I was fortunate to have a week’s leave recently. Returning to work was the usual mix of catching up on Teams messages, rearranging diaries to fix conflicting invites, and checking in on the team to ensure no immediate support was needed. Fortunately, there were no surprises.
The inbox was the typical mix of tasks and admin, but one email stood out. It was a request for help specifically, help with identifying a “Best Value“ decision.
As I’ve covered before, “Value” is subjective. Most people jump straight to the financial cost, others think of time, and some consider both. Fundamentally, value is the importance or usefulness of a “thing” as defined by the beholder. In this instance, the query was financial in nature.
The Problem: Like-for-Like vs. Long-Term Value
A member of the operations team needed to replace the primary heat source in a vacant building. Historically, this property was heated via a domestic-grade gas boiler. The unit had failed, triggering a decision point.
In the past, the default would have been a “like-for-like” replacement; the cheapest option for this year’s budget. However, our organisation is moving away from that. We are supporting operatives in considering alternative options that align with both stakeholder needs and our wider sustainability aims.
The team identified that the asset might be suitable for a lower-carbon heat source (such as an air-source heat pump). However, before progressing to formal design and procurement, they wanted to know: Does the higher upfront cost represent longer-term value?
The Solution: Net Present Cost (NPC)
They were essentially asking for a Whole-Life Cost (WLC) and Net Present Cost (NPC) comparison. I was able to help them build an evidenced case for the low-carbon option.
While the low-carbon intervention represented a higher total whole-life cost in raw numbers, the Net Present Cost told a different story. When converted into “today’s money”, the low-carbon option presented a more cost-effective and value-driven solution over the span of its life.
We were able to arrive at this conclusion quickly because we are currently rolling out a tool to support such decision making. Why? Because we listened to what the teams needed: a way to make the decision-making process as efficient as possible without needing a degree in finance.
Pragmatic Asset Management in Action
I previously wrote about my push for “Pragmatic Asset Management“, supporting the organisation in doing the work without obsessing over theoretical excellence. This request was a perfect example of why this works.
When I first joined, this conversation wouldn’t have happened. The cheapest annual budget cost would have won every time. Now, by not forcing people to “tick every theoretical box” and instead providing them with utilities that enable them to perform Asset Management almost without realising it, we have fostered a culture of adoption.
The Takeaway
This example shows that if you support the “front line” with practical tools, Asset Management can succeed in a large, complex organisation. By targeting the outputs that directly affect the workforce, you drive a wider appetite for data-led decisions. You establish a consistent feedback loop that matures over time.
How have you approached a large-scale rollout? Did you focus on the practical tools or chase the high-level strategy?
Leave a Reply