2014
Prof. Donath Mrawira
4M Global Inc.
Post-Training-Report
Consultancy Services of the
Road Asset Management System Adviser
Executives’ & Practitioners’
Road Asset Management Course
This Page is left Blank
Federal Ministry of Works (FMW)
Road Sector Development Team (RSDT)
Executives’ & Practitioners’
Road Asset Management Course
Post-Training Report
Conducted at
Chelsea Hotel, Adetokumbo Ademola Crescent, ABUJA.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 1
Report Objective and Overall Effectiveness of the Course ... 1
Key Conclusions from the Pre- and Post-course Evaluations ... 1
Key Recommendations ... 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ... 5
1.1 An Overview ... 5
1.2 General Objective of the Course ... 5
1.3 Specific Objectives of the Course ... 5
1.4 Course Modules ... 6
2.0 Participation and Attendance ... 7
3.0 PRE-COURSE SURVEY RESULTS ... 7
3.1 Overall Evaluation Goal ... 7
3.2 Pre-Course Quantitative Results... 7
3.3 Pre-Course Identified Barriers and Areas for Improvement ... 9
4.0 POST-COURSE SURVEY FINDINGS ... 10
4.1 Goal of the Post-Course Evaluation ... 10
4.2 Module by Module Post-Course Assessment ... 11
4.3 Part II Post-Course Evaluation: Overall Impression ... 12
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 15
5.1 Conclusions ... 15
5.2 Recommendations ... 18
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... 18
REFERENCE ... 19
APPENDICES ... 20
APPENDIX A: Detailed Course Attendance Register ... 21
APPENDIX B. Responses to Question No. 7 of Pre-Course Questionnaire ... 22
APPENDIX C. Responses to Question No. 8 of Pre-Course Questionnaire ... 25
APPENDIX D: List of Lessons Learned Day 1 (Monday 28-04-14) ... 28
APPENDIX E: Participants’ Comments on Module by Module ... 30
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Report Objective and Overall Effectiveness of the Course
This report presents a post-course evaluation report following the successful
completion of the “Executives’ & Practitioners’ Course: Road Asset Management”
conducted on April 28 – May 2, 2014; at Chelsea Hotel, Abuja. The Course was
conducted by the RAMS Adviser as part of sensitizing and building awareness and
support of road asset management within the FMW and its agencies.
A total of sixty (60) participants successfully completed the course with at least 75%
attendance to all modules. The participants were 27, 21 and 12 from FMW, FERMA and
RSDT, respectively.
The course had the primary goal to introduce and develop practical understanding and
application of road asset management system. The course focused on highlighting the
critical impact of the resource allocation process, especially the use of advanced
optimization and trade-off analysis in long-term and strategic planning on the
sustainability of the road network conditions and effectiveness of the road agency. The
course demonstrated using some case studies and examples, that full optimization
could be used at the corporate level to support senior management in making optimal
decisions that will ensure the best road conditions and the most cost-effective use of
available funds. The impact of each investment decision (on maintenance or new
projects) can be evaluated and readily communicated to all stakeholders using
colour-coded geographical maps (GIS). The course also introduced the key concept of planning
at the strategic level across multiple types of assets (road pavements, bridges, culverts,
and other road furniture). The course offered the participants an opportunity to play
roles as road agency’ executives in benchmarking their agency’s current level of practice
of road asset management, and identify potential areas for further enhancement.
The course was very successful in meeting the intended objectives. Based on the
feedback from the course participants, the overall assessment is that the goal and
objectives of the course were achieved at the highest level. A comparison of a
pre-course questionnaire administered on the first day of pre-course and post-pre-course
questionnaire at the conclusion of the course is used to quantify the level of success of
the course. Both the quantitative data and the free form comments from the
participants demonstrate that the course was very well received and will likely have a
lasting impact to the participants and FMW, FERMA and RSDT in general.
Key Conclusions from the Pre- and Post-course Evaluations
The pre-course survey showed two important areas of need at FMW and its agencies:
(a) participants identified that FMW is lacking objective data, without a comprehensive
inventory, and data analysis tools to justify technical capital investment or preservation
decisions. (b) In relation to this lack, it was also pointed out that technical or
operational decisions are not carefully supported by analysis and systematically
followed through once they are made.
On the positive side, the pre-course survey showed that the staffs of FMW and its
agencies believe that road asset management will play a very important role in
improving their work or the effectiveness of FMW and its agencies. The relatively high
score [9.4 out of maximum 10] on this opinion, also suggests that the course
participants will be open and supportive to any future steps to improve or implement a
comprehensive road asset management system at FMW and its agencies.
In the pre-course survey, the participants identified the most significant challenges that
inhibit the maturity of road asset management at FMW and its agencies as including:
Lack of knowledge & awareness, and/or trained staff (30 of 51 participants);
Lack of funding or budgetary constraints (27of 51 participants);
Political interference or policy inconsistency (16 of 51 participants);
Lack of data or means to organize/analyse data (12 of 51 participants).
The pre-course survey also made recommendations on the priority areas that need
improvement including:
Need for data/records, monitoring and/or data analysis (20 of 51 participants);
Priority in maintenance or asset preservation (16 of 51 participants);
Funding or timely budget to meet prioritized needs (13of 51 participants);
Increased training/retraining of staffs (9 of 51 participants).
These are definitely important aspects that must be seriously considered and addressed
in the RAM implementation plan.
In the post-training evaluation, Part II of the survey, the participants gave an overall
quality rating of the course of 4.9 on the 1 – 5 scale [that is, 98% satisfaction!]. This
shows that the participants had a very good impression of the course. The participants
gave a module by module average score of 4.3. Each module was pointed out to be
valuable, although a few participants discounted the relatively technical/advanced
topics such as linear programming & optimization, database issues and GIS/GPS.
The course has impacted on the participants’ view and acceptance or support of asset
management approach. It is obvious from the participants’ feedback that the course has
equipped them in various ways, including:
(1) Especially in the areas of becoming a change agent in the organization;
Documenting work process so that the younger engineers can gain knowledge;
and budgeting with a long term perspective.
(2) The training has equipped me with new skills. Given our level of
implementation of RAMS, I will apply my new skill as far as it is practicable in
our organization. I also have to inform others on the benefit of RAMS.
(3) I have been equipped with the skill to maximize value as far as road
management is concerned as this will help to boost the national economy.
