I had the chance to interact with a colleague after sharing “Ethics and Thought Process in Infrastructure Asset Management” on LinkedIn.
He expressed that consultants shouldn’t be adding in projects that a council doesn’t need.
I replied, “I think people are a lot wiser to the possibility these days. Now the issue would be more about possible ‘over-engineering’ issues i.e. building more than the community actually needs. Some well-published examples of that in the past decade.”
He agreed that people are a lot wiser now but considers that when things are rushed in the organization, these (unethical practices?) slip in.
He said further, “But thankfully, there is no guarantee that when an item for development gets into an AMP that it will be funded and constructed. Business planning processes tightening the decisions over capital are improving all the time as well.”
I agree with him and I cited that the Better Business Case methodology is certainly putting a lot more rigor and analysis around capital projects.
He mentioned that in his last chief executive assignment, using a project management planning approach, they changed the structures of the whole organization over capital management including planning, funding and delivering.
I observed that this sounds like a good story and it is important to note that if you look at the NZ Treasury Investor Confidence Rating (ICR) assessment methodology – both maturities of asset management and maturity of project management are key indicators of organizational investor confidence
I think the Treasury Investor Confidence Rating is a good overall framework that can be adapted to use for local government.
I concluded that if that happens, and is guided well, then it will add value to local government processes and checks.
Please feel free to post your comments or questions on any of the articles here.
I really appreciate interacting with our readers and providing further information on infrastructure asset management topics that interest you.