660

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset

Management: Prospects and Challenges
Michael J. Garvin
Department of Civil Engineering & Engineering Mechanics
Columbia University
Ralph P. Hall
Graduate Research Assistant
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John B. Miller
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Abstract: The concept of asset management has drawn much attention from those responsible for
and interested in civil infrastructure systems. Motivated by rising public expectation and changing
capital allocation requirements, many public agencies and associations in the United States have
begun promoting and coordinating efforts to develop frameworks and decision support systems for
infrastructure asset management. Most efforts are in their infancy, so the opportunity to take account
of the prospects and challenges of development is palpable. Accordingly, this paper briefly reviews
the state of infrastructure asset management developments within several international agencies and
assesses significant obstacles and decision factors. While the technical challenges of developing
cross communication between information system components and platforms are noteworthy, a
principal conclusion of our research to date is that these challenges must be balanced by equal
attention to elements which are salient to construction and analysis of alternative scenarios for
investment and operation. These factors include: (a) identification of key performance and service
indicators, (b) definition of comparative baselines, (c) alignment of operating and financial
management systems with capital programming processes, (d) integration of functional and condition
requirements, (e) consideration of public and private sector roles, and (f) incorporation of flexibility. In
addition, developers must carefully consider the scale and scope of these systems as well as their
institutional implications. Initiatives that neglect these factors are likely to produce decision support
systems for infrastructure asset management that fall short of fulfilling expectations.

Keywords: infrastructure asset management, decision support systems, infrastructure management

Introduction
Numerous studies and publications have cataloged the deterioration of American
infrastructure systems (Choate and Walter, 1981; National Council on Public Works
Improvement, 1988; ASCE, 2001). Regardless of the merit given to various
estimates of need, a prolonged effort to renew and replace components and sub-
systems of infrastructure systems nation-wide is a logical expectation. Further, this
cycle is perpetual; today’s challenges will be replicated by similar challenges in the
future. Essentially, the century old systems in many of America’s urban centers are
approaching the end of their first lifecycle, and similar circumstances are found
worldwide. The future includes second, third and fourth cycles. Identifying system
priorities and allocating scarce capital resources among competing requirements
shall remain a constant challenge.

Motivated by these circumstances along with rising public expectations and

competitive pressures, many public agencies and enterprises in the United States

Proceedings of the CIB W070 2002 Global Symposium

Copyright © 2002 by CIB and CABER
 661

have begun promoting and coordinating efforts to develop frameworks and decision
support systems for infrastructure asset management. Most efforts, however, are in
their infancy, so the opportunity to take account of the prospects and challenges of
development is palpable. Advances in information technology are making it possible
to integrate disciplinary information systems to support decision-making like never
before. Beyond the obvious technical issues of cross communication between data
and software platforms, however, a number of salient challenges are forthcoming if
asset management is to realize its promise.

The intent of this paper is to explore developing asset management concepts and
practices while incorporating lessons learned from past and ongoing research efforts
at MIT and Columbia University. Over the past several years, the authors have been
engaged in the development of case studies about and decision support systems for
infrastructure. In the course of these efforts, we have identified several challenges
when implementing decision support systems designed to improve capital and
operational planning as well as performance. This paper serves as a forum for: (a)
reviewing U.S. and international experience with infrastructure asset management, in
effect taking a “pulse” of developments worldwide, (b) considering asset
management prospects and challenges, and (c) highlighting critical issues that might
preclude asset management practices from fulfilling expectations.

U.S. Experience

Federal Highway Administration & AASHTO

In 1998, the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) completed a reorganization

effort that established the Office of Asset Management as one of its core business
units. Its establishment was the result of increasing pressures and constraints upon
FHWA to make efficient use of scarce resources. One of the Office’s first efforts was
the publication of an asset management primer in response to repeated questions of
“what is asset management?” (FHWA, 1999). As the primer emphasized, many
transportation agencies across the United States already make regular use of both
pavement and bridge management systems to monitor their condition and
performance and to analyze and recommend sustainment and improvement projects.
However, many agencies do not fully utilize the capabilities of these systems, and the
two sub-systems are generally managed independent of one another (FHWA, 1999).
The new emphasis upon a more holistic and formal approach to managing assets
was underscored in FHWA’s “working definition” of asset management, which is
listed in Table 1. Recent activities by FHWA include the organization and execution
of several seminars and workshops designed to educate decision-makers and
practitioners about asset management.

Concurrently, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) adopted transportation asset management as a priority initiative.
Recognizing that the transition to such a posture would not come easily, AASHTO
formed a task force to develop a strategic plan to guide this transition. One of the
tasks identified by the plan was the development of a transportation asset
management guide for use by transportation agencies. Subsequently, the National

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
662

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)1 incorporated this objective into

one of its solicited research projects. The project is currently underway, and its first
phase was completed in the fall of 2001. The objectives of the initial phase were to
gather information about current practice, to develop a framework that would serve
as the basis for the guide, and to recommend a program of research in asset
management. The initial efforts identified several characteristics of the current
transportation environment in the United States that might complicate the practice of
asset management (Cambridge Systematics, 2001):

• Responsibility for different modes or segments of the transportation system is

fragmented across several agencies
• Funding is often constrained by mode and function
• Within highway transportation organizations, organizational units such as
pavement, bridge or maintenance are not integrated
• Information management systems and databases are often stand-alone and of
different vintages or platforms
• Senior managers do not have access to sufficient quality information for
analysis and decision-making

These findings suggest that overcoming institutional challenges will comprise the
majority of the effort necessary to implement such an approach. Development of the
guide continues in the project’s second phase.

American Public Works Association

In the late 1990’s, the American Public Works Association (APWA) assembled a task
force to study asset management and its implications upon public works
organizations throughout the United States. The task force delivered a report
describing the concept and issues surrounding its development and adoption within
public works agencies in the late summer of 1998. Their definition (also shown in
Table 1) suggests that asset management is more an investment policy than a
management tool since individual systems, such as pavement management systems,
are adequate for managing each class of asset (Danylo and Lemer, 1998). As such,
asset management becomes an integration methodology. In addition, the report
identified legal, financial and accountability issues which motivated the strategies
recommended by the task force to further asset management development and
practice. These strategies included coordinating the interested parties to promote a
common strategy and allocating appropriate resources to insure that the concept is
fully understood and documented. APWA’s Leadership & Management Committee
has assumed responsibility for coordinating further activities in this area, and they
continue to develop concepts and tools that will assist and encourage public works
agencies to embrace asset management practices within their organizations.

1
NCHRP is sponsored by AASHTO, in cooperation with FHWA, and is administered by the
Transportation Research Board. Formed in 1962, its mission is to conduct research in acute problem
areas that affect highway planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance nationwide.

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
 663

Source
American Public Works
Association Asset
Management Task Force
Definition
Assets management is a methodology to efficiently and equitably
allocate resources amongst valid and competing goals and
objectives. An assets management system is more an integrator, a
system that can interact with and interpret the output coming from
many dissimilar systems and provide deciders with reliable and
tested data.

New Zealand National
Asset Management
Steering Group and
Institute of Public Works
Engineering of Australia
The goal of infrastructure asset management is to meet a required
level of service in the most cost-effective way through the creation,
acquisition, maintenance, operation, rehabilitation, and disposal of
assets to provide for present and future customers. The key
elements of infrastructure asset management are: taking a lifecycle
approach; developing cost-effective management strategies for the
long term; providing a defined level of service and monitoring
performance; managing risks associated with asset failures;
sustainable use of physical resources; continuous improvement in
asset management practices.

Transportation Association
of Canada
Managing highway assets is not a new concept; highway agencies
have been using pavement, bridge and maintenance management
systems for decades. What sets asset management apart today is
the move to merge single-asset management systems into an
integrated whole. Asset management is a comprehensive process
that allocates funds effectively and efficiently among competing
pavement, structure and infrastructure needs.

U.S. Federal Highway Asset management is a systematic process of maintaining,

Administration upgrading, and operating physical assets cost-effectively. It
combines engineering principles with sound business practices and
economic theory, and it provides tools to facilitate a more
organized, logical approach to decision-making. Thus, asset
management provides a framework for handling both short- and
long-range planning.

Table 1 - Definitions of Asset Management

International Experience
Transportation Association of Canada

Early in 1999, the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) released a primer to

introduce the concept and to outline the benefits of asset management to its
constituents (see TAC’s definition in Table 1). Soon after the release of the primer,
TAC initiated a follow-up study to examine a range of issues associated with asset
management. In the fall of 2001, TAC released a report that focused upon three
areas: determining highway asset value, measuring system performance and
integrating data into executive information systems (TAC, 2001). The report provides
an overview of several approaches for valuing assets, but emphasizes two:
depreciated historical cost and written down replacement cost. In addition,
deterioration functions applicable to varying assets are cataloged. Key steps
identified in the valuation process include completion of an asset inventory,
determination of asset status, and application of an appropriate valuation method.

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
664

The report reviews a range of proposed performance indicators and recommends a

two-tiered system of performance measures. The first tier focuses upon a macro-
level view of highway system performance while the second tier targets detailed
indicators of service quality, productivity & efficiency, sectoral effectiveness and
institutional effectiveness. Five areas of key consideration for development and
utilization of performance measures are also highlighted: (1) stakeholder
involvement, (2) balanced view, (3) efficiency and effectiveness, (4) transportation
values and (5) objectivity. The final focus of the report is upon executive information
systems (EIS). Included as potential users of the EIS are individuals or groups
outside a transportation agency, such as the general public and elected officials. The
report suggests that the aggregation of data will increase and the accuracy of data
will decrease as information moves upward from technical users to the general
public. Two forms of EIS are also described and typical reports are illustrated.

New Zealand & Australia

In 2000, the New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group (NAMS)
joined with the Institute of Public Works Engineering of Australia (IPWEA) to release
the International Infrastructure Management Manual which built upon previous
manuals developed by each organization in 1996 and 1994 respectively. The
manual describes its purpose as “to promote best management practices for
infrastructure assets regardless of ownership (public/private sector) and country
location”. It focuses upon four general areas of asset management: (1) basic
concepts, (2) implementation, (3) techniques and (4) information systems. Without
question, the publication provides some of the most comprehensive treatment of the
subject available. Interestingly, the authors differentiate between basic asset
management and advanced asset management. As described, basic asset
management relies primarily upon an asset register, maintenance & resource
management, condition assessment and defined levels of service to establish
alternative treatment options and long-term cash flow predictions. Advanced asset
management goes beyond this to employ predictive modeling, risk management and
optimized decision-making techniques to establish asset lifecycle treatment options
and related long-term cash flow predictions.

Both New Zealand and Australia have become leaders in developing and practicing
asset management. In fact, a 2000 World Bank report described the two countries
as representative of current world best practice (Worley Intl., 2001). The report
identified three conditions that have contributed to New Zealand’s and Australia’s
success. First, legislative reforms requiring prudent and sustainable long-term
financial planning led to explicit accounting standards and reporting requirements.
Second, support systems such as computerized asset registers and decision-making
tools were developed for improving the ability of organizations to quantify long-term
benefits. Finally, regular monitoring of asset management performance has occurred
to insure that the benefits and improvement expected have in fact been achieved.

Defining Infrastructure Asset Management

This brief survey indicates that the interest in this subject is pronounced, and the
organizations highlighted are in varying stages of development and practice. In
addition, a general consensus exists about the concept. While the definitions of

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
 665

asset management offered by these organizations are somewhat unique, several

common themes are discernible. Foremost, asset management is a methodology for
programming infrastructure capital investments and adjusting infrastructure service
provision to fulfill established performance and service objectives. In addition, the
methodology takes a systemic and lifecycle perspective of infrastructure, and its
application is systematic. Finally, the methodology’s decision process is scenario-
driven and founded upon principles of engineering economy and management
science.

As defined, asset management represents a noteworthy shift in infrastructure

delivery and management. First, its emphasis upon systems and the long-term, not
components and the short-term, changes the focus and analytic basis of the
programming process. Whereas decisions may have centered upon projects for
asset classes such as bridges in the past, decisions must consider the lifecycle of
asset collections such as transportation corridors in the future. Second, the
construction and evaluation of alternatives is central to the approach. While
decision-making about public capital projects has routinely developed and
considered design and construction options, the inclusion of operations &
maintenance, capital renewal & replacement, and abandonment as decision
parameters adds new dimensions to the analytic process. In addition, integrated
facility delivery and contracted operations & maintenance have become viable
alternatives for evaluation. Third, the approach is systematic, so input and feedback
are instrumental. Effectiveness depends upon dynamic and reliable metrics or
indicators. Otherwise, decisions are under or uninformed. Finally, implicit within
such a framework is the substantive use of information technology to facilitate the
collection, management and analysis of data to support decision-making processes.
Recent advances make it possible to integrate information systems to support
decision-making like never before.

Decision Support System Prospects & Challenges

Asset management is a data-driven, decision-making process that evaluates various

capital and operating scenarios to improve infrastructure service and performance.
As such, tools and information systems designed to support this process are vital
components of this emerging concept. Certainly, the use of decision support
systems in infrastructure management is not new. They have been and will continue
to be an instrumental part of the process. What is new is the challenge of developing
such systems to support a more holistic and formal approach toward investment and
operational decisions. Still, the prospects of such systems are quite exciting. One
can envision an information system that collects routine data about an infrastructure
system or enterprise and transforms this data into meaningful and reliable
information while also providing linkages with system models and GIS to forecast
performance and cash flow and to map spatial data and trends. Common strategies
for achieving this end place an integrating platform amongst existing data analysis
and management systems to filter, transfigure and distribute data according to user
needs. Certainly, other structures are possible, and if history provides any indication,
the technical challenges of integrating disparate data management systems will
precede institutional capacity for their utilization. This reality tempers the general
enthusiasm for the concept of asset management. Accordingly, equal attention to
other important elements is necessary if the promise of asset management is to be

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
666

fulfilled. Those interested in developing systems to aid in the construction and

evaluation of alternative scenarios must think broadly about a range of issues.
Simply building the information infrastructure to provide access to system data is not
enough. We have identified several challenges for those thinking strategically about
decision support systems for asset management to consider. The observations
presented are underpinned by our own experiences in creating and deploying
decision support tools, and they were reinforced by the literature surveyed.

Performance Measurement

Performance measurement is central to asset management; feedback about an

infrastructure system or enterprise will drive the construction of investment and
operational alternatives. Within the United States, the discussion about performance
measurement has been ongoing since the 1980’s (National Council on Public Works
Improvement, 1988; GASB, 1994; National Research Council, 1995). Within this
literature, metrics are typically categorized as either measures of output or outcomes
where output metrics are simply measures of workload and outcome metrics are
indicators of program results such as timeliness or effectiveness. Indicators that
relate service efforts to accomplishments can also be labeled "efficiency" indicators
that are ratios of input to output or input to outcome. Defining appropriate
performance measures which adequately reflect objectives is one of the first
difficulties encountered. Incorporating the range of values present in society about
the built environment is no simple task, but it is critical to the subsequent indicators
selected. Burton and Hall (1999) describe the utilization of serviceability matrices
within the UK water industry and its irrigation sectors as a means for integrating
objectives and indicators.

