benchmarking of these processes, and any attempt to do so may actually reduce performance by reducin g the focus on the most important issues - the problem of "not being able to see the wood for the trees". Asset management contains some elements which could be described as science, whilst others are still in the art or experienced judgement arena. However, with all the R&D being undertaken, we are moving closer to science, and away from
an. A set of meth odologies, based around the benchmarki ng of inputs, is d escribed below. These methodologies, implemented with the h elp, where needed, of experienced independent people, provides a fi rm basis for ongoing strategic review of the efficacy and business focus of asset management efforts. Input benchmarking tools and approaches have also been developed by other organisations, such as the Water Services Association of Australia. The use of such an effective ongoing process does not, in itself, mean that an organisation will be successful. But it goes a long way in providing management, regulators, governments and other stakeholders with a level of confidence in the utility's long term asset management capability. T h e process also has the advantage that it better in forms utility staff of the priority of processes, and the impact of these processes on the overall performance. In addition to benchmarking, governments and regulators have also used ocher techniques, such as audits of Asset Management Plans and p rescription of asset management approaches through government guidelines or rules. There is no definitive roadmap to best p ractice, or best appropriate practice, and there will always be a number o f different paths which can be followed to provide successful results.
Input or Process Benchmarking Methodology GHD has been involved in developi ng Asset Management methodologies and tools for over two d ecades, including an approach to p rocess benchmarking and the implementation of process improvements. T his methodology is described below ro illustrate what can be done. As noted above, there are a number of other approaches available. T h e main aims of this approach are to: • provide a tool to measure the fu ll set of relevant processes against world 's best practice within a comprehensive quality framework;
38 SEPTEMBER 2004
water
• provide a methodology to determine the "best appropriate practice" (BAP) when measured against the specific business and risk drivers or priorities of each individual enterprise, i.e. the business case for why they need to be that good; • provide a methodology to determine achievable an d justifiable process improvement targets, based on areas of highest business priority, or most cost effective/ easiest gains; • provide a methodology to co nstruct and implement process improvement projects to meet improvement targets; • p rovide a meth odology for monitoring process improvements, and regularly reviewing the strategy against changing business performance and needs or against new opportunities p rovided by new techniques or technologies . Process benchmarking involves comparison with best practice performers through " input" processes and practices. By putting processes under the microscope through the range of act ivities from the strategic to the tactical, this form of benchmarking tries to set a business up for the future by: • Doing the right things - being effective through ongoing adjustments to what is done, based on changing business drivers and,
• Doing things right - being efficient through che implementation of appropriate processes and technologies. The purpose of process benchmarking is not to control but to review and improve che processes and practices and the allocation of resources in order to enhance rhe productivity, the effectiveness and efficiency of an organisation.
An important element of ben ch marking is to realise those elements being benchmarked may or may nor be best practice or best appropriate practice for the organ isation in its current environ ment. Experienced benchmark facil itators are required to determine if the current "result" is ap propriate or whether change is desirable. Simp le benchmarking may reveal a number of organisations all doing the same thing, but are they doing it well or are they all doing it poorly? Through benchmarking, the organisation is exposed to opportunities to move forward from dared work practices in some instances, bur in any case to an ongoing situation of responsiveness covering areas such as: existing or forecast customer and stakeholder needs; staff development and job satisfaction; asset performance and maintenance; and rhe satisfaction of overall corporate goals.
O rganisations often tend to look for similar types of organisations to bench mark against. Although this makes sense in the first instance it can lead to more of che same, and result in just incremental improvements in performance. Benchmarking with unlike organisations chat have some similar or common processes rends to occur less often, but is potentially the more ferti le ground for bringing radical performance improvement into the organisation. All infrast ructure asset managers suffer the same drivers (required level of services at th e lowest life cycle cost) but they can all potentially develop innovative ways to overcome these.
TEAMQF The TEAMQF or 'Total Enterprise Asset Management Quality Framework' methodology is described below. It is a quality fram ework that has been d eveloped over several years to assess the ab ility of infrastructure or property rich service delivery organisatio ns to manage their built assets from a whole of busi ness perspective. Any such framework must con tinuously evolve to meet the demands of business and to reflect the current b est practices. Such a framework should include: • setting a future vision for asset management and relating this to the business; • a 'Gap Analysis' comparing current practice to th is future vision or best appropriate practice model; • prioritisation of gaps identified above based on the organisation's business drivers or "Business Value C hain"; and • an Improvement program that translates these gaps into clear action plans with tasks, resources and riming that is economically justified from a proven benefit/cost b asis while meeti ng the short and long term business drivers.
Understanding the Gaps and their Value to the Business The 'Value Chain' is a management con cept embraced by many major corporations throughout the world. The Value C hain is made up of those key organisational processes chat must be managed if the organisation is to thrive. In other words it rep resents the priority that each core life cycle Asset Management process co ntributes to the success of the business. When we understand rhe Gap that exists in our quality elements and the priority or benefit they represent then we can identify rhe things that each organisation should do first. I r prioritises rhe improvement program.