Asset Planning Performance Measurement

  • Daniel Arthur
  • R. Schoenmaker
  • Melinda Hodkiewicz
  • Sugandree Muruvan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Begin with the end in mind. The asset management standard ISO 55001 requires that organisations develop asset management objectives consistent with and aligned to organisational objectives. These objectives should be measurable, as should the outputs of activities executed to meet these objectives. Collectively the intention is to create a ‘line of sight’ between activities at the asset level and the organisation’s objectives. Many organisations already have some sort of performance measurement system in place. But does this system really demonstrate a ‘line of sight’? This paper addresses the question how organisations can create a visible link between the organisation’s objectives, the asset management objectives and the asset management activities. The paper draws on performance measurement system literature and practice to identify key factors to be considered in the design of a system to meet the ‘line of sight’ requirements. These are (1) to develop a balance of perspectives (financial, customer service, internal process, talent and teamwork), (2) to have a balance between leading and lagging indicators, (3) to demonstrate relationships between indicators and objectives, and (4) to ensure the set of indicators is responsive to shifts in policy and strategy. The process of developing a performance measurement framework is described using a case study on water assets. The resulting framework comprises of three elements: the development of objectives, the validation of a balanced set of linked performance indicators and integration into a performance dashboard. The framework enables improved communication of the asset management priorities for informed asset investment decisions, well managed risks and increased operational effectiveness. The description includes reflections on organisational issues, like siloed information, technical approach of maintenance staff and constraints of data granularity, that need to be addressed in the development of new approaches to asset performance measurement systems and suggestions to ease the transition.

References

  1. Bauer, K. (2004). The CPM Dashboard: The Visuals. DM Review, 14(5), 41–42.Google Scholar
  2. Bouckaert, G. (1993). Measurement and meaningful management. Public Productivity and Management Review, 12(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouckaert, G., & Auwers, T. (1999). Prestaties meten in de overheid. Brugge: die Keure.Google Scholar
  4. de Bruijn, H. (2007). Managing performance in the public sector (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Michaeli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., & Neely, A. (2007). Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(8), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hatcher, W. E., Whittlestone, A. P., Sivorn, J., & Arrowsmith, R. (2014). A Service Framework for Highway Asset Management. Paper presented at The Asset Management Conference, London.Google Scholar
  7. Hegazy, M., & Hegazy, S. (2012). The development of key financial performance indicators for UK construction companies. Accounting, Accountability & Performance, 17(1), 49–77.Google Scholar
  8. ISO. (2014a). ISO 55000 Asset management—Overview, principles and terminology. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Google Scholar
  9. ISO. (2014b). ISO 55001 Asset management—Management systems-requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Google Scholar
  10. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The BSC. measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–74.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: translating strategy into action Boston. MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, September–October, 51–60.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.Google Scholar
  15. NCHRP. (2011). The relationship between asset management and performance management NCHRP Project 20-24(58). Cambridge, MA: NCHRP.Google Scholar
  16. Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1264–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neely, A., Richards, H., Platts, K., & Bourne, M. (1997). Designing performance measures: a structured approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(11), 1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nudurupati, S. S., Bititci, U. S., Kumar, K., & Chan, F. T. S. (2011). State of the art literature review on performance measurement. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 60, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parida, A. (2012). Asset performance assessment. In T. van der Lei, P. M. Herder, & Y. Wynia (Eds.), Asset management: The state of the art in Europe from a life cycle perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Parida, A., Kumar, U., Galar, D., & Stenström, C. (2015). Performance measurement and management for maintenance: a literature review. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 21(1), 2–33. doi:10.1108/JQME-10-2013-0067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pauwels, K., Ambler, T., Clarl, B., Lapointe, P., Reibstein, D., Skiera, B., & Wiesel, T. (2009). Dashboards as a service: Why, what, how and what research is needed. Journal of Service Research, 12(2), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pidd, M. (2005). Perversity in public service performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter, M. E. (Ed.). (2006). What is strategy?. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Perkins, M., Grey, A., Remmers, H. (2014). What do we really mean by BSC?. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(2), 148–169.Google Scholar
  26. Schoenmaker, R., Bruijn, J. A. de., & Herder, P. M. (2014). The Dynamics of Outsourcing Maintenance of Civil Infrastructures in Performance Based Contracts. In J. Lee, J. Ni, J. Sarangapani & J. Mathew (Eds.), Engineering asset management 2011: Proceedings of the sixth world congress on engineering asset management (pp. 677–687). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  27. Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2), 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soderburg, M., Kalagnanam, S., Sheehan, N. T., & Vaidyanathan, G. (2011). When is a BSC a BSC? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(7), 668–708.Google Scholar
  29. Srimai, S., Radford, J., & Wright, C. (2011). Evolutionary paths of performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(7), 662–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. The Institute Of Asset Management. (2014). Asset Management–an anatomy (2nd ed.). Bristol: Institute of Asset Management.Google Scholar
  31. Tsang, A. H. C., Jardine, A. K. S., & Kolodny, H. (1999). Measuring maintenance performance in a holistic approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(7), 691–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Dooren, W. (2006). Performance measurement in the Flemish public sector: A supply and demand approach. Leuven: K.U. Leuven.Google Scholar
  33. Wind, Y. (2005). Marketing as an engine of business growth: A cross-functional perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 863–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Arthur
    • 1
  • R. Schoenmaker
    • 2
  • Melinda Hodkiewicz
    • 3
  • Sugandree Muruvan
    • 4
  1. 1.Water CorporationPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesDelft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands
  3. 3.School of Mechanical and Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  4. 4.Water CorporationPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations