Asia 27(3):529Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schroeder L (2003) Fiscal decentralization in Southeast Asia. J Public Budg Account Financ Manag 15(3):385MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cran R (1995) The practice of regional development: resolving central-local coordination issues in planning and finance. Public Adm Dev (1986–1998) 15(2):139Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kristiansen S, Trijono L (2005) Authority and law enforcement: local government reforms and security systems in Indonesia. Contemp Southeast Asia 27(2):236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Silver C (2003) Do the donors have it right? Decentralization and changing local governance in Indonesia. Ann Reg Sci 37(3):421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tambunan M (2000) Indonesia’s new challenges and opportunities: blueprint for reform after the economic crisis. East Asia Int Q 18(2):50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Indrawati SM (2005) Efektivitas Kebijakan Fiskal 2006. Departement Keuangan Republik Indonesia, Jakarta, p 6Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kivimaki T, Thorning R (2002) Democratization and regional power sharing in Papua/Irian Jaya. Asian Surv 42(4):651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mishra SC (2005) Pembuatan Kebijakan Demokratis dalam Konteks yang Berubah; Bahan Latar Belakang untuk Laporan Studi Mengenai Proses Pembuatan Kebijakan di Indonesia Discussion Paper Series No. 05/7-IND, United Nations Support Facility for Indonesian Recovery, Jakarta, p 94Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadiyanto (2009) Strategic asset management: Kontribusi Pengelolaan Aset Negara dalam Mewujudkan APBN yang Efektif dan Optimal. In: Abimanyu A, Megantara A (eds) Era Baru Kebijakan Fiskal: Pemikiran, Konsep, dan Implementasi. PT Kompas Media Nusantara, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cagle RF (2003) Infrastructure asset management: an emerging direction. AACE Int Trans PM21Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Komonen K, Kortelainen H, Räikkönen M (2006) An asset management framework to improve longer term returns on investments in the capital intensive industries. In WCEAN, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin S, Gao J, Koronios A, Chanana V (2007) Developing a data quality framework for asset management in engineering organisations. Int J Inf Qual 1(1):100–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jabiri NZ, Jaafari A, Platfoot R, Gunaratram D (2005) Promoting asset management policies by considering OEE in products’ TLCC estimation. Engineering management conference proceedings: IEEE internationalGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loistl O, Petrag R (2006) Asset management standards: corporate governance for asset management, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, HampshireCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cornish N, Morton K (2001b) Asset governance—a radically new way to manage distribution networks in a competitive and deregulated market. 16th international conference and exhibition on electricity distribution (CIRED 2001). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodhouse J (2004) PAS 55: specification for the optimized management of physical infrastructure assets. Accessed 28 Nov
  20. 20.
    Woodhouse J (2006) Putting the total jigsaw puzzle together: PAS 55 standard for the integrated, optimized management of assets in international maintenance conference. Daytona Beach, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marlow DR, Burn S (2008) Effective use of condition assessment within asset management. Am Water Works Assoc J 100(1):54Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin S, Gao J, Koronios A, Chanana V (2007) Developing a data quality framework for asset management in engineering organisations. Int J Inf Qual 1(1):100–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law and Justice Research CentreQUTBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Industrial Asset ManagementUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations