Series: Day in the life
If I were to ask you to define ‘value,’ what would you say?
Most would offer a definition grounded in finance: the purchase price, the Net Present Value (NPV), or perhaps the annual running costs. None of these are wrong, but in reality, value is far more nuanced. As I noted in my first [Asset Management 101 post], the Collins Dictionary defines value as:
“The desirability of a thing… in respect of some property such as usefulness; worth, merit, or importance.”
Defining ‘value’ is one of the greatest challenges we face as Estate Managers. It underpins how we define an asset, yet it is rarely defined itself. As the saying goes: “One man’s rubbish is another man’s treasure.”
The Philosophical Meets the Practical
This tension lies at the heart of my week. For the last four years, I have been aggressively pushing my organisation toward a comprehensive asset register. This hasn’t been a solo effort; it has required deep collaboration with our Tier 1 suppliers.
Earlier this week, I was reflecting with a fellow professional from one of those suppliers. We were wondering why the process had stalled so often, despite us both agreeing it was the “correct” thing to do. Our conclusion? Differing opinions within our respective leadership teams on what actually constitutes ‘value.’
The “Kitchen Unit” Debate
A prime example of this is a long-running debate over whether to capture kitchen units in the asset register.
The Tier 1 Position:
These are “not required.” Since there is no statutory maintenance (legal requirement) to service a cupboard, there was no value to them in capturing the data. It was seen as “extra work” to maintain a database of inert wooden boxes.
I disagreed.
See, those units are a key component of a specific assessment we conduct across our portfolio. This assessment underpins the grading of our built assets and ultimately our intervention decisions. What the Tier 1 was unaware of was our organisational objective to transition to an automated grading process. Without the units captured as data, we couldn’t achieve full automation. By ignoring the cupboard, we were ignoring the “Importance” part of the value definition.
In essence, one party saw a row of data; the other saw a key piece of intelligence central to attaining corporate goals. This is the “Value Gap” in action.
The Cost of Ignoring Asset Information Requirements.
It won’t be lost on many of you that ISO 19650 and the concept of Asset Information Requirements (AIR) are intended to prevent this very situation.
Under ISO 19650-3, the Organisational Information Requirements (OIR) should dictate the AIR. In our case, the ‘Value’ of those kitchen units was clearly an OIR, the need for automated grading, but it failed to be translated into the contract’s AIR. When we fail to define the Information Delivery Cycle at the procurement stage, we leave the definition of ‘value’ to be negotiated in the field. This usually comes at a higher cost of both time and relationship capital.
The table below compares the strategic failures of this case study with the practical consequences and the technical solutions offered by ISO 19650:
| Strategic Failure | Practical Consequence | Technical Solution (ISO 19650) |
|---|---|---|
| Undefined AIRs | Disagreement on data capture scope | Standardised Information Requirements |
| Siloed Value Definitions | Stall in automated asset grading | Alignment of OIR to Asset Data |
| Informal Communication | Risk of legal/contractual dispute | Common Data Environment (CDE) protocols |
This also speaks to a common theme in my writing: the battle between theory and reality. Most organisations are not starting fresh. While we work toward forming ‘compliant’ information requirements, especially Asset Information Requirements, we must still operate the estate. This often leads to Reactive Data Architecture. Instead of building a data structure that supports long-term strategic goals, we build one that simply silences the loudest pain point of the day.
The Reality of Resolution
I’d love to produce an inspiring, “LinkedIn-ready” speech about how I used master-level stakeholder management to achieve 100% success. But that wouldn’t be true.
In reality, getting alignment was slow, tense, and inefficient. What saved us was the open channel of communication between myself and the Tier 1 Asset Manager. By maintaining a respectful connection, we had honest conversations, free of C-Suite concerns, and arrived at a solution that satisfied both parties without turning it into a legal dispute.
We moved from “Firefighting Data” to a shared understanding that while a cupboard has limited mechanical value, its informational value is non-negotiable for the future of the estate.
The Takeaway
- Well-formed Information Requirements are essential. Had they been established at contract commencement, this dispute wouldn’t have formed. The supplier would have contractually agreed to provide the data we needed from Day One.
- Collaboration beats Conflict. Whether it’s legal or organisational, conflict rarely gets you as far as a respectful, honest partnership.
- Data is a Capital Asset. We must treat information with the same lifecycle rigour as a boiler or a bridge. If the data supports a corporate objective, it has value, regardless of whether it needs a service technician.
Asset management must operate in a collaborative environment to succeed. Without it, you’re just arguing over the price of a cupboard while the wider strategy sits on a shelf.
Leave a Reply