A second, more pragmatic challenge is establishing comparative baselines. Without

benchmarks, performance measures are less meaningful. More importantly, they are
essential for supporting the accountability and transparency principles that are
integral to the asset management philosophy. Cross-sectional comparisons,
however, can be problematic, and concerns about data uniformity, availability and
reliability are significant and warrant consideration. For example, the metric per
capita consumption is popular amongst the water supply community to illustrate
water use characteristics. A significantly higher value for one system when
compared to a similar system might suggest a variety of issues worthy of analysis
such as pricing arrangements, distribution efficiency and conservation measures.
Defining the metric as volume of water sold/population served will obviously differ
from defining it as volume of water delivered/population served. Each definition can
convey meaningful information about water use, but can complicate its deployment
as a basis of comparison. In addition, the denominator population served is more
difficult to quantify consistently than commonly recognized. Issues such as these
introduce real issues for cross-sectional performance evaluation. Over time,
however, ongoing efforts by international and professional organizations to normalize
industry practices, standards, reporting and accounting will somewhat reduce these
concerns. Meanwhile, performance indicators should allow an independent
enterprise to internally assess its system since indicator states should change over
time as management implements various programs or activities. Still, some of the
quantification and data issues remain.

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
 667

The problems described above have become the fodder of those willing to shy away
from performance measurement. Recognizing that performance indicators are only
intended to provide a reasonable representation of different aspects of an
infrastructure system can diffuse debates about their adequacy. Independent
analysis and judgment are still required. The most apt analogy for performance
indicators is triage. They serve as a decision-maker's first-line of diagnosis and
suggest areas of strength and weakness. A starting point can be the use of financial
data. Financial information is often the most tangible factor in any decision-making
environment, and it is already collected as part of the annual accounting and
budgeting process. For instance, an organization operating as an enterprise account
can make use of standard financial ratios such as average collection period to
monitor organizational performance. In addition, data drawn from financial
statements have a degree of consistency and reliability that may not be found in
other data sources since the reporting of financial information follows generally
accepted accounting principles. Garvin (2001) effectively applied similar metrics to
characterize large water systems in the United States. At a minimum, such metrics
can be applied until the consistency issues that challenge the use of a broader set of
metrics are, at least partially, resolved.

Data Analysis & Management

Undoubtedly, information systems will play a fundamental role in asset management,

and this notion was reinforced by the emphasis placed upon them in the literature
surveyed. Current domain specific systems are routinely employed in decision-
making processes to identify needs and allocate resources, but evidence suggests
that available features are underutilized. For example, many bridge management
systems have predictive models of future maintenance requirements, but this aspect
of the system is rarely exploited (FHWA, 1999). Understanding this condition is but
one challenge facing those interested in the development of decision tools.

Additional challenges abound. Foremost, a data-driven decision approach starts with

data input. Data collection processes should occur naturally during routine activities,
and the potential of technology to support this function is tremendous. Hand-helds or
similar devices could easily replace paper-based record keeping. A second issue is
data access and security. Deciding what information is available to different actors is
not a trivial decision, particularly since the value that this information might hold to
each group is not necessarily understood at this point. In addition, infrastructure data
security, understandably, has become a subject of tremendous, recent attention.
Safeguarding potentially sensitive information while trying to maintain transparency to
system managers, operators, users and investors is no simple task. Data
maintenance is another nagging problem, and identifying the right mix of data to
support necessary decisions is critical. One of the authors has experience with
cleverly designed and intellectually appealing military data management systems that
became too cumbersome to maintain and were thus underutilized. Simply put, the
benefits of collecting and evaluating data should outweigh the costs. Not
surprisingly, systems with extensive data requirements remain suspect. A related
concern is data accuracy and reliability. Amekudzi and McNeil (2000) discuss how
uncertainty in data can incorrectly influence decisions and describe an approach for
handling this uncertainty. Finally, data will undoubtedly be used as a tool for
prediction, but caution is warranted. Events over a lifecycle are uncertain, so
programming analyses must incorporate flexibility to preclude ill-advised

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
668

technological or capital commitments. Methods for recognizing and providing this

flexibility in decision models and procurement processes need further development.

Aligning Capital & Condition

Currently, the processes of functional planning and condition assessment are

segregated. Functional requirements are commonly identified during master
planning efforts, which generally focus upon capital requirements generated by
functional demands that are manifested in new development and/or retrofit projects
with little consideration of existing asset condition. Similarly, approaches to condition
assessment typically focus exclusively upon existing asset deficiencies without
reflection upon functional needs. As a result, owners frequently possess separate
lists of capital projects and deficiencies backlog that are undoubtedly somewhat
redundant. A more holistic approach demands the integration of these two
dimensions. Intuitively, consideration of capital needs and condition simultaneously
will permit the identification of a more robust set of owner requirements.

To some degree, this situation is a by-product of decoupled capital and operational

decisions. Just as asset classes are generally managed independent of one another
so are capital and operations. Maintenance, repair and minor rehabilitation are
typically funded from operating budgets while development or improvement
investments are funded from capital accounts. Integrating capital with operations is
fundamental to a lifecycle perspective. To properly evaluate a lifecycle decision,
these two dimensions must become partners. Lifecycle decisions must routinely
evaluate the effects of capital decisions upon operations while the existing state of
assets and operations can and should affect the choices made during programming.
This is especially true for owners considering an integrated facility delivery or an
O&M service contract where understanding these conditions is important to
structuring capital and maintenance contract provisions and evaluating proposals
against historical or projected costs.

Roles of Public & Private Sectors

Debates about infrastructure and the private sector often diverge to increasing the
use of private sector capital or transferring assets into private hands, but these
discussions miss the point. Undoubtedly, a solvent, tax-exempt public agency can
borrow at more competitive rates than a private entity, and the public sector need
not, nor should it, abdicate its oversight of public infrastructure. In fact, the
environment demands better public sector leadership. When constraints are present,
balancing social and economic goals such as equity and efficiency is no simple task,
but to do so requires full consideration of available alternatives and their benefits and
costs. Public agencies need to view the private sector as a partner or a tool to
improve public services; their competencies are developed and honed in competitive
markets, and the private sector is an ally and not an adversary in the struggle to fulfill
the demand for infrastructure services. Integrated facility delivery and service
contracts are two mechanisms that can possibly leverage the competencies of both
sectors.

Very few public owners in the United States have elected to utilize integrated service
contracts for the delivery or upgrade of facilities or O&M contracts for existing
facilities or system-wide operations despite anecdotal and growing empirical

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
 669

evidence of the cost reductions offered by such arrangements. Notable examples

include Seattle Public Utilities' delivery of its Tolt River and Cedar River Water
Treatment Plants using 25-year design-build-operate contracts and the City of
Atlanta's 20-year O&M contract with United Water.2 Seattle expects to save
approximately $70 million over the 25-year concession period for the design,
construction and operation of the Tolt Water Treatment Plant (Seattle Public Utilities
1999). Atlanta's decision was based upon their expectation that a system-wide O&M
contract would substantially reduce operations costs in the near-term to allow
stabilization of water rates and implementation of a significant capital improvement
program (Salo et al. 1998).

The consideration of these arrangements needs to become a routine part of the

programming process. The possible advantages are too great to ignore. Certainly,
these approaches also have drawbacks, but the important point is their inclusion in
the portfolio of options considered by infrastructure managers. A key step toward
achieving this end, particularly within the United States, is opening up procurement
processes. Current procurement statutes and practices either restrict or limit their
use. A second, more practical challenge, is improving the structuring of these
procurements. “Experiments” with such arrangements over the past decade have
met with varying degrees of success, but unfortunately more often than not public
procurements of integrated or O&M services have been flawed.3 Properly packaging
and procuring these services is critical to the long-term viability of alternative
arrangements and the possible advantages that they might present. The response of
likely private sector bidders and, more broadly, the development of the market are at
stake. If private participants are to add value to the procurement process, then public
owners must treat them in a stable and predictable fashion. Otherwise, potential
participants are likely to pursue market alternatives that are more attractive
elsewhere.

2
The contract includes operation and maintenance of: (1) a city-owned 100 million gallon per day
(MGD) treatment facility and (2) the city's distribution system.
3
See case studies in Miller's Principles of Public and Private Infrastructure Delivery and Case Studies
in Infrastructure Delivery.

