Unbundling project management and unpacking asset management
Article Type: Editorial From: Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Volume 5, Issue 4.
My inaugural BEPAM editorial in 2011, captured our vision in its title as: “Integrating ‘Infrastructure Project Management’ with its ‘Built Asset Management’.” The titles of subsequent editorials were intended to project our mission trajectory, through the following captions: “Overtaking targets and marking milestones” (1.2), “Making a mark and carving a niche” (2.1), “Digging in and drilling deeper” (2.2), “Joining hands and advancing together” (3.1), followed by a Special Issue on “PPP in Transport: Theory and Practice” (3.2). Volume 4 editorials were captioned “Spreading wings and soaring higher” (4.1), “Unlocking silos and unleashing synergies” (4.2) and “Straddling sub-themes and synergizing topics” (4.3), followed by a Special Issue on “Project Management and Asset Management in Emerging Economies.”
Volume 5 was heralded by “Unveiling linkages and uncorking excellence” (5.1) which reflected our sustained pursuit of core connections between project and asset management, while also targeting excellence in each area. In the context of the latter objective, 5.1 was followed by two Special Issues probing deeper into some specific areas relevant to BEPAM, i.e., “Leadership, Culture and Sustainable Built Environment” (5.2) and “BIM for Built Asset Management” (5.3). So it is not surprising that our current editorial caption above, revisits our over-arching vision in linking project management to build asset management, albeit now from an initial stage perspective of first breaking down and analyzing some of their many functions/“parts” – in both domains – by Unbundling Project Management and Unpacking Asset Management. This could be also seen as a necessary initial step in our journey toward re-assembling them more rationally (e.g. reducing gaps, duplications and conflicts) into a synergized and sustainable “whole.” In other words, we aspire to re-assemble the various fragmented functions/ parts of the presently disconnected fields of Project and Asset Management, so they may be ultimately linked together more rationally, into an inter-connected, integrated and better performing “whole” for the benefit of clients, end-users and the industry itself.
Some of the functions/“parts” probed in papers in this particular issue are as highlighted below. It is also worth noting that the “contributions to knowledge” in this issue, flow in from many countries. The reported studies in BEPAM 5.4 are based on data from diverse locations: Canada, Dubai (UAE), Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, USA and Vietnam. The authors themselves are based not only in the above locations, but also in Australia, Ghana, New Zealand and UK. Furthermore some of the authors’ own origins, hence other “knowledge” that feeds into these papers span even further.
The first paper drills into energy efficiency programs in the US commercial buildings sector. The authors, Ofori-Boadu, Shofoluwe,Owusu-Manu, Holt and Edwards, probe state-level secondary data to identify significant energy program drivers of electricity efficiency, also drawing interesting conclusions on the impact of multiple programs on commercial electricity efficiency in the built environment.
The above energy efficiency theme and thrusts are of course applicable to other countries and is also targeted by both “barrels”of our double-barreled BEPAM, i.e., both the planning, design and construction (project management) and the operation and management (asset management)of the built infrastructure.
The second paper by Ikediashi, Ogunlana and Odesola, focusses more on specific “human” aspects at the asset management end of the spectrum, establishing a relationship between antecedents of satisfaction and service quality in the context of outsourced facilities management services in the specific sub-sector of public hospitals in Nigeria.
The next paper by Zeb, Froese and Vanier, is also in the asset management domain, but zooms out to a broader systems overview perspective of managing infrastructure systems. It demonstrates the development and applications for tangible capital asset reporting among other things, of an ontology-supported “Asset Information Integrator System.” This includes an ontology-supported collaboration system that should help bridge gaps such as in data exchange with other organizations.
The fourth paper, by Nguyen and Chileshe, on the other hand shifts attention to the project management end of the spectrum and in particular, on unearthing causes of construction project failure, with the spotlight in this case, being on Vietnam. However, some of the unveiled causes are common to other developing countries. Indeed this was a paper submitted for the recent Special Issue on “Project Management and Asset Management in Emerging Economies.” Space limitations in that issue, necessitated the shift to a regular issue.
Staying in the project management realm, the next paper, which is by Oyewobi, Windapo and Rotimi, arises from a study of a range of competitive strategies used by construction organizations in pursuit of their strategic goals in South Africa. It homes in on five strategic attributes that could help construction organizations to both expand and enhance their returns. While drawing on relevant literature, this paper also contributes to important findings on the relationship between competitive strategy and organizational performance. This paper was also diverted from Special Issue on “Project Management and Asset Management in Emerging Economies”, but also fits in well here.
The sixth paper like the first, apparently straddles the twin thrusts of this journal, given that this paper by Seneviratne,Amaratunga and Haigh, probes the provision and management of housing needs in post conflict housing reconstruction. Specifically,this paper focusses on identifying the challenges in such post conflict housing reconstruction in the context of the Sri Lankan experience. It uses a grounded theory approach to collect and analyze data collected through in-depth interviews.
Turning to the last paper, Nielsen, Akanmu and Anumba are well positioned in industry and academia, in Dubai and the USA,to develop this useful “review paper,” of back-to-back contracting practices in the telecommunication and construction industries. The paper also indicates advantages, disadvantages and opportunities for improving “back to back” contracting practices in both the telecommunication and construction industries. Comparisons with developments in other industries such as manufacturing,shipbuilding and aerospace have helped us to draw on useful initiatives or practices before, e.g., in productivity, quality management and supply chain management, so this comparison could help too, and even more so, since sub-contractors are arguably the backbone of our industry, given that they often do most of the actual work.
BEPAM continues to grow organically on many fronts. Having doubled from two to four issues per year last year, we have now geared up for five issues next year in Volume 6 and beyond. This will include two Special Issues. Indeed Guest Editor Champika Liyanage,based in the UK, is progressing well with the Special Issue on “Construction in a Changing World.” Second, Guest Editors Udayangani Kulatunga and Bingunath Ingirige, also based in the UK, albeit at another University, have invited paper submissions for the Special Issue on “Capacity Building for Disaster Risk Reduction.”
In this context of Special Issues, we extend an invitation to any of you who may have a good idea for a topical theme relevant to our BEPAM vision, along with a viable strategy and strong commitment to shepherd a “Special Issue” from conception to delivery, on the selected theme: you are welcome to submit to me, a brief proposal in about 250 words, also indicating any previous editorial experiences as a Guest Editor, on an Editorial Board or otherwise.
Mohan Kumaraswamy
