2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics

Structuring the Asset Management based on ISO

55001 and ISO 31000: Where to start?
Eliana Sangreman Lima
Management Engineering Department
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Recife-PE, Brazil
lanalima@gmail.com
Ana Luíza Freire de Lorena
Management Engineering Department
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Recife-PE, Brazil
anaflorena01@gmail.com
Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa
Management Engineering Department
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Recife-PE, Brazil
apcabral@hotmail.com

Abstract— In order to become competitive, organizations use
consolidated management models that are based on
internationally recognized standards from diverse areas of
knowledge. In this paper, the standards ISO 55001:2014 (asset
management) and ISO 31000:2018 (risk management guidelines)
are analyzed aiming to identify requirements for implementing the
asset management process that comply with the regulation of the
Energy Transmission System. The methodology involves the use
of PROMETHEE II with application in a large company in the
Brazilian electricity sector. The resulting ranking of requirements,
considering data based on experts’ knowledge and on the
aggregation of their preferences, offers a prioritization of such
requirements. The results are satisfactory in guiding the
organization as to where to start the implementation of the asset
management process.
Keywords— Asset Management; Risk Management; ISO
55001:2014; ISO 31000:2018; Group Decision; PROMETHEE II.
I. INTRODUCTION
Efficiency and sustainability are two indispensable
conditions to make organizations more valuable. Consolidated
management models are a powerful tool that, if properly tailored
to a given context, increases the organization’s chances to
become more efficient and sustainable, and therefore more
structured to achieve strategic objectives. According to [1],
some companies are discovering that a distinctive management
model can itself be a key driver of competitiveness.
Some of these consolidated management models are
established by means of internationally recognized standards
from the most diverse areas of knowledge, such as: Quality
management (ISO 9001:2015), Environmental Management
(ISO 14001:2015), Risk Management (ISO 31000:2018), Asset
Management (ISO 55001:2014), among others. These Standards
are usually about "what to do", and not about "how to do”.
Although some of them do not demand that organizations fulfill
their requirements, they have been increasingly required by
stakeholders. However, organizations are obligated to comply
with specific regulations of the sector in which they perform.
Many organizations recognize the importance of having
their Asset Management process implemented to ensure value
maximization of their assets and be compliant with regulations.
Nevertheless, managers do not know how, or have difficulties to
implement it, mainly due to the inherent complex and critical
nature of the asset management decisions [8].
Facing the need to survive in such complex situations,
organizations are challenged by a seemingly simple but vague
question: "Where to start?" This question is exactly what
became important from a specific need of a large company in
the Brazilian electric energy sector, whose initiatives, despite the
effort undertaken, have not yet succeeded to implement the asset
management process in a structured way.
To answer this question, this paper proposes a methodology
to guide the mentioned Brazilian organization to start
implementing the asset management in line with the sector’s
regulation, based on experts’ knowledge and on the aggregation
of their preferences. The methodology also includes the joint
analysis of ISO 31000:2018 (guidelines to risk management),
and ISO 55001:2014 (asset management).
This paper is organized into several sections. Besides the
introduction, the methodology and a literature review are
detailed. Next, the application of the method is described,
followed by the results and the conclusion of this study.
II. METHODOLOGY
Following the guidelines of international standards is a
fundamental move towards a successful asset management
implementation, which means that numerous requirements need
to be met. Due to human, financial, material, and other
constraints, organizations need to make decisions about which
requirements to implement with priority. The aggregation of
experts’ preferences in a group's decision-making process seems
to be quite appropriate, since they are the ones who better know
the asset management process and the regulatory aspects to
which the organization is obligated to adhere, and therefore the
most appropriate professionals to sponsor a decision making on
this issue.
As Fig. 1 summarizes, this methodology proposes 8 steps.
The steps are drawn by the question: 'Where to start?’ That is,
how can the organization implement an asset management
process that should adequately attend to the electric power
transmission sector regulation?
In Step 1, some standards were identified as being strongly
related to asset management. Among them two demonstrated
extreme importance: ISO 55001:2014 and ISO 31000:2018. In
Step 2 these standards were individually analyzed in detail. In
Step 3, a comparison of ISO 31000:2018 and ISO 55001:2014
was performed, aiming at the identification of common
requirements. Step 4 is composed by the problem's type, criteria

2577-1655/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 3094

DOI 10.1109/SMC.2018.00524
definition and the election of a group decision method. The fifth
describes how the questionnaire was designed, and the sixth
represents data collection.
In Step 7, PROMETHEE II was at first applied individually
to each expert (7a) and secondly in group (7b), then data were
submitted to a sensitivity analysis (7c). Step 8 performs the
result analysis. Both steps are better explained in section IV.
Fig. 1: Methodology Steps.Source: the authors
III. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A. Asset Management
Electric power industries have been growing fast for the last
decades, and asset management is a challenge issue for them [2].
As they pursue important assets for the generation, transmission,
distribution and commercialization of energy, it is crucial to
regard asset management strategically in order to become more
efficient and sustainable. Managing assets is, by its nature, an
inherently complex process since it involves functionalities of
different areas of the organization, specialized knowledge, and
different levels of commitments, besides containing intensive
information flow.
The concepts for 'assets' and 'asset management' exposed in
this paper are those set forth by [3], which defines asset as "an
item, thing or entity that has potential or current value to an
organization. The value will vary between different
organizations and their stakeholders, and can be tangible or
intangible, financial or non-financial”. Complementarily, "asset
management translates the organization's objectives into asset-
related decisions, plans and activities, using a risk-based
approach" enabling "an organization to realize value from assets
in the achievement of its organizational objectives".
As stated by [8], asset management “brings a different
approach and way of thinking and a transformation or
organisational alignment and culture. Each organisation has to
determine what it considers value to be, and choose how to
manage its assets to derive best total value”. Considering this
need, the asset management standards offer a structured way for
the management of the assets, enabling organizations to be
competitive and sustainable.
B. ISO 55000:2014, ISO 55001:2014 and ISO 55002:2014
The asset management standards are: ISO 55000:2014
(Overview, principles and terminology); ISO 55001:2014
3095
(Management systems – Requirements); and ISO 55002:2014
(Management systems - Guidelines for the application of ISO
55001:2014). The focus of this paper is on ISO 55001:2014,
although, without disregarding the principles and terminologies
provided by ISO 55000:2014.
ISO 55001:2014 “specifies requirements for an asset
management system within the context of the organization” and
states that it “can be applied to all types of assets and by all types
and sizes of organizations” from the most diverse sectors of the
economy. The 'asset management system' was designed in
requirements: Context of the organization, Leadership,
Planning, Support, Operation, Performance evaluation and
Improvement.
The implementation of the asset management system
enables the organization to accomplish its goals through the
efficient and effective control and governance of its assets [4],
maximizing value over time. However, it is known that both the
internal and the external environment to which the organizations
are submitted are a constant target of uncertainties [6], hence,
the importance given by the asset management standards to risk,
which is a concern found in every requirement of the asset
management system.
C. ISO 31000:2018
The effect (positive or negative) of uncertainties on the
objectives of an organization is called risk [6], resulting in
opportunities or threats. As every activity involves risks at any
level, organizations of all sectors and sizes would rather manage
them in order to set better strategies and make proper decisions.
According to [6], “managing risks is part of governance and
leadership” and “it contributes to the improvement of
management systems”. This is the case of asset management
system, as it maximizes asset value “through managing risk and
opportunity, in order to achieve the desired balance of cost, risk
and performance” [4].
Risk management framework is described as the “set of
components that provide the foundations and organizational
arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring,
reviewing and continually improving risk management
throughout the organization” [9], while risk management
process is stated as a “systematic application of management
policies, procedures and practices to the activities of
communicating, consulting, establishing the context, and
identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and
reviewing risk”. Aligned with the asset management system of
ISO 55001:2014, the framework (Leadership & Commitment;
Integration; Design; Implementation; Evaluation;
Improvement) and process (Communication and Consultation;
Scope, context, criteria; Risk assessment; Monitoring and
Review; and Recording and Reporting), outlined by ISO
31000:2018, are the focus of this paper.
