Evidence shows that infrastructure owners could cut their asset lifecycle costs by up to 20% if they used asset- related data better and brought together the interests finance and engineering have in asset performance.
Companies would also benefit from better asset performance, tighter risk management and more regulatory credibility. So why aren’t they already doing this?
We see four main reasons:
Asset condition and service output isn’t well understood at times, or there isn’t enough data for decision-making and benchmarking.
Sometimes this hasn’t been done at all or, where it has, it’s incomplete.
A company puts cost before efficiency as is it focuses on the decision to invest in capital rather than how it will perform over its lifetime. Some companies don’t monitor performance or fail to link operational performance to the original investment case as well.
Incentive schemes often give rewards for delivering on time and on budget, but don’t include measures of long-term efficiency for the implementer and designer.
Limited wrench time, not fixing problems the first time and interpreting asset policies in different ways all contribute to inefficiencies.
We’ve worked with a wide variety of clients in different sectors on these problems, and used our knowledge and experience to help them improve their enterprise asset management (EAM).
We run high-level diagnostics of companies’ EAM capabilities to assess how well they’re doing. We look at data, processes, systems and people to get a clear picture of their current situations.
We can then show them the kind of EAM improvements they could adopt and explain the benefits they’ll see.