(4) I now know that it is better and cheaper to keep the good roads good always.
(5) I will ensure that analysis will precede decision making.
Again, in the post-training survey, when asked what specific actions they will take as a
result of the course, some of the responses of the participants included:
(1) We should maintain better road first so that it does not deteriorate further.
(2) Engage on performance measurement to quickly arrive at our outcomes faster.
(3) Advocate for change in the way we do business and create a niche in my office by
(4) Assemble a focused team/group to champion knowledge dissemination, buy-in
and implementation.
(5) I will be a force for positive change in Road Asset Management.
When asked if the course has equipped the participants, the response was
predominantly “yes” including the following specific benefits or skills identified by the
participants:
Especially in the areas of becoming a change agent in the organization;
Documenting work process so that the younger engineers can gain knowledge;
and budgeting with a long term perspective.
The training has equipped me with new skills. Given our level of implementation
of RAMS, I will apply my new skill as far as it is practicable in our organization. I
also have to inform others on the benefit of RAMS.
I have been equipped with the skill to maximize value as far as road management
is concerned as this will help to boost the national economy.
I now know that it is better and cheaper to keep the good roads good always.
The post-course participants’ identified priority areas of asset management that need
to be improved in the short-term at FMW and its agencies include:
Accurate data, complete inventory / data analysis (17 of 37 participants).
Proper long-term/tactical planning, Strategic direction, (30 of 51 participants);
Proper fund/budget or resource allocation (6 of 37 participants);
Performance measurement & feedback (4 of 37 participants).
The final post-course comments from the participants were directed on their overall
view of the course and the relevance to FMW and its agencies. The most dominant
theme raised by the participants is that a similar course (on asset management) needs
to be conducted for top management at FMW and its agencies, senior staff and external
stakeholders.
Key Recommendations
Given the high level of success of the senior executives’ road asset management systems
course that was conducted for the staff of FMW and its agencies and based primarily on
the feedback from the course participants, the Consultant makes the following
recommendations:
(1.) The plan to continue offering the course quarterly to sensitize as many staffs of
FMW and its agencies as possible should be continue to be supported. The gained
knowledge and awareness will build buy-in and support, and prepare Nigeria as
we embark on the road asset management implementation plan.
(2.) Some of the priority areas of needs identified by the participants should be
carefully reviewed and considered in the action plans for road asset management
(RAM) including:
(a) Lack of objective data analysis tools to support and communicate technical
decisions;
(b) Emphasis on long-term strategic and tactical level planning; and
(c) Optimization of resources for preservation of good road assets.
(3.) The level of maturity of the current practice of asset management in Nigeria was
benchmarked by the participants at 2.6 on the 1 – 6 scale. It is strongly
recommended that the scoping of the RAM implementation plan should target
raising the maturity to level 4 or 5 in the medium-term [2 to 3 years] – and thereby
Nigeria can realize maximum return on investment to the tax payers money and
provide better and sustainable road asset conditions of the country.
(4.) Drawing from best practices world-wide, the proposed implementation of RAMS
can only succeed if supported by top management and key external stakeholders. It
is therefore recommended that the RAM Steering Committee should seek the full
support and buy-in from the FMW top leadership (the Hon. Minister and Perm.
Sec.), and identify a Champion at very senior level to drive the implementation
process.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 An Overview
The Road Sector Development Team (RSDT) of the Federal Ministry of Works (FMW)
contracted Prof. Donath Mrawira as the Road Asset Management (RAM) Adviser. The
objective of the RAM Adviser assignment is to support the Federal Ministry of Works
(FMW) and its agencies (namely FERMA and RSDT) put in place and effectively use a
suitable road asset management system, over a reasonable time frame. This objective is
envisaged to be achieved by undertaking two key parallel activities: (i) steering the
RAM development process, and (ii) providing real-time targeted technical advice for
effective implementation of the RAM.
Although training was not a specific part of the RAM Adviser’s scope of work, he
proposed to conduct a series of training courses to broaden awareness and
understanding of asset management principles within FMW, its agencies and other
stakeholders. The first such training was held on April 28 – May 2, 2014 at Chelsea
Hotel, Abuja. This report presents a post-course evaluation report following the
successful completion of the first “Executives’ & Practitioners’ Course: Road Asset
Management” conducted for FMW and its agencies.
1.2 General Objective of the Course
The course had a primary goal to introduce and develop practical understanding, and
the application of latest road asset management guides (IAM 2012, OECD 2001,
AASHTO 2002 and Canadian InfraGuide) and concepts to a road agency. The course
illustrated road asset management "best practices" in key functions of a transportation
agency's resource allocation and utilization: policy development, planning and
programming, program delivery, operations, and use of information and modern
analysis tools, especially, mathematical optimization in long-term strategic investment
planning. Participants were given an opportunity to play roles as road agency’
executives in benchmarking their agency’s current level of practice of road asset
management and identify potential areas for further enhancement. A case study was
used to demonstrate how optimization and geographic information system can be used
at the strategic level investment planning to support senior management in ensuring
the best use of resources across all assets types operated by FMW and its agencies. A
practical class assignment was given to as a learning strategy to expose participants to
the challenges of long-term strategic and tactical planning in an agency. However, due
low mastery of Microsoft excel functions, the benefits of this assignment were not fully
realized.
1.3 Specific Objectives of the Course
The specific objectives of the senior executives’ course were to introduce and develop
the participants understanding of the following concepts:
Understand the fundamentals of road asset management (RAM);
Appreciate why using road asset management is important to agencies;
into their agencies' business processes;
Use a self-assessment guide to benchmark an agency' maturity in
asset-management;
Develop a basic understanding of related technical concepts such as
long-term planning and performance based planning;
Acquire basic appreciation of strategic planning, budgeting; trade-off between
preservation vs. capital expansion;
Learn best practices of maintenance and preservation strategies for road
infrastructure;
Understand the role of and key elements of Performance measurement and
monitoring;
Develop some awareness on the role of location referencing systems
(definition of assets inventory), data and databases and related issues in
modern road management;
Appreciate the basics issues of developing an implementation plan; and
Acquire basic understanding of key enabling or supporting technologies that
enhance road asset management, including Mathematical optimization,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Global Position System (GPS), etc.
1.4 Course Modules
The senior executives’ course was presented in 14 modules over four-days as shown in
Table 1. This course is typically conducted over five full days. However given the May
1st public holiday (Workers’ Day), the workshop was condensed to fit into four work
days. This was done by skipping over Modules 11 and 13, and only providing a
high-level presentation of the more technical content. Approximately three modules were
covered every day, with a typical day running from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, with two
refreshment breaks and a lunch break.
TABLE 1 Description of Course Modules
Day/Date Module/Topic Monday
April 28/14 1. Welcome, introductions & course expectations. 2. Framework & principles of road asset management. 3. Role of pavements in Transportation Infrastructure Tuesday
April 29/14 4. Long-term Investment Planning (LTIP), Prioritization & Budgeting 5. Trade-off Analysis and Optimization
6. Introduction to Linear Programming and Strategic Level Cross- Asset Optimization Wednesday
April 30/14 7. Asset Preservation Best Practices 8. Performance Measurement & Monitoring.
9. Asset Location referencing system, Role of GIS and GPS. Friday
May 2/14 10. Data and database issues. 12. Considerations for Implementing Asset Management. 14. Course summary and conclusions
2.0 PARTICIPATION AND ATTENDANCE
A total of sixty (60) participants attended and successfully completed the course.
Successful completion was assessed in terms of attending at least 3 days out of the 4
total. The participants consisted of 30 from the FMW of whose 27 successfully attended.
FERMA initially sent in a total of 30 staffs, however, due to logistical challenges, the
number was reduced. Effectively only 21 completed the course with 3 or 4 days
attendance. RSDT had a total of 21 participants registered but only 12 effectively
completed. The daily attendance record varied from a high of 69 (in day 2) to a low of
57 on day 3. This was commendable given the fact that senior staffs at the HQ are
oftentimes overcommitted and unavailable even for a few days. All the 60 participants
were, therefore, awarded certificates after successfully completing the course.
Appendix A provides a complete attendance record including participants’
organizations and designations.
It is worth noting that, as it was recommended in the RAMS Adviser’s Inception Report,
subject to availability of facilitation resources, the RAM training course will continue to
be offered with a target of bring more awareness and knowledge of asset management
to a much larger proportion of staffs in FMW and its agencies, and event other
stakeholders. The next offering is planned for July 2014. The RAM Adviser’s suggestion
is to offer one RAM training course or workshop per quarter.
3.0 PRE-COURSE SURVEY RESULTS
3.1 Overall Evaluation Goal
The overall goal of conducting pre-course evaluation was to capture in a quantitative
way the existing level of awareness and readiness for road asset management. The
survey will provide a baseline of information on how each participant is
technology-ready or “comfortable,” how he/she perceive the importance of road management
system, role of analyses in decision-making; and also identify some perceived areas of
need at FMW and its agencies. An important goal of the survey was to benchmark or
capture how the participants feel about the maturity or capability of road management
system at FMW and its agencies. The course participants were also asked to give
comments on key barriers or challenges that may negatively impact on growth of road
management system; and to identify areas that need improvement.
3.2 Pre-Course Quantitative Results
The responses to the first six questions of the pre-course questionnaire are summarized
in Figure 1. The responses were in a scale of 1 – 10 for questions 1 through 5, where “1”
corresponds to “poor or not agree,” and “10” “signify very good” or “strongly agree.”
As seen in Figure 1, when the participants were asked, if they were “very comfortable in
using information & communication technologies (e.g., computers, Internet, etc.) at work”
the average response was 8.3. This suggests that the participants had a relatively good
perception about their skills in the use of computers and ICTs. However, this is simply a
personal “perception” and may not reflect the real level of fluency in day to day use of
computers and information technologies to improve their decision-making or work
productivity.
FIGURE 1. Average scores of the pre-course questionnaire responses
In response to Question 2, when the participants were asked if they were “lacking
objective data, analysis or presentations methods to communicate or justify their decisions
to higher management,” the average response was 5.2. This suggests that most
participants recognize that there is need for improved tools, analysis methods and the
like to enhance their ability to support decisions and communicate them to higher level.
This is noteworthy, given that the opinion was before been exposed to the road asset
management course content.
In response to Question 3, when they were asked if, “Road asset management will play
an important role in improving their work or the effectiveness of FMW and its
agencies,” the average response was 9.4, the highest score so far. This is a good indicator
that the participants do place a significant value on RAM. This relatively very high score
suggests that the participants will be open and supportive to any future steps to
improve or even fully implement a comprehensive road asset management at FMW
and its agencies.
To Question 4, which asked, if “Most decision making (e.g., which road to repair with
what method) are carefully analyzed using data and systematic followed once decided,”
the average response was 6.3. This middle-of-the-scale score suggests that participants
see a need for more systematic approach to support decision-making based on analysis
of data. Again, this is notable, given that it is a perception voiced by the participants
even before they were exposed to the RAM course.
Figure 1 also shows that the average response to Question 5, (asking if participants had
a prior exposure to road management system), was 3.3. The more indicative score is the
8.3 5.2 9.4 6.3 3.3 3.6 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 QN1. Exposure to use of ICT technologies at your
work.
QN2. Do you lack objective data, analysis methods make/justify your decisions?
QN3. RAM will play an important role in the effectiveness of FMW, FERMA or RSDT? QN4. Currently most decisions are based on data
analysis and systematic followed once decided? QN5. You have attended one or more courses or
workshops on road management system? QN6. The Current level of maturity of RAMS at
(FMW, FERMA or RSDT) on [0-6 scale]
median which was 2.0. This relatively low scope is possibly an indication only very few
staffs within FMW and its agencies have any knowledge of Road Asset Management. The
few who scored 7 to 10 were exposed to concepts of road management system through
such trainings as the Executive programme at the University of Birmingham, UK.
As seen on Figure 1, the participants rated the maturity or capability of road
management system at FMW and its agencies at 3.6 [on a scale 1 – 6]. The scale used
(Figure 2), the so called, the Infrastructure Management Maturity Model (IM
3) proposed
by Mrawira and Wlaschin (2009). The score of 3.6 is probably slightly higher (than an
objective true value) but not excessively so compared to a realistic bench-mark of the
current practice FMW and its agencies. It will be interesting to compare the post-course
rating of the level of maturity of road management by the participants after completing
the course. Their knowledge and awareness of asset management system is expected to
change how they perceive the level of maturity (and need for improvement) of the road
asset management at FMW and its agencies. This comparison is subsequently presented
in Section 4 of this report.
FIGURE 2. The scale used rate the capability or maturity of a road management
system (adapted from Mrawira and Wlaschin, 2009)
13.3 Pre-Course Identified Barriers and Areas for Improvement
The pre-course questionnaire included two “free form” questions that asked the
participants to comment or write out their ideas. Question 7 asked the participants to
identify three main barriers or challenges that may limit maturity of road asset
management at FMW and its agencies. Key barriers identified are all listed in Appendix
B. The identified most significant barriers to RAM include:
Lack of knowledge & awareness, and/or trained staff (30 of 51 participants);
Lack of funding or budgetary constraints (27of 51 participants);
Political interference or policy inconsistency (16 of 51 participants);
Lack of data or means to organize/analyze data (12 of 51 participants).
Finally, Question 8 of the pre-course survey wanted to establish the top priority areas
needing improvement with respect to road management system at FMW. Appendix C
presents all the participants’ responses to Question 8 of the pre-course survey. The
priority RAM-related areas for improvement identified by participants include:
Need for data/records, monitoring and/or data analysis (20 of 51 participants);
Priority in maintenance or asset preservation (16 of 51 participants);
Funding or timely budget meet prioritized needs (13of 51 participants);
Increased training/retraining of staffs (9 of 51 participants).
These are definitely important aspects that must be seriously considered and addressed
in the RAM implementation plan.
4.0 POST-COURSE SURVEY FINDINGS
4.1 Goal of the Post-Course Evaluation
A number of instructional techniques were used to both challenge and encourage
learning, but also to assess the level of internalization of the workshop concepts. One
such technique was a review each morning that challenged the participants to write
down the key lessons they learnt from the previous day. This process was then followed
by discussions among the participants and allows the Facilitator to provide final
guidance on key issues. Appendix D presents (as an example) lessons learnt in Day 1 of
the workshop. Examples of the lessons captured by participants include:
Got to know that quick response to maintaining assets is necessary. ‘A stitch in
time saves nine.’
Understood that asset management is not what we do to the assets, but rather
how we use the assets to obtain value and achieve organizational goals and
objectives.
Understood how organizations can invest wisely with a view to obtaining value
for money despite the limited resources.
Found out that constant monitoring of assets will save organizational costs of
repair.
Participant has issues with HDM4. Wondered whether the Model cannot be used
in road asset management to enhance decision making process for the org.
Answer: HDM4 is a powerful tool but limited in scope to managing only
pavement assets without looking at all the other assets in the network.
Realized that politicians’ thinking can be changed towards investment in road
maintenance when the facts and figures are clearly and concisely presented in a
form that they can understand.
The post-course evaluation had two primary goals. (a) The first part of the
questionnaire was deigned to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of
teaching/presentation on module by module basis. Comments were also solicited to
clarify specific areas of the course that may need improvement in future offerings. (b)
The second part of the questionnaire was designed to ascertain the overall impression
about the course. The focus here was to try and quantify how useful the course was to
the participants and to the agency.
Specific questions in this part dealt with opinions on valuable aspects of the course,
impact the course may have on participants’ work/actions, any new skills gained, and
new perception on role of road asset management system. Other questions dealt
with the quality of the interaction between instructors and participants, and if asset
management system will improve work at FMW and its agencies. As with the
pre-course survey, the post-pre-course asked participants to give a new rate on the maturity of
road management system at FMW and its agencies using the same IM
3scale in Figure 2
(Mrawira and Wlaschin, 2009). Finally, participants were asked to identify areas that
may need improvements.
4.2 Module by Module Post-Course Assessment
Figure 3 presents the summary of post-course module by module evaluation by
participants. A total of 37 participants responded to this evaluation. It is seen from
the figure that the overall ratings for the course modules are generally very good. The
median rating was 5 while the overall average rating was 4.3 on the scale of 1 – 5,
(where, 5 is the highest). This shows that the participants had very good impression the
course.
It is interesting to observe that all course modules, except 6, 8 and 9, had an average
rating of 4.2 or above. These three modules were on relatively more technical and
unique areas of technology applicable to road asset management (Introduction to linear
programming, asset location referencing system (GIS & GPS), and Data and Database
issues). It is expected that these topics may be more challenging to mature participants
to assimilate.
FIGURE 3 Summary of the post-course module by module evaluation results
4.2 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.6 4.5 3.9 3.9 4.7 4.6 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Module #1: Introduction & Pre-course… Module #2: Framework and Principles of… Module #3: Role of pavements in Transport… Module #4: Strategic Level Investment… Module #5: Trade-off Analysis and… Module #6: Introduction to linear… Module #7: Asset Preservation Best Practices.
Module #8: Performance Measurement &… Module #9: Asset Location referencing… Module #10: Data and database issues
Module #12: Consideration for… Module #14: Course summary and…
4.3 Part II Post-Course Evaluation: Overall Impression
4.3.1 Comments on Individual Course Modules
Appendix E presents the listing of all comments made by participants on individual
modules alongside their rating of the module. In overall, these are valuable suggestions
that need to be considered. Examples of comments made by participants include:
Road Asset Management in Nigeria has not been taken into consideration; the
effect is seen on the massive road rehabilitation and reconstruction. This could
be improved with the introduction of RAMS.
The commencement of the RAM seminar offered me a lot of hope toward
securing better understanding of Assets Management and improving the core
value of FERMA.
My allocation of excellent mark is based on the fact that the instructor presented
the course in an excellent manner, with the introduction clearly showing what
we are to expect.
The introductory aspect of the workshop was indeed an eye opener as it opens
our understanding to how cost could be saved if there are quick responses to put
back any little crack or pot-hole in a better shape.
The reason why we need Asset Management was fulfilled and effect of what
happened when we decide not to care about Asset Management
4.3.2 Participants’ Comments on the Overall Impression of the Course
Appendix F presents the detailed comments from the Part II of the post-course
questionnaire. Each table presents the results or response of the participants to a given
question. In this section, the report summarizes the most important comments. (The
importance was judged by how frequently they were repeated.)
The first question (in Part II) asked the participants what was the most valuable aspect
of the course. Example of comments made by participants:
Road Asset Management in Nigeria has not been taken into consideration; the
effect is seen on the massive road rehabilitation and reconstruction. This could
be improved with the introduction of RAMS.
The commencement of the RAM seminar offered me a lot of hope toward
securing better understanding of Assets Management and improving the core
value of FERMA.
My allocation of excellent mark is based on the fact that the instructor presented
the course in an excellent manner, with the introduction clearly showing what
we are to expect.
The introductory aspect of the workshop was indeed an eye opener as it opens
our understanding to how cost could be saved if there are quick responses to put
back any little crack or pot-hole in a better shape.
The reason why we need Asset Management was fulfilled and effect of what
happened when we decide not to care about Asset Management.
The responses to Question 2 show that all the modules of the course were considered
valuable and important by most of the participants. The comments include statement
such as:
The first question (in Part II) asked the participants what was the most valuable aspect
of the course. The responses include:
All aspect of the training is valuable, but I strongly appreciate the LTIP,
motivation and budget. Trade-off and optimization.
Budgeting without planning is nothing.
Creating the much needed institutional change in Asset Management by
involving top management of the FMW and other professionals such as
accountants, lawyers, surveyors, safety officers.
Having the conviction personally on the need for total Asset Management and
consistently selling it to the top management until adopted.
Getting maximum value from roads into the national economy.
What I view as the most valuable aspect of this training are the Long term
planning and always keep the good thing good. They make a lot of sense.
The responses to Question 2 show that all the modules of the course were considered
valuable and important by most of the participants. The comments include statement
such as:
All aspects of the training proper were valuable. They all expanded my scope on
the subject. The venue was not the most appropriate.
Introduction to linear programming and application in cross asset optimization
(was a bit off).
Every topic/module is as important as the other and is inter-related.
Question 3 asked, “What specific actions will you take as a result of this workshop?”
Some of interesting comments include statement such as:
We should maintain better road first so that it does not deteriorate further.
Engage on performance measurement to quickly arrive at our outcomes faster.
Advocate for change in the way we do business and create a niche in my office by
beginning change among my subordinate staff.
Assemble a focused team/group to champion knowledge dissemination, buy-in
and implementation.
I will be a force for positive change in Road Asset Management
I will commence implementation of the principles immediately in my own area of
sphere
I will educate my immediate Boss on the optimal gains of Road Asset
Management with emphasis on keeping the good roads good.
In response to Question 4, which asked if the course has equipped the participants,
there were a variety of responses, including but not limited to:
Especially in the areas of becoming a change agent in the organization;
Documenting work process so that the younger engineers can gain knowledge;
and budgeting with a long term perspective.
The training has equipped me with new skills. Given our level of implementation
of RAMS, I will apply my new skill as far as it is practicable in our organization. I
also have to inform others on the benefit of RAMS.
I have been equipped with the skill to maximize value as far as road management
is concerned as this will help to boost the national economy.
Yes. I now know that it is better and cheaper to keep the good roads good
always.
Yes. I will ensure that analysis will precede decision making.
Yes! I can explain better to the public the need for preservation of the road asset,
and why some decision are made on road maintenance.
Question 5 in the Part II of the questionnaire was about: How the training affected
participant’s view the role of Road Asset Management System in serving FMW, FERMA
or RSDT. Some of the responses included:
I have learnt that the focus on Road Asset Management is to derive maximum
benefit to the economy.
I may say that FMW has been doing business in the old traditional way. With this
new knowledge in RAMS, institutional change will be put in place to fast-track
the core business of FMW - value for money from our assets.
I will advise my boss on production of more analysis and documentation to
educate the public on the consequence of deteriorating our roads with letters
and manmade hole.
It has made me to know that our core business is to achieve maximum value for
money out of Road Asset.
Question 10 asked the participants to comments on areas of asset management that
need to be improved at FMW and its agencies in the short term. The most interesting
among them include:
Long-term or Strategic level investment planning, prioritization & budgeting;
Optimization of resources;
Give priority to preservation roads in good conditions; (“keep good roads good”)
Arrange similar course for top management and senior staff of FMW;
Institute performance measurement system;
Change working culture; etc.
Finally, Question 12 asked the participants to give any other general comment. Some
interesting comments were given, including:
The momentum should be maintained by the Steering Committee and followed
to a logical conclusion, i.e., implementation.
The awareness now present in FMW should be sustained and institutionalized.
More of this workshop is needed in future to keep us in track and as a way of
updating information.
The training should be extended to the top management of our organization for
easy decision making.
The funding of road asset management should be adequate and timely released,
Better late than never'. RAMS is overdue in the Ministry. Several attempts have
been made in the past using different consultants but with little or no results
because they were uncoordinated, took a 'silo' approach and failed to attract a
'buy-in' from the top management. I believe the new approach will yield results
because its starts 'from the beginning' and is looking at the 'big picture' where
the road asset will be managed. Logistically, not ... of assets in isolation. Also the
training of a wide group of staff across departments in a second advocacy tool to
create a nucleus of "disciples" who will carry the message around. This training
should be extended to another set of participants to widen the advocacy.
I greatly commend the organization and the resource person (trainer). I will like
to suggest a follow-up workshop to this one, to keep in track and to keep the
momentum on. I will also suggest a special similar or same workshop for head of
these institutions - FMW, FERMA or RSDT and their top executives or
management team.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
This report presents a post-course evaluation report following the successful
completion of the “Executives’ & Practitioners’ Course: Road Asset Management”
conducted on April 28 – May 2, 2014; at Chelsea Hotel, Abuja.
The course had the goal of introducing and developing practical understanding, and the
application of road asset management concepts to a road agency. Emphasis was
directed towards highlighting best practices in key function areas such as resource
allocation, strategic level planning, works programming, program delivery, use of
information and modern analysis tools, especially mathematical optimization in
long-term strategic planning. Specific course objectives included understanding the
fundamentals of road asset management; understanding related technical concepts such
as long-term planning, performance based operations; learn best practices of
maintenance and preservation of road infrastructure; and acquire basic issues in
developing an asset management implementation plan.
A total of sixty (60) participants successfully completed the course with at least 75%
attendance to all modules. The participants were 27, 21 and 12 from FMW, FERMA and
RSDT, respectively. A pre-and post-course evaluations were conducted at the beginning
and at the conclusion of the course. The goal of the pre-course evaluation was to
quantify the existing level of awareness and readiness (or support) for road asset
management. The pre-course survey showed two important areas of need at FMW and
its agencies: (a) participants identified that FMW is lacking objective data, without a
comprehensive inventory, and data analysis tools to justify technical capital investment
or preservation decisions. (b) In relation to this lack, it was also pointed out that
technical or operational decisions are not carefully supported by analysis and
systematically followed through once they are made.
On the positive side, the pre-course survey showed that staffs of FMW and its agencies
believe that road asset management will play an important role in improving their work
or the effectiveness of FMW and its agencies. The relative high score [9.4 out of
maximum 10] on this opinion, also suggests that the course participants will be open
and supportive to any future steps to improve or implement a comprehensive road
asset management system at FMW and its agencies.
When the participants were asked to identify main barriers or challenges that inhibit
the maturity of road management system at FMW and its agencies they stated:
Lack of knowledge & awareness, and/or trained staff (30 of 51 participants);
Lack of funding or budgetary constraints (27of 51 participants);
Political interference or policy inconsistency (16 of 51 participants);
Lack of data or means to organize/analyse data (12 of 51 participants).
Finally, the pre-course survey also made recommendations on areas that need
improvement including:
Need for data/records, monitoring and/or data analysis (20 of 51 participants);
Priority in maintenance or asset preservation (16 of 51 participants);
Funding or timely budget meet prioritized needs (13of 51 participants);
Increased training/retraining of staffs (9 of 51 participants).
These are definitely important aspects that must be seriously considered and addressed
in the RAM implementation plan.
With respect to the post-training evaluation, the participants gave an overall module by
module average score of 4.3 on a 1 – 5 scale. This shows that the participants had a very
good impression of the course. This score compares very well with the overall quality of
the course rating of 4.9 given by the participants in Part II. From participants’ point of
view, all the modules were considered valuable and important.
This shows that the participants had very good impression the course. The report has
shown that the course was very successful both in terms of the level of quality of the
teaching or presentation of the course, and the awareness or self-reflection it raised
among the participants. The course has impacted on the participants’ view and
acceptance or support of asset management approach. It is obvious from the
participants’ feedback that the course has equipped them in various ways, including:
(1) Especially in the areas of becoming a change agent in the organization;
Documenting work process so that the younger engineers can gain knowledge;
and budgeting with a long term perspective.
(2) The training has equipped me with new skills. Given our level of
implementation of RAMS, I will apply my new skill as far as it is practicable in
our organization. I also have to inform others on the benefit of RAMS.
(3) I have been equipped with the skill to maximize value as far as road
management is concerned as this will help to boost the national economy.
(4) I now know that it is better and cheaper to keep the good roads good always.
(5) I will ensure that analysis will precede decision making.
(6) I can explain better to the public the need for preservation of the road asset, and
why some decision are made on road maintenance.
The participants rated the maturity or capability of road management system at FMW
and its agencies at 3.6 [on a scale 1 – 6], prior to the course. The maturity rating
dropped to 2.6 post-training. With the increased awareness of road asset management,
the participants correctly realized that the practice of asset management at FMW and
its agencies still needs a long way to go. The score of 2.6 on the IM
3scale is more
realistic estimate than the pre-course estimate of 3.6. This level of maturity [2.6] is
indicative of an agency that has done very well in using agency staff knowledge and
experience, and has very good inventory of its assets; yet, modeling and advanced
analysis is used only in very limited scope to support strategic level and operational
level decisions.
When asked what specific actions they will take as result of the course, some of the
responses of the participants included:
(1.) We should maintain better road first so that it does not deteriorate further.
(2.) Engage on performance measurement to quickly arrive at our outcomes faster.
(3.) Advocate for change in the way we do business and create a niche in my office by
beginning change among my subordinate staff.
(4.) Assemble a focused team/group to champion knowledge dissemination, buy-in
and implementation.
(5.) I will be a force for positive change in Road Asset Management.
(6.) I will commence implementation of the principles immediately in my own area of
sphere.
(7.) I will educate my immediate boss on the optimal gains of Road Asset Management
with emphasis on keeping the good roads good.
(8.) I will work on colleagues who did not attend the programme, ensure they key into
it in order to have a team that can drive in the message.
(9.) Literally, preaching the gospel of Asset Management to all, especially in the FMW.
We need to start seeing our assets as Assets thereby changing the way things are
done in the FMW right now, so we can get the best value for money spent.
When asked if the course has equipped the participants, the response was
predominantly “yes” including the following specific benefits or skills identified by the
participants:
Especially in the areas of becoming a change agent in the organization;
Documenting work process so that the younger engineers can gain knowledge;
and budgeting with a long term perspective.
The training has equipped me with new skills. Given our level of implementation
of RAMS, I will apply my new skill as far as it is practicable in our organization. I
also have to inform others on the benefit of RAMS.
I have been equipped with the skill to maximize value as far as road management
is concerned as this will help to boost the national economy.
I now know that it is better and cheaper to keep the good roads good always.
Yes. I will ensure that analysis will precede decision making.
Yes! I can explain better to the public the need for preservation of the road asset,
and why some decision are made on road maintenance.
The post-course participants’ identified priority areas of asset management that need
to be improved in the short-term at FMW and its agencies include:
Proper long-term/tactical planning, Strategic direction, (30 of 51 participants);
Proper fund/budget or resource allocation (6 of 37 participants);
Performance measurement & feedback (4 of 37 participants).
The final post-course comments from the participants were directed on their overall
view of the course and the relevance to FMW and its agencies. The most dominant
theme raised by the participants is that a similar course (on asset management) needs
to be conducted for top management at FMW and its agencies, senior staff and external
stake holders. The participants also pointed out that mechanisms should be made to
implement road asset management at FMW and its agencies as soon as possible.
5.2 Recommendations
Given the high level of success of the senior executives’ road asset management systems
course that was conducted for the staff of FMW and its agencies and based primarily on
the feedback from the course participants, the consultant makes following
recommendations:
(5.) The plan to continue offering the course quarterly to sensitize as many staffs of
FMW and its agencies as possible should be continue to be supported. The gained
knowledge and awareness will build buy-in and support, and prepare Nigeria as
we embark on the road asset management implementation plan.
(6.) Some of the priority areas of needs identified by the participants should carefully
be reviewed and considered in the action plans for road asset management (RAM)
including:
(d) Lack of objective data analysis tools to support and communicate technical
decisions;
(e) Emphasis on long-term strategic and tactical level planning; and
(f) Optimization of resources for preservation of good road assets.
(7.) The level of maturity of current practice of asset management in Nigeria was
benchmarked by the participants at 2.6 on the 1 – 6 scale. It is strongly
recommended that the scoping of RAM implementation plan should target raising
the maturity to level 4 or 5 in the medium-term [2 to 3 years]– and thereby Nigeria
can realize maximum return on investment to the tax payers money and provide
best and sustainable road asset conditions for the country.
(8.) Drawing from best practices world-wide, the proposed implementation of RAMS
can only succeed if supported by top management and key external stakeholders. It
is therefore recommended that the RAM Steering Committee should seek the full
support and buy-in from the FMW top leadership (the Hon. Minister and Perm.
Sec.), and identify a Champion at very senior level to drive the implementation
process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The RAMS Adviser acknowledges the support of RSDT Unit Manager for organization of
this course. Special thanks are extended to the Resource Management Officer and the
Project Secretary for the logistical support of the course.
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), (2002).
Transportation Asset Management Guide, November 2002, Publication by the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Program 20-24(11).
InfraGuide operated from 2001 to 2007 as a partnership between the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, the National Research Council and Infrastructure Canada. A
collection of best practices are available online for viewing at:
http://www.fcm.ca/home/programs/past-programs/infraguide/
Mrawira, D. and B. Wlaschin (2009). A Framework for Standardization of
Transportation Asset Management. Paper presented at the 88
thAnnual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. January 10-15, 2009.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2001). Asset
Management for the Roads Sector. OECD Publications Service, Paris Cedex, France.
The Institute of Asset Management (IAM), (2012). Asset Management – an anatomy,
Version 1.1, February 2012. (Web Doc. Available at:
www.theIAM.org/AMA
).
This Page is left Blank
This Page is left Blank
No Name/Designation Organization/Designation Phone No. Email Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Total
1 Dr Emeka Agbasi AD FERMA 08033645300 [email protected] 4
2 Engr. Okhide Austine A. FERMA 08052552730 [email protected] 4
3 Engr. Abiosun Azoyebi FERMA 08034371736 [email protected] 4
4 Aderibole Banwo FERMA 08059215043 [email protected] 4
5 Fatima Tijjani Aliyu FERMA 08166123214 3
6 Digah Okolie Plus FERMA 08059659226 1
7 Engr. A.B. Yakubu FERMA 08037876773 [email protected] 1
8 Engr. O.C. Erinne FERMA 08036692544 [email protected] 4
9 Aizebeokhai M.E. FERMA, AGM(SW/MDT) 08029465714 [email protected] 4
10 Engr. Z.U. Faroud FERMA 08035960196 [email protected] 4
11 Engr. A.O. Ajayi FERMA 08033835099 [email protected] 3
12 Akintola J.O FERMA 08059624222 [email protected] 2
13 Engr. Itodo T. Ocheme FERMA 08033141439 [email protected] 1
14 Nwankwo Ikechukwu M. FERMA 08035094095 [email protected] 2
15 Engr. Olaniyan O.O. FERMA 08033493078 [email protected] 3
16 Fatima Okei FERMA 08033145695 [email protected] 2
17 Engr. C.E Okon FERMA 08037089918 2
18 Engr. Dr. Eyo Thomas B FERMA 08033705986 [email protected] 1
19 Barr. Odoh Okpanachi James FERMA 08055069665 [email protected] 4
20 Engr. Murtala Abubakar FERMA 08061617916 [email protected] 4
21 Oko Obinna FERMA (WEST OPTS) 08037452917 [email protected] 2
22 Richard Clark FERMA ALA 08033173473 4
23 John Yusuf FERMA AM (Int.Audit) 08065658067 [email protected] 4
24 Maryam Adamu Umar FERMA COM/PRU 08026022433 [email protected] 4
25 Eremionkhale Rita .I. FERMA Int. Audit 08033502108 [email protected] 4
26 Oke, Oluyimika O. (Mrs) FERMA, SM(A & HRD) 0836679217 [email protected] 4
APPENDIX A: Detailed Course Attendance Register
ATTENDANCE: TRAINING WORKSHOP ON ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RAMS) VENUE: Crystal Hall, Chelsea Hotel, Adetokumbo Ademola Cres. ABUJA
No Name/Designation Organization/Designation Phone No. Email Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Total
APPENDIX A: Detailed Course Attendance Register
ATTENDANCE: TRAINING WORKSHOP ON ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RAMS) VENUE: Crystal Hall, Chelsea Hotel, Adetokumbo Ademola Cres. ABUJA
DATE: April 28, 2014 - May 2, 2014
29 Ajah Ikeckuwu Victor FERMA/CEII 08060677057 [email protected] 4
30 Engr. T.O. Koya FERMA/DGM 08038240987 [email protected] 1 31
31 Engr Itodo T. Ocheme FERMA/GM 08033141439 4 10
32 Okpancichi Christopher FMW 08060010700 4 21
33 Engr. Mustapha Nurenia FMW 08030827440 4
34 Suleman, Abdulkadir M. FMW 08060336662 [email protected] 4
35 Wole-Fasanya A.F.(Mrs) FMW 08033138754 [email protected] 3
36 Abdallah Rahman Hussani FMW 08051726963 [email protected] 3
37 Engr. Muhammad H. FMW 08034091876 [email protected] 4
38 Engr. G.O. Nsonwu FMW 08033575200 [email protected] 3
39 Onuorah Tochukwu Obumneme FMW 08068452933 [email protected] 3
40 Bala Danshehu FMW 08036076280 [email protected] 1
41 Mr. Haruna Ugbede FMW (Accounts) 08025723383 [email protected] 4
42 Theodore Ogaziechi FMW (Deputy Director) 08033068068 [email protected] 3
43 Engr Ibi Terna M. FMW (Deputy Director) 08065320275 [email protected] 3
44 Engr. I.T. Salami FMW (EMSD) 07059864195 [email protected] 4
45 Egbeyemi Abiola A. FMW (EMSD) 08023435868 [email protected] 3
46 Egbeyemi Abiola A. FMW (EMSD) 08023435868 [email protected] 3
47 Akinfolarin Olusamya .K. FMW (EMSD) 08138952227 [email protected] 4
48 Engr Okwute Ignatius, E FMW (EMSD) 08038781027 [email protected] 4
49 Ukombe, Mfon E FMW (F/A) 08023783427 4
50 Omoruanzoje Victor Omoz FMW (FIN & ACCTS) 08069126969 4
51 Major Ifeoma FMW (Int.Audit) 08038560443 4
52 Akujobi Agatha FMW (Int.Audit) 08055376331 [email protected] 4
53 Barr. (Mrs) J. Adaramola FMW (Legal) 08065975661 [email protected] 4