D. Group Decision
Group Decision is a process that involves an opinion or
judgment by two or more decision-makers or experts. The group
is responsible for their decisions considering a diversity of
situations that may include a collaborative or competitive
environment, as well as objectives that may be convergent,
distinct and complementary, conflicting, or even opposing.
Hence, an analytical aggregation procedure for decision-makers'
preferences or experts’ knowledge is important to support
decisions. It ensures the rationality of those who are part of the
process, and the achievement of more efficient results for the
parties involved [7].
In group decision, the difference between preference
phase, the preference index must be defined for each pair of
alternatives using the functions and the weights of the criteria
that represent their relative importance. In other words, the
preference index “is defined as a weighted average of
preferences of the individual criteria” [10].
 ( , )=
∑ i i( , )
aggregation and knowledge aggregation is clear. An analytical
procedure for the former aims to obtain the preference structures
of decision-makers who do not always seek the same results,
whereas an analytical procedure for aggregating knowledge of
experts involves the treatment of different perceptions
concerning the same phenomenon, as they have similar
purposes. Furthermore, [7] state a distinction between decision-
 
∑ i
The exploitation of the outranking relation consists of
defining the outgoing flow, ϕ+(a), and the incoming flow, ϕ -(a).
The former implies the intensity of preference of a over the other
alternatives, whereas the second is the opposite, which means
the intensity of all the alternatives over a.
makers and experts’ roles. The former has the power to make  ϕ+(a) =∑ ∈ ( , ) 
decisions, while the latter understands the system and its  -
ϕ (a) =∑ ( , ) 
∈
environment.
where is the set of possible alternatives.
When aggregating preferences, the literature recognizes two
main approaches: input level aggregation and output level In the family PROMETHEE, [12] explains that
aggregation. Alternatives, criteria and weights are established PROMETHEE I represents a partial relation and PROMETHEE
previously in a group discussion for input aggregation. Whereas II the total preorder (complete ranking) by calculating the net
in the latter, only the alternatives are defined in consensus, as flow.
individual results are constructed by each member and then  ϕ(a) = ϕ+(a) - ϕ-(a) 
aggregated into a final collective group result that considers each
decision-maker as a different criterion. The criteria weights refer Consequently, a outranks bora is indifferent to b,
to the importance of the decision-maker in the group [10]. respectively, if:
 ϕ(a) > ϕ(b) 
E. The Multicriteria Method
Among other multicriteria methods, the family
PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for
Enrichment of Evaluations) has proved to be considerably
present in empirical studies in the last years, as a great number
of papers have been written to great success [11]. This method
stands out for involving concepts that are easily understood by
decision-makers as they can build criteria that represent their
notion of preference, besides it fixes a maximum number of two
parameters (preference and indifference) with real economical
interpretation [12].
According to [13], PROMETHEE has the advantage of
being clear, simple and stable. As an outranking method,
PROMETHEE does not “eliminate any alternative in pairwise
comparison instead it puts the alternatives in an order according
to criteria and decision maker preference” [11], thus it allows the
choice of the best alternative from the outranked set. This ability
makes the method more powerful for different problem-solving
situations. PROMETHEE includes two main phases [13]: the
construction of an outranking relation, and the exploitation of
this relation. During the first phase, a preference function must
be established for each criterion, representing the decision-
maker’s preference for action a over an action b. Hence, the
intensity of the preference rises with the difference between the
performance of the alternatives:
 ϕ(a) = ϕ(b) 
IV. APPLICATION
This study was applied to the asset management process of
a Brazilian electric power generation and transmission
company. The following subsections contextualize it.
A. Electric Power Transmission System and the Asset
Management Process
In Brazil, the electricity sector is regulated and supervised
by the Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica – ANEEL
(National Electric Power Agency), an autarchy under a special
regime linked to the Ministry of Mines and Energy, with mission
to provide favorable conditions to develop the electric energy
market by balancing interests between agents and benefits for
society [14].
Regulation is defined as the intervention of the State in the
country’s economic and social order, by controlling the
provision of services through entities that execute and supervise
them, ensuring the universalization of their services with the
purpose to protect public interest. It also aims at maintaining the
economic and financial balance of contracts through the
definition of tariff policies, which is one of the most relevant
aspects of regulation, considering the need to ensure profitability
for investors and economic viability for consumers [14].
 F(a,b) = f[g(a) – g(b)] 
The values are defined between 0 and 1. There are six types
of functions that could cover most of the cases: usual criterion,
quasi-criterion, criterion with linear preference, level-criterion,
criterion with linear preference and indifference area, and the
gaussian criteria. In case the problem has more than one
criterion, it is possible to mix the functions [12]. In the second
Structuring asset management process properly is essential to
prioritize investments and concentrate efforts on the most
critical assets. This allows the organization to focus on the
benefits that will bring the greatest gains, such as: improved
financial performance, informed asset investment decisions,
managed risk, improved services and outputs, demonstrated
social responsibility, demonstrated compliance, enhanced

3096
reputation, improved organizational sustainability, and
improved efficiency and effectiveness [3].
The Asset Management process includes the entire asset life
cycle, from their prospection, through acquisition, project,
construction, operation and maintenance, to immobilization/
demobilization and disposal, under the aegis of a strong and
mandatory regulation.
B. Asset Management versus Risk Management
The standard [4] “specifies the requirements for the
establishment, implementation, maintenance and improvement
of a management system for asset management, referred to as an
“asset management system”’. Hence, Fig. 2 describes that the
asset management system acts on the asset management process
aiming to maximize the value of the organization's assets.
Besides, the interference of risk management is outlined, as this
process is susceptive to uncertainties.
Fig. 2: Asset Management Process supported by ISO 55000:2014 and ISO
31000:2018. Source: the authors
The 3rd step of the methodology presents an analysis of the
equivalences between asset management system [4] and the
framework and process presented in risk management [6]. Both
management models complement each other when they are
instantiated in the same process, in this case, the asset
management process. Although the term ‘management model is
utilized in different contexts with different meanings, it is
understood as “the choice made by a company’s top executives
regarding how they define objectives, motivate effort,
coordinate activities and allocate resources; in other words, how
they define the work of management” [1].
Other Standards identified in Step 1 detail specific sectors
and assets, and they belong to relevant areas in asset
management such as the ones related to lifecycle cost, project
management, quality management, terotechnology, among
others. All of these standards together, although not being part
of this study, ensure the consistent delivery of an asset
management process. It was observed, as depicted in Fig. 3, that
all the dimensions extracted from ISO 55001:2014 (‘context of
the organization’, ‘leadership’, ‘support’, ‘planning’,
‘operation’, ‘performance evaluation’ and ‘improvement’) are
related to the component ‘integration’ in ISO 31000:2018.
3097
Fig. 3. ISO 31000:2018 framework and process versus ISO 55001: 2014
Asset Management System. Source: the authors.
In the same way, ‘leadership’ in ISO 55001:2014 relates to
‘leadership & commitment’ and ‘design’ in ISO 31000:2018,
‘support’ in ISO 55001:2014 also relates to ‘design’ in ISO
31000:2018. Furthermore, the dimensions ‘planning’,
‘operation’, ‘performance evaluation’ and ‘improvement’ in
ISO 55001:2014 are completely related to the risk management
process. Conversely, some requirements were identified to be
specific for the implementation of the ISOs separately. For
instance, ‘implementation’, ‘evaluation’, and ‘improvement’ in
ISO 31000:2018 refer precisely to risk management framework,
and ‘improvement’ in ISO 55001:2014 refers to the asset
management as well as the asset management system itself. All
of these relationships are detailed in Table I, where RM, AM and
AMS are the abbreviation for risk management, asset
management and asset management system, respectively.
C. Problem type, Criteria and Method
In Step 4, three definitions were performed: problem type,
maturity and relevance criteria, and a multicriteria method for
ordering group-decision’s choices. First, because of the
organization's resource constraints, it was necessary to prioritize
the requirements to establish the action plan for a future asset
management process implementation. Moreover, due to the
complexity of such process, a prioritization based on a single
point of view would be inappropriate, hence the need to
aggregate the experts' preferences.
Next, two criteria were determined: ‘maturity’ and
‘relevance’. Maturity criterion comprising the level of
implementation of the requirement in the organization,
according to [4] and [6] or the equivalent practices in the
organization. That is, a lower maturity means that the
requirement under analysis is little or not implemented in the
organization, thus, there would be opportunities for the asset
management process improvement. Relevance criterion
representing the extent to which the requirement, if
implemented, contributes to meeting the specific regulation of
the sector. That is, a greater relevance means that the
requirement under analysis is relevant to meeting the Sector-
specific Regulation and would increase the possibility of the
organization receive a fair reward.
Then, as the expert's rationality was non-compensatory,
PROMETHEE II was applied either in the individual ranking of
the requirements based on the preferences of each expert (as they
define individually the weights of the criteria), or in ranking of
the requirements as a group decision, considering the experts as
criteria of the same importance. For this application, the
TABELA I RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ISO 31000:2018 AND ISO 55001:2014
ISO 31000:2018
Framework Integration: RM is a dynamic and iterative process that is part of
“the organizational purpose, governance, leadership and commitment, strategy,
objectives and operations”. Everyone must be responsible for RM.
Framework Leadership& commitment: Top management and oversight bodies
must be aligned to ensure that RM is integrated into all activities, and “should
demonstrate leadership and commitment”.
Framework Design: Implies the examination and understanding of
organization external and internal context.
The organization must demonstrate commitment to RM through a policy,
considering the possibility to link it to other existing policies.
Organizational roles, authorities, responsibility and accountabilities must be
assigned and communicated at all levels. Appropriate resources should be
allocated, and a communication and consultation approach should be
established
Process Risk Assessment: Includes the process of identifying, analyzing and
evaluating risks. The determination of a process’s risks and opportunities and
their level of intensity are conceived.
Risk Treatment: Assessed risks and opportunities shall be treated by selecting
actions that may control them by avoiding, removing, changing likelihood,
among others. These actions must be documented in a risk treatment plan.
Process Risk Assessment: When evaluating risks and opportunities, the
organization can support decisions that may lead to changes, considering the
context and consequences to stakeholders.
Risk Treatment, Monitoring and Review: “The purpose of risk treatment plans
is to specify how the chosen treatment options will be implemented” and,
consequently monitored. Monitoring and review aim to “assure and improve the
quality and the effectiveness of process design, implementation and outcomes”.
Process Recording and Reporting: “The RM process and its outcomes should
be documented and reported through appropriate mechanisms”, aiming to
communicate them, provide information for decision-making, improve RM
activities, and support the interaction with stakeholders.
SOURCE OF BASIC DATA: [6] [4]
D. Questionnaire design and data colection
The questionnaire was designed with 29 requirements
originated from the joint analysis of ISO 31000:2018 and ISO
55001:2014 from the result of the Step 3 analysis. A 5-point
Likert scale was elected to be used, as it performs better
considering reliability, validity, discriminating power and
respondent preferences [15].
TABLE II CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPERTS
KNOWLEDGE AREAS EXPERTS
1 2 3 4
Asset Operation and X X
Maintenance
Asset Management Process X X X X
Sector’s Regulation X X X X
SOURCE: THE AUTHORS
The experts were asked to give weights to both criteria,
expressing their preferences over their importance. The answers
for criterion ‘maturity’, expressing their knowledge in the asset
managing process, vary among ‘not implemented’ to
3098
preference usual function was applied for both criteria as the
answers were based in a 5-point Likert scale, becoming needless
to use preference and indifference thresholds.
ISO 55001:2014
Every AMS requirement is related to integration in [6], once the former
cites the importance of RM in every step.
Leadership: “Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment
with respect to the AMS”, ensuring that the approach used for managing risks
is aligned with the organization’s approach for AM.
Context of the organization: The organization must determine its external and
internal issues that affect its ability to achieve outcome(s).
Leadership: An AM policy should be established showing consistency with
other relevant organizational policies.
Support: Organizations must communicate AM objectives, associating risks
and opportunities. Information requirements must also be determined to
support assets, AM, and AMS, considering identified risks.
Planning: When planning AMS, the organization shall determine the risks
and opportunities that need to be foretold or reduce undesired effects. The
organization must determine and document actions to address risks and
opportunities, considering how they may change with the passing of time. In
addition, the risks found in AM must be considered in the organization’s
contingency planning.
Operation: Risks derived from any planned change (permanent or temporary)
that may impact on achieving the AM objectives, must be assessed before the
implementation of the change. Besides, when outsourcing any activities that
have the same impact, the associated risks must be equally assessed.
“The organization shall plan, implement and control the processes by treating
and monitoring risks”.
Performance evaluation: “The organization shall evaluate and report on the
effectiveness of the processes for managing risks and opportunities”.
Management review may consider changes in the risks and opportunities’
profiles.
Improvement: Information must be documented as evidence of non-
conformities or incidents, also considering the actions taken and results.
‘completely implemented’. Similarly, the answers for the
criterion ‘relevance’, expressing their knowledge in the
regulation’s sector, include ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’.
The questionnaire was applied to four homogeneous experts in
knowledge on the subject under study as showed in Table II.
E. Promethee II application, Sensitivity Analysis and Results
Using PROMETHEE II, each requirement was considered
as an alternative evaluated by the experts under both criteria.
Then, each expert was considered as a criterion having the same
weight, in order to aggregate the individual rankings into a
global one. The results found are showed in the GAIA plane in
Fig. 4 and in Table III. The former aids with the visual
understanding of the requirements’ performance of the group
preference aggregation. The requirements are presented as
squares, the vectors are the criteria and the red axis (π) represents
their weighing. The solution neatness achieves 100%, indicating
that the information obtained in GAIA plane is reliable. The
requirement L1 (Leadership 1) is oriented towards the direction
of π-axis, which is the best ranked option also viewed in Table
III, while requirement S1 (Support 1), in the opposite direction,
is the worst ranked. It is relevant to highlight that requirement
L1 represents the commitment of top management with the asset
management process, which is fundamental for the success of its
implementation.
Fig. 4: The Promethee Gaya plane analysis for the group of experts.
Source of basic data: Visual Promethee
Analyzing the first ten positions in Table III, the two
prioritized dimensions, considering the context of the
organization studied, were Support and Operation (with three
requirements each). From the result obtained, the organization
will have important inputs available to establish the action plan
for a future asset management process implementation.
During the individual analysis, the results indicated diversity
among the preferences of the experts when judging the criteria
TABELA III
importance. Thus, the sensitivity analysis was performed
considering equalized weights for maturity and relevance, even
though; the result showed a collective ranking with no
significant differences in the order of the requirements.
V. CONCLUSION
The objective of this paper was to contribute to a real
problem of a large Brazilian company. In order to answer the
question: "Where to start?”, that is, how could the organization
implement an asset management that would adequately attend to
the electric power transmission sector regulation, a methodology
was proposed to rank requirements based on a joint analysis of
ISO 55001:2014 and ISO 31000:2018, regarding two criteria:
maturity and relevance.
Although this proposal was instantiated in the asset
management process of the electric energy transmission system
of a Brazilian company, it can be applied in companies from
other sectors of the economy, presupposing the knowledge of
specific regulation by experts.
For future studies, other standards related to asset
management shall be considered. Besides, an application of a
sorting multicriteria to classify the requirements and the
development of a method to aggregate the individual sorting
results in a group decision would allow a better decision-
making.
