Asset management, or enterprise asset management as it is often referred to within this industry, is one of the areas where there has been a definite decay in the decision-making process.
Although this area is by far the most expensive of the current range of solutions in asset management, it is easily the most misunderstood and counter-productive in many cases.
Prior to 2003 many maintenance systems were implemented as a result of an ERP implementation. A logical follow on to what has been considered the "main game" (often financial, supply chain, or information technology related). Decisions within this area have frequently been taken, or managed, by people with little or no true depth of knowledge in the asset management arena.
Even in organizations where the importance of asset management is understood those with a background in IT or finance, or other unrelated disciplines, are often responsible for these types of projects. As well as the decisions involved in executing the projects.
As has been explained earlier, the area of maintenance management is an area that is complex and not guided by recognized "common-sense" judgements. It is not an area that is easily nor rapidly understood by those outside of the discipline. While the use of quasi-experts may be sufficient in other areas of corporate activity, in asset management the stakes are simply too high.
Even in the most cavalier of boardrooms the corporate risk associated with this dangerous practice is becoming recognized. In the years that follow 2003, as accountability continues to be a marked factor of asset management, previous decisions will increasingly need to be revisited by those with the knowledge and depth of experience to do so.
This marks a dramatic change in the structure of this market sector. Decisions regarding selection, implementation, and post-implementation management must become more focused on the true areas of asset management.
Previously "requirements" were attached to processes currently in place, or more often a proposed future state of processes. As we move forward, this will become driven more by the requirements that companies have of their physical asset base, in order to achieve strategic advantages within their markets.
Although this area is by far the most expensive of the current range of solutions in asset management, it is easily the most misunderstood and counter-productive in many cases.
Prior to 2003 many maintenance systems were implemented as a result of an ERP implementation. A logical follow on to what has been considered the "main game" (often financial, supply chain, or information technology related). Decisions within this area have frequently been taken, or managed, by people with little or no true depth of knowledge in the asset management arena.
Even in organizations where the importance of asset management is understood those with a background in IT or finance, or other unrelated disciplines, are often responsible for these types of projects. As well as the decisions involved in executing the projects.
As has been explained earlier, the area of maintenance management is an area that is complex and not guided by recognized "common-sense" judgements. It is not an area that is easily nor rapidly understood by those outside of the discipline. While the use of quasi-experts may be sufficient in other areas of corporate activity, in asset management the stakes are simply too high.
Even in the most cavalier of boardrooms the corporate risk associated with this dangerous practice is becoming recognized. In the years that follow 2003, as accountability continues to be a marked factor of asset management, previous decisions will increasingly need to be revisited by those with the knowledge and depth of experience to do so.
This marks a dramatic change in the structure of this market sector. Decisions regarding selection, implementation, and post-implementation management must become more focused on the true areas of asset management.
Previously "requirements" were attached to processes currently in place, or more often a proposed future state of processes. As we move forward, this will become driven more by the requirements that companies have of their physical asset base, in order to achieve strategic advantages within their markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment