The December issue of the Infrastructure Asset Management marks the end of the first year of publication. In this issue, there is a briefing on resilience by Hay (2014). The paper draws the reader to the realisation that communities, organisations and operations are central to resilience; they have the ability to make decisions and take action. Hay makes the case that infrastructure hardening and robustness can contribute to resilience but the ability to survive, recover and thrive emerge from communities. Hay reinforces the case for examining and planning the interaction between community and infrastructure to develop a sustainable future. The value in Hay’s paper is its identification of the centrality of community as part of resilience.
Continuing with the resilience theme, Shah et al. (2014) present their resilience assessment framework for geotechnical infrastructure assets. The paper presents a holistic framework to enable effective decision making by selecting the most resilient engineering solution regardless of future changes. The novelty of the proposed approach is its intended applicability under changing conditions. The model looks beyond the existing tools that find technically sound and cost-effective solutions and tries to encompass changing socioeconomic, governance, regulatory and environmental conditions. The paper aligns itself with some of the ideas reflected in Hay’s briefing. Shah et al. (2014) present a tool that can be used strategically and operationally in decision making.
Another paper follows a resilience-related theme, which is flooding. Hankin et al. (2014) present their flood risk management protocol for roads. The paper reports the development of a flood risk protocol for the Irish National Roads Authority. The development of the protocol is in response to the increased impact of flooding on the Irish road network and its associated consequences to the economy and society. It is clear that the risks associated with road flooding had to be addressed. This risk management protocol was developed through access to improved flood data. A new approach was developed, whereby the maximum depth, velocity and hazard encountered along each road segment were computed and stored against each feature. In this way, a suite of flood risk indicators were generated and attributed directly to the receptor, including the peak depth, velocity and hazard. This study did not attempt to quantify climate change impacts but instead to highlight areas where the depth of flooding is more sensitive to increases in the rainfall loading. The paper demonstrated that detailed high-resolution flood modelling is now possible at the national scale to help inform strategic planning and build flood resilience into road management. In contrast to Hay, this paper focuses on the techniques that create and support more robust infrastructure.
Finally, Floate examines the impact of changes to the regulatory environment of the UK water sector on the management of its assets (Floate, 2014). The post-privatisation regulatory framework for the UK water sector has historically separated capital expenditure and operational expenditure. The business plans have historically also been required to follow detailed guidelines with clearly defined ‘outputs’ (e.g. lengths of water mains renewed, water treatment works improved, etc.) and defined customer service standards that had to be maintained during the plan period. The business plans incorporated asset management plans that look ahead up to 20 years, demonstrating why the ‘outputs’ were necessary to maintain customer service. The business plans and the incorporated asset management plans focused on the capital investment. A new regulatory model is being used for the next planning cycle. This has been aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on companies while at the same time making companies more demonstrably responsible for their business plans and more accountable to their customers. Floate’s paper examines the implications of the new regulatory environment on asset management approaches in the water sector. The paper examines the considerations that water companies have to give to outcomes: choosing key performance indicators and managing total expenditure. Floate also considers the challenges of moving from capital/operating cost split to a total expenditure approach. The paper also considers the implications for asset management and the introduction of ISO 55000 (BSI, 2014). The value of this paper is its presentation of the challenges and possible responses to the revised regulatory approaches to the UK water services environment.
Infrastructure asset management reached an important juncture in its development with the publication of ISO 55000:2014 Asset Management (BSI, 2014). The publication of the first international standard on asset management in 2014 represents a significant development in the field of infrastructure asset management. The publication of ISO 55000:2014 represents an impressive collaborative effort among a variety of organisations and interests in 25 countries. The standard does not revolutionise asset management knowledge or understanding. It provides a set of consistent definitions and a benchmark for the components of an asset management system. The introduction of the standard has also created interest in developing the existing body of knowledge and improving competency.
The journal contributed to the development of infrastructure asset through the publication of a mixture of practice and academic papers across the spectrum of infrastructure asset management. Papers were published from Canada, Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Malaysia and the UK. We also extended our global reach and expertise with further additions to our editorial board. The Virtual Library received 8900 views, and 6800 papers were downloaded from the site. The first part of the journey is complete, and we look forward to contributing to knowledge development in infrastructure asset management.