PROMETHEE II REQUIREMENTS FINAL RANKING

Ranking Requirement )+ ) )  Ranking Requirement )+ ) )  Ranking Requirement )+ ) )

1 Leadership1 0,3045 0,0536 0,2509 11 Evaluation1 0,217 0,1911 0,0259 21 Support7 0,2027 0,25 -0,0473
2 Support3 0,267 0,0911 0,1759 12 Context4 0,2277 0,2232 0,0045 22 Context3 0,2295 0,2821 -0,0527
3 Operation2 0,267 0,1187 0,1482 13 Evaluation2 0,2348 0,2366 -0,0018 23 Planning1 0,2188 0,2955 -0,0768
4 Framework1 0,267 0,1187 0,1482 14 Evaluation3 0,2348 0,2366 -0,0018 24 Context2 0,1991 0,2768 -0,0777
5 Support6 0,242 0,1161 0,1259 15 Framework2 0,2348 0,2366 -0,0018 25 Improvement3 0,1777 0,275 -0,0973
6 Support4 0,2348 0,1589 0,0759 16 Leadership2 0,2509 0,2687 -0,0179 26 Planning2 0,167 0,2696 -0,1027
7 Operation3 0,3009 0,225 0,0759 17 Improvement2 0,1973 0,2196 -0,0223 27 Support2 0,1786 0,325 -0,1464
8 Operation1 0,2295 0,1563 0,0732 18 Improvement1 0,217 0,2411 -0,0241 28 Support5 0,1688 0,3518 -0,1830
9 Planning3 0,2348 0,1821 0,0527 19 Leadership3 0,2045 0,2321 -0,0277 29 Support1 0,1045 0,3884 -0,2839
10 Context1 0,2241 0,1768 0,0473 20 Framework3 0,2295 0,2687 -0,0393
SOURCE: THE AUTHORS
REFERENCES [8] IAM - The Institute of Asset Management. “Asset Management – an
anatomy”, version 3, December 2015.
[1] J. Birkinshaw, and J. Goddard, “What’s is your management model?”
MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 50,2009. [9] ISO Guide 73:2009. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, 2018.
[2] S. A. Khaliq, M.N. Mahmood and N. Das, “Towards a Best Practice Asset
Management Framework for Electrical Power Distribution [10] V. B. S. Silva, D. C. Morais, and A. T. Almeida, “A Multicriteria Group
Organisations”. IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Decision Model to Support Watershed Committees in Brazil”. Water
Conference, 2015. Resources Management, vol. 24, ed. 14, pp. 4075-4091. Springer, 2010.
[3] ISO 55000:2014, “Asset Management – Overview, principles and [11] D. Sabei, J. Erkoyuncu,and R. Roy,“A review of Multi-criteria decision
terminology”. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, methods for enhanced maintenance delivery”. Procedia CIRP, vol 37,
2018. pp.30-35, 2015.
[12] J.P. Brans, and P. H. Vincke,” A preference ranking organization method,
[4] ISO 55001:2014, “Asset Management – Management systems –
the PROMETHEE method for MCDM”. Management Science, vol. 31,
requirements”. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
pp. 647-656, 1985.
2018.
[5] ISO 55002:2014, “Asset Management – Management systems – [13] J.P. Brans,P.H. Vincke, and B. Mareschal,“How to select and how to rank
Guidelines for the application of ISO 55001:2014”. International projects: The PROMETHEE method”. European journal of Operational
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2018. Research, North-Holland, pp. 228-238, 1986.
[6] ISO 31000:2018, “Risk Management – Guidelines”. International [14] ANEEL - Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica. "Bem vindo à ANEEL!".
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2018. http://www.aneel.gov.br/a-aneel, Accessed 30 Mar 2018.
[7] A.T. Almeida, et al. “Decisão em Grupo e Negociação: métodos e [15] C.C. Preston, and A. M. Colman, “Optimal number of response categories
aplicações” São Paulo, Atlas, 2012. in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent
preferences”. ActaPsychologica, pp. 1–15. 2000.

3099