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
670

Conclusion

Certainly, this paper has raised a number of questions rather than providing many
answers, but we see these questions as critical to the success of infrastructure asset
management. We hope that they might spark dialog and research into important
areas. Challenges to asset management presented in this paper generally fall into
five categories:

• Strategic: opening procurement processes and defining system objectives

• Integration: desegregating functional & condition-driven requirements and

asset classes & sectors; linking independent management information
systems

• Measurement: identifying appropriate indicators and establishing comparative

baselines

• Analytic: improving data collection, analysis & management and incorporating

flexibility

• Institutional: defining public & private sector roles and affecting coordination
between or reconfiguration of “stove-pipe” infrastructure divisions

The transition to an asset management posture within public sector enterprises and
agencies has intuitive appeal since its potential to improve investment decisions and
infrastructure performance appears considerable. Perhaps the most concise
argument for asset management is provided below:

A formal approach to the management of infrastructure assets is essential in

order to provide services in the most cost-effective manner, and to
demonstrate this to customers, investors and other stakeholders (NAMS &
IPWEA, 2000).
Asset management is a promising concept where sustainable solutions are sought,
better resource allocation decisions are possible, and management accountability is
increased. Efforts are already underway to resolve current technical difficulties of
integrating disparate databases, management and decision support systems. These
problems are likely to be solved, probably sooner than expected, so data integration
barriers will disappear. The unanswered question is whether or not public institutions
and participating professionals will be prepared to follow suit.

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.
 671

References

Amekudzi, A. and McNeil, S. (2000). “Capturing Data and Model Uncertainties in Highway
Performance Estimation”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 126 (6), 455-63.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2001). Report Card for America's Infrastructure, Reston,
VA.
Burton, M. and Hall, R. (1999). “Asset Management for Irrigation Systems: Addressing the Issue of
Serviceability”, Irrigation and Drainage Systems, Kluwer, Volume 13, 145-163.
Cambridge Systematics. (2001). Synthesis of Asset Management Practice. Draft Report for National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Cambridge, MA.
Choate, P., and Walter, S. (1981). America in Ruins: Beyond the Public Works Pork Barrel, Council of
State Planning Agencies, Washington, D.C.
Danylo, N. and Lemer, A. (1998). Asset Management for the Public Works Manager: Challenges &
Strategies – Findings of the APWA Task Force on Asset Management, APWA.
Garvin, M. (2001). Strategic Indicators for Characterization of Water System Infrastructure and
Management, Doctoral Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board. (1994). Concepts Statement No. 2: Service Efforts and
Accomplishments Reporting, Norwalk, CT.
Miller, J. (2000). Principles of Public and Private Infrastructure Delivery, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston.
Miller, J. (2002). Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
National Council on Public Works Improvement. (1988). Fragile Foundations: Report on America’s
Public Works, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. (1995). Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group (NAMS) and the Institute for Public Works
Engineering Australia (IPWEA). (2000). International Infrastructure Management Manual,
Australia/New Zealand Edition, Johnsonville, Wellington.
Salo, J., Seader, D., Wallace, L., and Skalsky, D. (1998). Achieving Cost Savings for Atlanta's Water
and Wastewater Systems through Contract Management and Re-Engineering, Brown and
Caldwell, Atlanta, GA.
Seattle Public Utilities. (1999). Reasons for Selection of a Design-Build-Operate Procurement
Approach for the Cedar River Treatment Facilities Project, Seattle.
Transportation Association of Canada. (2001). Measuring and Reporting Highway Asset Value,
Condition & Performance, prepared by Stantec & University of Waterloo, Ottawa.
US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1999). Asset Management Primer, Office of Asset
Management, Washington, D.C.
Worley International Limited. (2000). Strategic Municipal Asset Management, World Bank, Background
Series in Municipal Finance.

Decision Support Systems for Infrastructure Asset Management: Prospects and Challenges
Garvin, M.J., Hall, R.P. and Miller, J.B.