An organizing framework for asset management technology improvement is presented here, based on the Carnegie Melon Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) described in Section 3.0(4,8,9), and on similar earlier efforts such as Crosby’s Quality Management Maturity Grid.(10)
The CMM focused on software development concerns, but the same underlying concepts apply to any technology-based activity, including providing decision-support information to asset management. The framework presented here draws heavily from the thought process behind the CMM and uses some of the same terminology, which should be famil- iar to information technology managers.
The usefulness of this organizing framework stems from its ability to structure process planning and management, to ensure that all the bases are covered and that implementa- tion steps are taken in a reasonable order that does not waste time or money. The frame- work is directed first toward senior management, to help them initiate the process and know what to expect over time. The framework is also directed toward the professional staff, to help them understand how all the activities fit together, and how they all contrib- ute toward the goal of improved information for asset management decision-making. Several major elements are necessary in order for the framework to be complete:
• A maturity scale, to describe the general order of events in a way that allows each organization to reliably locate its current position and next steps. The maturity scale is necessarily based on a critical path-style order of precedence that is common to all transportation agencies. For example, management use of policy optimization infor- mation cannot occur without first implementing software to produce that information, which cannot occur without an established method for measuring performance, which cannot occur without first collecting and storing condition and performance data in a database. The maturity scale is emphatically not a value judgment: it does not sepa- rate “good” organizations from “bad” ones. Every agency is on a journey toward improved asset management, and the maturity scale merely provides the “you are here” marker on a map of that journey.
• An application catalog, listing the many types of information systems and related technologies that may be of service to asset management. The catalog includes both existing and new systems. Many older information systems can – often must – be relied upon in an asset management strategy in both the short and long terms. Usually each type of information system has a well-defined place on the maturity scale: one system must be in place before another one can be implemented. Also, each organiza- tion has its own unique technology needs depending, for example, on its size, the types of existing systems in place, its management style, and its position on the maturity scale. The catalog is organized according to essential asset management business proc- esses, but many alternatives are available in each category.
NCHRP Project 20-24(11) Task 2 – Asset Management Framework
• Data interfaces, allowing data to be collected reliably, to move from one system to
another, to be reused for many purposes, and to be universally understood. Incom- patibility of data interfaces is frequently cited as the most common technical cause of an inability to relate data among existing asset management systems. This part of the framework establishes the categories of data requirements that are practically universal in asset management: definitions and assumptions, referencing, accuracy, precision, timeliness, coverage, granularity, and aggregation. It also provides a list of questions to ask and typical solutions to data problems.
• Process interfaces, referring specifically to the business processes for feeding, main-
taining, and accessing information systems. This section describes all the work that needs to be done to set up, maintain, and support information systems in the service of asset management. The issues to be addressed include workflow coordination, nego- tiation of data standards, technical support services, training, quality assurance, quality control, and public information. The discussion does not cover software development or procurement, which are covered very well in other sources.(11,12) It emphasizes the types of business processes that are relatively unique to asset management and might not be present in an organization that does not need asset management.
• Technology infrastructure, the background databases, systems, and networks that
move data around the organization and serve it up reliably to each system user. Asset management imposes certain requirements on the technical infrastructure that often do not exist in other applications: for example, network-level asset analysis software usu- ally needs very high network bandwidth and “number-crunching horsepower,” even more than engineering design software or CADD systems. Certain relatively new technologies in the areas of networking (especially the Internet), databases, geographic information systems, and component-based software are especially useful in asset management, and deserve consideration in any new system development efforts.
The technology dimensions of applications, data interfaces, process interfaces, and infra- structure can each have their own maturity scales, as indicated in Figure A.1. An organi- zation can be in different places on each scale, though the differences in position among scales are not usually very large because of the interdependencies among the scales. To assess the agency’s location on each scale, several important considerations are relevant:
NCHRP Project 20-24(11)
Task 2 – Asset Management Framework