Evaluation of Information Systems Supporting Asset Lifecycle Management

  • Abrar Haider
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 24)


Performance evaluation is a subjective activity that cannot be detached from the human understanding, social context, and cultural environment, within which it takes place. Apart from these, information systems evaluation faces certain conceptual and operational challenges that further complicate the process of performance evaluation. This paper deals with the issue of performance evaluation of information system utilised for engineering asset lifecycle. The paper highlights that these information systems not only have to enable asset management strategy, but also are required to inform the same for better lifecycle management of the critical asset equipment utilised in production or service environments. Evaluation of these systems, thus, calls for ascertaining both hard as well as soft benefits to the organisation and their contribution to organizational development. This, however, requires that evaluation exercise identifies alternatives and choices and in doing so becomes a strategic advisory mechanism that supports information systems planning, development, and management processes. This paper proposes a comprehensive evaluation methodology for evaluation of information systems utilised in managing engineering assets. This methodology is learning centric, provides feedback that facilitates actionable organizational learning, and thus allows the organisation to engage in generative learning based continuous improvement.


Information systems Performance evaluation Asset management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Davis, S., Albright, T.: An investigation of the effect of balanced scorecard implementation in financial performance. Management Accounting Research 15(2), 135–153 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ittner, D., Larcker, D.F., Randall, T.: Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting Organisation and Society 28(7/8), 715–741 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neely, A., Kennerley, M., Martinez, V.: Does the balanced scorecard work: an empirical investigation. In: Proceedings of Performance Measurement Association Conference (July 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braam, G.J.M., Nijssen, E.J.: Performance effects of using the balanced scorecard: A note on the Dutch experience. Long Range Planning 37(4), 335–349 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    IIMM, International Infrastructure Management Manual, Association of Local Government Engineering NZ Inc., National Asset Management Steering Group, New Zealand, Thames (2006) ISBN 0-473-10685-XGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    OALD, ‘The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th revised edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005) ISBN: 0194316491Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amadi-Echendu, J.E.: The paradigm shift from maintenance to physical asset management. In: Proceedings of 2004 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1156–1160. IEEE, Austin TX (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, J.S., Carlson, J.: Equipment asset management – what are the real requirements? Reliability Magazine, 4–14 (October 2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haider, A.: Information systems based engineering asset management evaluation: operational interpretations. Phd Thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haider, A., Koronios, A., Quirchmayr, G.: You Cannot Manage What You Cannot Measure: An Information Systems Based Asset Management Perspective. In: Mathew, J., Ma, L., Tan, A., Anderson, D. (eds.) Proceedings of Inaugural World Congress on Engineering Asset Management, Gold Coast, Australia, July 11-14 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rondeau, E.P., Brown, R.K., Lapides, P.D.: Facility Management. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konradt, U., Zimolong, B., Majonica, B.: User-Centred Software Development: Methodology and Usability Issues. In: Karwowski, W., Marras, W.S. (eds.) The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook, USA. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Barley, S.R.: Technology and institutions: what can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly 25(2), 245–265 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walsham, G.: Making a World of Difference IT in a Global Context. John Wiley, Chichester (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farbey, B., Land, F., Targett, D.: Moving IS evaluation forward: learning themes and research issues. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8, 189–207 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neely, A.D., Gregory, M.J., Platts, K.: Performance Measurement System Design: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 15(4), 80–116 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tangen, S.: Performance measurement: from philosophy to practice. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53(8), 726–737 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bijker, W.E., Law, J.: Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hayes, N., Walsham, G.: Competing interpretations of computer-supported cooperative work in organizational contexts. Organization 7(1), 49–67 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orlikowski, W.J.: The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Willcocks, L.P., Lester, S.: In search of information technology productivity: Assessment issues. Journal of the Operations Research Society 48, 1082–1094 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. ER 1992 3(1), 60–95 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teubner, R.A.: The IT21 Checkup for IT Fitness: Experiences and Empirical Evidence from 4 Years of Evaluation Practice. In: Becker, J., Backhaus, K., Grob, H.L., Hoeren, T., Klein, S., Kuchen, H., Muller-Funk, U., Thonemann, U.W., Vossen, G., Munster (eds.) European Research Center for Information Systems No. 2 (2005) ISSN 1614-7448 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abrar Haider
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of South AustraliaMawson LakesAustralia

Personalised recommendations