The development of asset management in the UK local authorities has also been aided by asset management frameworks and associated guidelines from various sources. This is probably the most important initiative that has been promoted to aid asset management development in local authorities. In this section the published guidelines are evaluated in
70
terms of the effectiveness with which they leverage asset management development. A number of asset management frameworks and support guidelines have been issued by central, devolved governments, and local authorities; professional bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and Chartered Institute of Public Accounts (CIPFA); and various other bodies. The following are some of the issued asset management frameworks: Strategic Asset Management Planning Framework; The Total Asset Management Process (IIM, 2006); PASS 55 Asset Management Process Model (BSI, 2008); The Property Asset Management Process (IAM, 2006); The RICS Detailed Property Asset Management Process Model (RICS, 2005; 2008); Consortium of Local Authorities in Wales (CLAW) (2003); Chartered Institution of Public Finance and Accounts (CIPFA) (2008); Scottish Executive (2003); Audit Commission (1988b; 2000; 2009); Audit Scotland (2009); Department for Communities and Local Government (2001; 2007); RICS / office of The Deputy Prime Minister (2005); and Asset Management Excellence Model (AMEM) (AMCL, 2010).
A comprehensive list of organisations that have produced asset management guidelines is shown in appendices A and B. The appendices show a comprehensive list of sources of published asset management guidelines prepared by various bodies in the UK and elsewhere. The need to improve asset management practice in local authorities or other public organisations had been the underlying theme behind the issuing of asset management guidelines. The available different types of asset management guidelines are all based on strategic planning approach based on strategic management theory. The strategic planning approach is characterised by deliberately defined steps of strategy formulation and implementation. However, in the various types of asset management guidelines that have been prepared the steps are not uniform. Appendix C shows a sample of the guidelines produced by some of the organisations listed in Appendices A and B. Phelps (2009) has carried out an extensive review of the asset management guidelines. He states that the published guidance can be classified into four broad themes but recognising inevitable
71
overlaps. Guidelines can be classified in the form of a checklist, following a property lifecycle approach, with a hierarchical structure or in guidebook form.
Phelps presents the summary characteristics, including respective strengths and weaknesses, of the main types of guidance, with examples, and these are presented in Table 3.2, below acknowledging that whilst some guidance can be reasonably classified as being in more than one category he has allocated each to the category of its predominant characteristic.
Table 3.2: Summary of ―Best Practice‖ Guidance in Asset Management Type
Checklist Hierarchy Life Cycle Guidebook
Summary
Guidance given in the form of a list of things to do. Arranged in topics or sections
Guidance given as a series of levels with an implied sequence and dependency
Guidance usually presented against the natural stages in the life of property
The guidance given within the context of a wider analysis of how to manage property Strengths
Comprehensive and easy to use as arranged by topic
There is a sequence of practice implied
Has a real life logic which is easy to understand
Guidance set often against a wider context
Weaknesses No differentiation of
importance. No sequence
Levels tend to be poorly developed
Not always fully comprehensive Practice not easy to distil from text. No simple logic Examples Consortium of Local Authority in Wales (2001) Department of Transport, Environment & Regions (2000)
Government of Victoria (2002) Audit Commission (2000)
Source: Phelps (2009)
3.5.1 Critical Review of Strategic Planning Model, Associated Guidelines and Asset Management Frameworks Implementation
The current status of asset management practice in local authorities in England and Scotland is one that has so far remained ineffective. Apart from the problems associated with asset management practice, the strategic planning model upon which asset management frameworks are based also has limitations. The various published asset management guidelines based on strategic planning model also have weaknesses. The problems associated with the strategic planning model relate to the assumptions of rational analysis that underlie the model. Rationality assumes that strategic planning process can be formalised, analytically detached from reality, driven by ‘hard data’ and can therefore be
72
quantified, and that the context for strategy making is stable or predictable and therefore can be predetermined. All these assumptions are not necessarily reflective of the environment in real life.
Similarly, there are inherent weaknesses associated with each of the asset management guidelines. For instance, with the checklist approach there is no sense of sequence or order to the practice. In the life-cycle approach guidance the levels tend to be poorly developed. Regarding the hierarchical form, the purported hierarchies are not always fully comprehensive. As for the guidebook form guidance, the practice is not always easy to distil from narrative or not always summarised in a clear, structured way.
An examination of the current status of asset management practice in local authorities also investigated the extent to which the frameworks have effectively been implemented. A key aspect of the effective implementation of asset management frameworks is a requirement that local authorities should have in place strategies, policies and plans for managing property assets that are up to date and coordinated. By having in place coordinated and update strategies, policies and plans makes it possible to have in place effective arrangements for managing the performance of assets. If assets are effectively and efficiently managed the likely outcome is that there will be positive impact on organisational efficiency. Audit Scotland (2009) carried out a study to examine Scottish local authorities’ arrangements for property asset management revealed that there were particular weaknesses in ensuring that strategies, policies and plans were up to date and coordinated. The Audit Scotland (op cit) study found that more than half of Scottish local authorities did not have an approved corporate asset management strategy, although many were in the process of developing individual strategies and plans for their property assets. Councils’ asset management plans need to support service plans, which in turn should help to deliver council objectives and corporate plans. However, the referred Audit Scotland study further found that in many types of local authorities the linkages between these plans were not robust. Besides, where plans existed, in the majority of councils the available plans
73
did not include set targets for assessing progress in areas such as condition and suitability of each asset as well as describing an overall plan for achieving this.
3.6 SUMMARY OF ASSET MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND