1、American Assoc ASSET MANAGEMENT PEER EXCHANGE . 111 1 Addressing the Challenge Building on Past Activities Sharing Present Experiences Charting a Future Course Building Momentum Making It Happen Acknowledgements Appendix A Participants 1 4 8 !? 25 21 29 31 33 has to be 1 results.” .ASHTO about Asset
2、 Management Peer Exchange: Using Past Experience to Shape Future Practice iation of State Highway and Transportation ighway Administration (FHWA) jointly et Management Peer Exchange: Using Past Experiences to Shape Future Practice, in Scottsdale, Arizona. Unlike the earlier workshops, this peer exch
3、ange focused on ongoing asset management activities in state transportation agencies. The goal of this workshop was to bring representatives of state highway and transportation agencies together to establish a dialogue with their peers involved in asset management activities and to share experiences
4、. Through this dialogue, it was projected that the state representatives would develop a greater understanding of asset management tools and processes that would help them to practice better asset management. Seventy-four represeniaii ves of 33 siate agencies par-ticipated In the workshop, along wit
5、h staff from the AASHTO, the FHWA, other federal agencies involved with asset management, and private firms and academic institutions who are actively working with a state agency in asset management. The state participants represented a variety of functions within agencies, including engineering; fi
6、nance, accounting, and budgeting; system and asset management; policy and programming; planning; operations and maintenance; design and construction; and materials and research. This workshop built on two previous workshops held in Washington, D.C., in September 1996 and at Rensselaer Polytechnic In
7、stitute, in October 1997. The first event, the AASHTO/FHWA Executive Seminar on Asset Management, drew representatives from the leadership of the AASHTO, the FHWA, state departments of transportation, private industry, utility companies, quasi-government organizations, and research and supplier comm
8、unities. These participants shared their experience and expertise in an effort to improve the quality of asset management. The second event brought together high-level officials from the AASHTO, the FHWA, state transportation agencies; directors of national organizations and prifessiina! assicitiens
9、; ml representatives of the private sectir ancl ac;a O To provide peer reviews of current activities; O To identify areas of opportunities for participating states agencies; O To facilitate the sharing of experience, information, and knowledge; and O To encourage networking that extends beyond and c
10、ontinues after the workshop. Unlike the earlier workshops, this peer exchange concentrated on ongoing activities related to asset management in state transportation agencies. This focus resulted in an increased representation from these agencies; among the 124 participants, 74 officials from 33 stat
11、e highway and transportation agencies attended. Other participants came from the FHWA, other federal agencies actively involved in asset management activities, and consulting firms and academic institutions working with state agencies. This workshop also involved participants from a broader cross se
12、ction of disciplines as it reached out to include planning and finance personnel. To ensure the current practices in asset management were identified and the needs of the state asset management practitioners would be met, the Task Force on Asset Management conducted a survey of AASHTOs member states
13、 in June 1999. Officials from 33 state transportation agencies responded to this survey. The program for the workshop was developed using the survey responses, information gleaned from follow-up telephone conversations with survey respondents, and input from a subcommittee from the AASHTO Task Force
14、 2 Asset Management Peer Exchange: Using Past Experience to Shape Future Practice on Asset Management and representatives from FHWA Office of Asset Managcment. Five areas were identified within the context of asset management: O Moving from a Concept to an Action Plan: There is a significant gap bet
15、ween the concept of asset management and the implementation. This area addressed some of the strategies for bridging this gap, such as evaluating the role of asset management within an organization and redefining business processes to accommodate asset management. O Integrated Maintenance Management
16、: Maintenance management plays an important point in asset management. Maintenance and preservation are clearly a foundation for sound asset management and in some organizations this represents an appropriate starting point. This area presented the states experiences and a generic plan for integrati
17、ng maintenance management into asset management. O Integrated Management Systems: Existing management systems provide a wealth of data and decision-support tools. By integrating existing management systems, states are able to leverage the existing data and tools to facilitate the practice of asset m
18、anagement. This area addressed the role intcgratcd management systems play in asset management. O Preservation and Improvement Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs between preservation and improvement decisions in the context of asset management build on existing management systems and allow states to focus on cust
19、omers using performance programming. This area addressed the decision-support tool for making investment decisions and exploring tradeoffs, as well as constraints in terms of decisions across modes, types of investments and types of assets. O Data Integration Issues: Confronting the fact that ready
20、access to reliable and useful data is at the same time an obstacle to asset management and a benefit derived from asset management is a challenge for all agencies. In addition to issues related to centralized data management, states are interested in the role geographic information systems can play,
21、 issues related to referencing of spatial data, and issues related to control of the data. This area addressed data as a key component of asset management. The workshop was structured around each of these areas with presentations made in plenary sessions by representatives of state agencies describi
22、ng their experience and breakout sessions devoted to each topic. Each participant selected one breakout session topic and focused on that single area throughout the workshop. During the planning of the workshop, representatives of several agencies expressed considerable intcrcst in the Govcmmcntal A
23、ccounting Standards Board (GASB) guidelines for state and local agencies to report the value of physical assets in their financial reports. Therefore, a plenary session on asset valuation was included at the beginning of the workshop to provide participants with an overview of the GASB regulations a
24、nd their relationship to asset management. 3 Asset Management Peer Exchange: Using Past Experience to Shape Future Practice 4 Building on Past Activities Activity in the area of asset management has progresses since 1996. These activities included workshops jointly sponsored by the AASHTO and FHWA,
25、creation of the AASHTO Task Force on Asset Management, development of the AASHTO Asset Management Task Force Strategic Plan, the establishment of the Office of Asset Management within the FHWA, and design and administration of a survey to document asset management practices in state departments of t
26、ransportation. Past Workshops The FHWA and AASHTO have previously conducted two workshops. The first, held in September 1996 in Washington, D.C., brought together leaders from public, private, and quasi-government sectors with expertise on systemic asset management. This workshop provided an opportu
27、nity to benchmark the activities in three areas: O Private sector organizations have near-state-of-the-art asset management systems that are streamlined to the maximum extent possible and are highly cost-effective. These systems are responsive to top management, user, and customer needs. O Public se
28、ctor organizations have some systems that are comparable with the leaders in private industry. However, in general, their data needs and investment analyses are more complex. They have not developed state-of- the-art financial and risk analyses, while state-of-the-art technology for data collection
29、is becoming widely used. O Quasi-government organizations have as much state-of-the-art technology as public and private sector organizations. The diversity of their physical assets makes direct comparison difficult. While it was clear that there are as many ways to implement asset management system
30、s, as there are types of entities and organizations, there are some common formulas for success: O Linking asset management to the vision and mission of the organization; O Promoting sustained political commitment; O Acquiring, training, and retaining highly skilled personnel; O Transforming data in
31、to useful information; O Facilitating information sharing; and O Focusing on the customer. The second workshop held in October 1997 at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute included high-level officials from the FHWA, AASHTO, state DOTS, national organizations and professional organizations from the priv
32、ate sector, and academics. Asset Management Peer Exchange: Using Past Experience to Shape Future Practice The workshop brought forth the following observations from current practice: O There are many tools already available. O High-level systems and integration are needed. O Some new tools are neede
33、d for combining cost and condition data, and valuing assets. O Processes are needed to evaluate the broader impacts of tradeoffs. O Metrics are needed to support performance-based decision-making. O Transfer of practices from private sector is feasible. O In developing tools for asset management, ne
34、w technology plays a critical role. It is also critical to integrate and enhance existing capabilities and recognize that training is key. AASHTO Activities As a result of the second workshop, the AASHTO Board of Directors created a Task Force on Asset Management in November 1997. In April 1998, the
35、 AASHTO Board of Dircctors adopted four action items to be pursued by the Task Force: O Create a strategic plan for the AASHTO Asset Management Initiative; 0 Develop an AASHTO Guide for Asset Management; O Continue executive workshops and conferences to promote communications and exchange of informa
36、tion on asset management; and O Develop and utilize the lead state model to implement asset management within the member states as necessary. In November 1998, the Board adopted the AASHTO Asset Management Strategic Plan which identified the mission of the task force: Champion concepts and practices
37、 that integrate transportation investment decisions regurding operation, preservation, und inpovenzeizt of transportation systems for member agencies. The Strategic Plan also identified three goals of the task force: 3 Documeiit and develop an understanding of abset management and how it can be used
38、 by member states; O Communicate with and educate member agencies on how to utilize asset management; and O Assist member states assess and implement asset management within their state. 5 Asset Management Peer Exchange: Using Past Experience to Shape Future Practice 6 Construction and Figure 1 : Of
39、fice of Asset Management Organizational Structure Specific activities related to these goals include this peer exchange workshop and the awarding of a contract to develop an asset management guide through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). FHWA Activities The Office of Asset
40、Management was created within the FHWA in early 1999 as a result of an agencywide reorganization. The organization of the office is shown in Figure 1. As part of the Administrations Infrastructure Core Business Unit, the Office is responsible for developing policy and providing guidance and training
41、 related to asset management, construction and system preservation, life-cycle cost analysis, cost-benefit analysis and other economic and engineering tools. The Office is providing assistance to the AASHTO Task Force on Asset Management, exploring educational initiatives, and providing support for
42、the NCHRP project that will develop the guide for asset management. State Activities To determine “who is doing what” a survey was sent to each of the fifty states in June 1999. Although the survey was aimed at providing input for planning the peer exchange, it also captured experiences of the respo
43、nding states. The survey was divided into three parts. The basic content of the survey is summarized in Figure 2. Thirty-three states responded to the survey. However, responses should not be interpreted to indicate state practice. For example, several states reported using multiple investment analy
44、sis tools, but in reality, individual tools are used for specific and limited applications, such as pavement design and bridge painting. Appendix A provides a general summary of the responses. While not explicitly a question, there is consistency in the states responses that states are not overtly p
45、racticing asset management. However, many states are undertaking activities that form the building blocks for asset management. The responses to the surveys document the use of these building blocks. All respondents have inventories and condition assessments for pavements and bridges, and all respon
46、dents use a management system for these two assets. The majority of respondents also have inventories for grade crossings and traffic signals. Similarly, over 70 percent have safety and maintenance management systems and over half have congestion, financial, and traffic monitoring management systems
47、. Asset Management Peer Exchange: Using Past Experience to Shape Future Practice Figure 2: Topics of Survey Questions The subsequent questions in the survey address some of the issues more closely related to asset management rather than managing assets. These questions included valuing assets, analy
48、tical tools used, and how these tools are used. Surprisingly, thirteen states (33 percent of those responding to this question) said they value assets. States were able to check multiple methods. Ten indicated that they use replacement cost, six use historical costs, and five use equivalent value. F
49、ollow-up telephone calls to several of these states revealed that responding states did not have comprehensive procedures for valuing assets, but used the techniques in an exploratory way for a subset of assets. The results provided considerable insight into the diversity of approaches and the different ways in which states are implementing and applying analysis tools: A variety of took are used by states in making decisions. Only one state did not use any tools and the majority of states using tools used more than one tool. In fact, three states used four or more methods. The most po
