Series: A Day in the Life

The Outlook “ping” goes off. An email arrives titled: “Lifecycle replacement plan – we need one.”

This is a recurring theme in the world of infrastructure. I’m sure many of you recognise these shorthand requests for what are actually complex, strategic decisions that should be data-led and financially backed. This is where the “Gold Plated” view of Asset Management theory meets the messy, high-pressure reality of organisational delivery.

The “Boardroom” vs. The “Ground Truth”

This particular request was driven by a recent board meeting that focused on demonstrating asset management principles across the organisation. While I support the intent, it lacked the necessary element of reality given the organisation’s current transformational position.

As an Asset Management lead, you often find yourself acting as a mediator; straddling the line between what is plausible and what is desired. We have to bridge the gap between C-Suite actors and the teams on the ground who are actually delivering the work. Our job is to smooth the peaks in the curve of change to make the journey sustainable for everyone involved.

The Scale of the Ask

To put the scale of the lifecycle planning task into perspective, let’s look at the size of the estate in question:

• Over 50,000 built assets.
• Somewhere in the region of 1 million componentry assets.
• The range is vast: from standard domestic gas boilers to a road network supporting 500 other built assets.

Generating a lifecycle replacement program for an estate of this size is complex in any environment. Trying to do it in an environment where the data foundations are still being built (though improving) is a monumental challenge. It can feel a bit “doom and gloom” when you’re asked for results without the supporting frameworks to make those results plausible.

The Choice: “No”, “Make it Up”, or “Negotiate”?

So what do you do? You can’t say no, and you certainly shouldn’t just make lifecycle planning up. You negotiate a compromise.

In this instance, we agreed on a plan based on the data we currently had, but we radically shortened the timeframe: 3 years instead of 10. This enabled us to start implementing a program, but with the honest realisation that the plan would need to evolve as higher-validity data became available. It accepted we may make mistakes in those 3 years.

Pragmatism Over Perfection

The lifecycle planning was predominantly on component age and known failures. Due to data for a full P-F Curve not yet being available, and because local gut feel can introduce significant bias, we stuck to the facts we had. We had the maximum component ages and we knew when they were last replaced.

Taking the known data, we profiled out the next three years, identifying assets that had already failed or passed their maximum life, and prioritised Critical Assets for the earliest intervention. We took what we had and we worked with it to arrive a plan that, whilst not perfect, set us off on the right path.

---

The Takeaway

This plan was by no means a shining example of theoretical excellence, but it was a pragmatic win. It drove a change in behaviour without slowing down delivery.

By being realistic about what was possible, we reduced the risk of change fatigue and demonstrated success that satisfied all levels of the organisation. Sometimes, the best Asset Management isn’t the most complex, it’s the most honest.