54 Engr. U.I Udok FMW (MGQC) 08036550924 [email protected] 4
No Name/Designation Organization/Designation Phone No. Email Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Total
APPENDIX A: Detailed Course Attendance Register
ATTENDANCE: TRAINING WORKSHOP ON ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RAMS) VENUE: Crystal Hall, Chelsea Hotel, Adetokumbo Ademola Cres. ABUJA
DATE: April 28, 2014 - May 2, 2014
57 Jibrin Umar Shuaibu FMW SCE (BRIDHTS) 08065177945 [email protected] 2
58 Engr Abiye Harry Otejiri FMW, CE/ABJ 08034512341 [email protected] 3
59 Owuamandm Azuattalam .M FMW, F&ACCTS 08138519979 4
60 Engr. (Mrs) H.B. Buhari FMW, PPP 08055240567 [email protected] 1 30
61 Engr. Ogbuehi Charles FMW, SE-ABUJA 08033166354 [email protected] 4 3
62 Aliyu H. Musa RSDT 08033837144 4 27
63 Ngozi Mojike CPS RSDT 08053674267 [email protected] 2
64 Olugbenga Olumolawa RSDT 08037211092 [email protected] 3
65 Djasro Naibi RSDT 08165573023 [email protected] 4
66 Igoni Maria D. RSDT 08036699805 [email protected] 2
67 Engr. Yakubu Madaki RSDT 07038968340 [email protected] 2
68 Chukwunonso Ibe RSDT 07056733474 [email protected] 3
69 Chike Ngwuocha RSDT 08077222570 [email protected] 2
70 Rufai Abdul-Azeez RSDT 08036340371 [email protected] 3
71 Ibrahim Dindi RSDT 08034966788 [email protected] 2
72 Engr. Adedapo Ademola RSDT 08032013360 [email protected] 3
73 Nasiru Rabiu RSDT Project Engr 08036130632 [email protected] 4
74 Dr. Site Onyejekwe RSDT Traffic Engr 07014022999 [email protected] 4
75 GARBA Rilwanu Saleh RSDT, PRIN. ACCOUNT. 08033140167 3
76 Usman A. Lawan RSDT/CO 08050928956 [email protected] 4
77 Lizzy E. Kehinde RSDT/PS 08038476622 [email protected] 3 17
78 C. Henry Usoh RSDT/Senior Proj. Engr. 08033276182 [email protected] 4 5
This Page is left Blank
APPENDIX B. Responses to Question No. 7 of Pre-Course Questionnaire
Briefly List three barriers or challenges that are limiting or slowing the maturity of
Road Asset Management System in FMW, FERMA or RSDT:
1. Political interference 2. Limitation of funding 3. Lack of knowledge of RAMS 1. Political influence
2. High turnover of management
3. Every management is a new beginning
1. Inadequate budgetary provision and non-release of funds during construction season.
2. Political interference, indiscriminate award of control to incompetent contractors while competent contractors don’t have job to do.
3. Frequent change of management. Discontinuing of started or initiated by past management 1. Limited funds
2. Inadequate personnel
3. Inability to consider it as a priority 1. Lack of funding
2. Inadequate manpower 3. Lack of political will
1. Inadequate knowledge of Road Asset Mgt. System 2. Inadequate resource utilization for that purpose
3. Lack of experience on RAMS and business plan procedure 1. Funding
2. Executive Mgt. decision 3. Quality of materials used 1. Larger number of federal roads
2. Gazetting of local gov't road as federal roads
3. Dependence on roads for transporting persons and goods without functional rails 1. Data acquisition
2. Referencing acquired data 3. Having the required knowledge 1. The bureaucracy of government works 2. Not all the roads are always covered 3. Funding on the part of Government
4. Equipment readiness 5. Co-ordination in the big picture is lacking 1. Inadequate knowledge about RAMS, lack of awareness
2. Politics
3. Lack of adequate equipment for data acquisition 4. Improper planning
1. Changing of Mgt. head
2. Lack of appropriate training for junior employees 3. Politics
1. Funding issues 2. Trained personnel
3. Mgt. decision making process 1. Inconsistent policy
2. Low sensitization or poor awareness 3. Poor feedback on evaluation
2. Lack of and untimely distribution of resources (finance) to attend to urgent situations/emergencies 3. Communication - The vast nature of the Nigeria economy leaves some dangerous aspects of the roads unattended to due to inadequate communication system
1. Political interference 2. Lack of consistent budget 3. Government policies 1. Lack of updating of data
2. Low frequency of training opportunity 1. Funds
2. Skilled and experienced personnel 3. Attitudinal behaviours
1. Engaging inexperience to handle the programme 2. Interference from other unprofessional body 3. Lack of maintenance culture
The principal barrier will be institutional; the major barrier will be changing the way things are done in the Ministry. The business process amenable to the overall objective for effective management of the road network by applying the principle of Road Asset Management.
1. Lack of funds 2. Lack of facilities 1. Isolating the rural areas 2. Non-availability of funds
3. Fake promises from the Politicians
1. Finance - when monies appropriated falls short of what was proposed in the budget.
2. Procurement Process - The procurement process in Nigeria is so long, such that by the time it is completed for the process of work to begin, the monies for the work would have lapsed for the year, and returned to the treasury.
3. Data or information gathering concerning which asset to manage 1. Financial constraints
2. Access to ICT 1. Funding
2. Community Interference 3. Communication gap
1. Funding from statutory allocation 2. No alternative source of funding 3. Frequent changes in management team
1. Non-engagement of the appropriate professionals 2. Inadequate funding
3. Non-application/limited application of ICT 1. Awareness in the public & stakeholders 2. Buy in by Executives and top management 3. Base data and database
1. Political will from decision makers
2. Many people including the professional are not aware of the importance of Road Asset Management 3. Lack of acceptance within the system
1. Awareness 2. Inertia
3. Concentrating efforts on other important tasks & projects
1. Lack of awareness of the benefits of using RAMS for the National Road Network 2. Lack of qualified personnel with key experience on Asset Management
