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 roads, bridges, and waste water treatment plant are commissioned as Rodgers (2005, p. 620) classified the activities, and soft assets such as codes, permits and licenses are administered so that infrastructure are planned, designed, constructed, inventoried, operated, maintained and decommissioned appropriately. To ensure public infrastructure is managed to the level of services entitled to the public, there must be strategic approach to the process, including commissioning, contract handover and signing off, operations and inventory, maintenance and 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 company, contracted by USAID, implements a program in northern Afghanistan called Regional Afghan Municipalities Program for Urban Populations, or RAMP UP, that support an operational, receptive, equal, visible, and responsible municipal governance that increases capacity, 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 of one IAM approach in my Region Commissioning Rodgers (2009) classifies infrastructure project commissioning as the process of: Conducting acceptance tests in the factory to ensure products 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 doesnt have to get out of hand, Engineered Systems, 23 (5), May, p. 26 Rodgers, T. (2005) An owners 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