Highway Asset Management Framework v1 PDF

Framework for Highway Asset Management
The Guidance has been superseded by the Highway Infrastructure Asset

Management Guidance, available through the following link. See here:
http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/amguidance
Framework for
Highway Asset Management
FOREWORD BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTY SURVEYORS’ SOCIETY
I am very pleased that CSS has been instrumental in producing this Asset
Management framework for our highway infrastructure. This has come at an
opportune time for the future development of Local Transport Plans and funding
for transport in general.
The number of organisations that have contributed to the development of the

framework exemplify the excellent partnership working that has taken place. On
behalf of the Society, I extend my thanks to all the individuals and organisations
concerned.
The framework, I am sure, will help everyone setting out on the first step of
developing their highway Asset Management Plans and I am pleased to
commend the document to you.
Bob Wilkins
President of the County Surveyors’ Society
April 2004
This framework has been produced by:

In conjunction with the following organisations:
TAG
Welsh Cymdeithas
Association of Swyddogion
Technical Technegol
Officers Cymru
Acknowledgements
Project Board
Matthew Lugg (Chair) Cambridgeshire County Council
Alan Armson (Project Manager) Hertfordshire Highways
Chris Walker (Secretary) East Sussex County Council
Robert Biggs Derbyshire County Council
Working Group Members

David Baker Transport for London
Eric Burley Department for Transport
Roger Cole Lancashire County Council (CSS Bridges
John Edlington Lincolnshire County Council
Paul Fearon St Helens Council
Kevin Fuller Hampshire County Council (CSS Footway and
Cycle Track Management Group)
Alastair Gow SCOTS
Les Hawker Highways Agency
Ian Holmes Department for Transport
Ian Hornby Lancashire County Council
Richard Ireland Surrey County Council
Keith Jones Vale of Glamorgan Council (WATO)
John Linsley Yorkshire & Humberside (TAG)
Colin Low Staffordshire County Council
Jean McKay Road Service Northern Ireland
Ann Morley Department for Transport
Hugh Murdoch SCOTS
Gordon Prangnell LB Hammersmith and Fulham (LOTAG)
Anthony Radford-Foley Bracknell Forest Borough Council (TAG)
Dana Skelley Transport for London
Malcolm Smith Northumberland County Council
Alan Tyler IPF (CIPFA)
Technical Support
Rob Andrews Opus International Consultants (UK) Ltd
Paul Hardy Opus International Consultants (UK) Ltd
Preface
Introduction
The concept of highway asset management is becoming increasingly important for

those responsible for managing highway networks. Asset management is not a new
concept and most highway authorities are practicing elements of asset management
already. However, the service wide application of asset management is a new
concept.
Drivers for Change
A number of specific drivers are creating heightened interest in asset management.

These include a future requirement to explicitly value highway assets, resulting
from the progressive establishment of whole of government accounts, the
opportunities presented by the introduction of the Prudential Code and the
anticipated advise from DfT to highway authorities to prepare highway asset
management plans in the instructions for the next 5 year Local Transport Plans.
Despite this interest there is no commonly accepted definition of what asset
management is and what can be achieved through its application.
The Aim of the Framework
The County Surveyors Society (CSS), together with the Local Authority Technical
Advisors Group (TAG) have produced the framework detailed in this document to
facilitate the meaningful exchange of knowledge and experience on the subject. It
is expected that the framework will be used to:
Introduce the concept of asset management as it applies to UK road

networks
Provide a reference for authorities who wish to introduce an asset
management approach to their business processes and
Assist with the preparation of asset management plans
The Way Ahead
This document establishes a framework on which we can build our knowledge,

systems and processes. It will enable an informed exchange between peer groups,
using common terms and with a common understanding. The CSS and TAG
recognise that highway asset management is in its infancy in the UK and that a
significant need exists to develop detailed guidance on specific elements of the
framework and to facilitate an informed exchange on best practice. It is
anticipated that further work will follow on individual topics such as valuation, risk
management and optimisation.
The Project
This document is the output from a project that comprises the following stages:
Stage One: Highway Asset Management: Worldwide Experience and Practice.
The output from stage one is a report on current

worldwide highway asset management practice.
The report also includes a section on relevant
developments within the UK and within relevant
similar sectors. The report has been used to
inform the development of this framework. It
forms a useful reference for those wishing to
understand how others have addressed the
introduction of asset management and contains
references and summaries of or a myriad of
relevant documentation. It is a recommended
read for those wishing to have a full
understanding of how the framework came to
contain the content and structure it has and
what can be learned directly from the
experience of others.
Stage Two: Framework for Highway Asset Management in the UK.
This framework document is the output from stage two of the project and
comprises two parts:
Part 1 contains an introduction to asset management including
A definition of terms
An outline of the reasons for interest in asset management
Details of the potential benefits that can be gained by its adoption.
Part 2 contains the framework. The framework is a generic asset management

process illustrating the elements that are necessary to form a fully developed asset
management approach. It recognises that asset management is a process that is
defined by the combination of a number of key activities. Each section in Part 2
then describes an element of the framework in more detail. Part 2 has been
structured such that if an authority documents how they propose to address each
section they will have a basic asset management plan.
Contents Page No.

Terms and Abbreviations i
Part One: Introduction 1

1.1 What is Asset Management?……………………………. 1
1.1.1 Definition
1.1.2 Themes
1.1.3 Scope
1.1.4 Enhancement of Existing Practice
1.2 Why Asset Management?…………………………………. 3

1.2.1 The Value of Road Networks
1.2.2 Challenges Facing Highway Authorities
1.2.3 The Drivers for the Use of Asset Management
1.3 Benefits of Asset Management………………………… 7

1.3.1 What is a Benefit?
1.3.2 Specific Benefits
1.3.3 Better Value
1.4 Purpose of the Framework……………………………… 9

1.4.1 Common Understanding
1.4.2 Primary Purpose
1.4.3 Use
1.5 Regional Differences………………………………………… 11

1.5.1 England
1.5.2 Wales
1.5.3 Scotland
1.5.4 Northern Ireland
1.6 Implementing Asset Management…………………… 13

1.6.1 Review of Current Practice
1.6.2 Defining Desired Practice
1.6.3 Gap Analysis
1.6.4 Implementation Plan
1.6.5 Preparing a Highway Asset Management Plan
1.6.6 Implementation Recommendations
Contents Page No.
Part Two: Framework 21

2.1 Starting Point……………………………………………………. 23
2.1.1 Goals, Objectives & Policies
2.1.2 Inventory
2.1.3 Starting Point Recommendations
2.2 Levels of Service………………………………………………. 31

2.2.1 What are Levels of Service?
2.2.2 Use of Levels of Service
2.2.3 The Condition of the Asset
2.2.4 Demand Aspirations
2.2.5 Developing Levels of Service
2.2.6 Best Practice Guidelines
2.2.7 Organisational Objectives
2.2.8 Levels Of Service Recommendations
2.3 Option Identification………………………………………… 37

2.3.1 Performance Gaps
2.3.2 Lifecycle Planning
2.3.3 Option Identification Recommendations
2.4 Decision Making………………………………………………… 43

2.4.1 Optimisation
2.4.2 Budget Considerations
2.4.3 Risk Management
2.4.4 Decision Making Recommendations
2.5 Service Delivery………………………………………………… 51

2.5.1 Forward Work Programme
2.5.2 Physical Works and Service Delivery
2.5.3 Service Delivery Recommendations
2.6 Reporting and Monitoring………………………………… 53

2.6.1 Performance Measurement
2.6.2 Developing Performance Measures
2.6.3 Improvement Actions
2.6.4 Reporting and Monitoring Recommendations
Contents Page No.

Appendix A: References…………………………………………………… 59
Appendix B: Definitions of Asset Management……………… 61
Appendix C: Case Studies………………………………………………… 63
C1 Implementation: Gap Analysis 63

C2 Implementation: Hertfordshire’s Highway Asset
65
Management Plan
C3 Inventory: Road2000 Asset Inventory Collection 67
C4 Levels of Service: Hertfordshire’s Safety Levels of Service 69
C5 Performance Gaps: SCOTS Maintenance Backlog Study 71
C6 Optimisation: Birmingham City Council 73
C7 Performance Gaps: Dorset’s Study of Pavement
75
Maintenance Backlog
C8 Performance Gaps: Surrey’s Funding for Bridge Management 77
C9 Optimisation: Transport for London’s Maintenance
79
Funding
C10 Performance Gaps: West Sussex’s Road Safety Funding
81
Effectiveness
C11 Valuation: Northern Ireland Road Service’s
83
Valuation
C12 Service Delivery: Rotherham’s Integrated Inspection
85
Regime
Terms and Abbreviations
Terms
The following terms are used in the framework:
Customers: Road users and the wider community served by the highway network
Highway Authority: The organisation responsible for the management and

operation of the highway network (generally the council) assisted, in most
instances, by external or internal contractors and consultants to deliver the
service.
Levels of Service: Levels of service are a statement of the performance of the

asset in terms that the customer can understand. Levels of service typically
cover condition, availability, capacity, amenity, safety, environmental impact
and social equity. They cover the condition of the asset and non-condition
related demand aspirations, i.e. a representation of how the asset is performing
in terms of both delivering a service to customers and maintaining its physical
integrity at an appropriate level.
Demand Aspirations: Non-condition related levels of service covering areas such

as safety, accessibility, environmental impact etc.
Network: A term used to describe the highway network inclusive of all its
elements i.e. the pavement, bridges, street lights, signs, drains, lines, street
furniture, verges etc.
Stakeholder: Any party who has an interest in the management, operation and
use of the highway. Stakeholders include customers, utility operators, e.g. gas,
electricity suppliers and interest groups.
Validation: the formal checking of data for completeness and accuracy.
Performance: A term used to describe the overall service delivered as measured

by a series of levels of service. It comprises both condition and non-condition
measures (i.e. safety, accessibility, etc).
Highway Asset Management: The application of asset management to the

management of publicly owned highway assets.
Decision Conferencing: Facilitated group meetings during which a group of

people, assisted by a computer model, consider complex decisions such as
resource allocation and reach agreement.
Service Area: An area of service delivery, generally defined by the division of

budgets, e.g. road safety, aids to movement, safer routes to schools etc.
Optimisation: The process of identifying the optimal regime for the

management and operation of the network.
i
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this report:
AM: Asset Management
AMP: Asset Management Plan
BVPI: Best Value Performance Indicators
CCT: Compulsory Competitive Tendering
CSS: The County Surveyors’ Society
CVI: Coarse Visual Inspection
DfT: The Department for Transport
GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GIS: Geographical Information System
HAMP: Highway Asset Management Plan
ITS: Intelligent Transport System
KPI: Key Performance Indicator
KSI: Killed and Seriously Injured
LoS: Level of Service
LTP: Local Transport Plan
MCO: Multi Criteria Optimisation
RAB: Resource Accounting and Budgeting
SCOTS: Society of Chief Officers for Transportation in Scotland
TAG: The Local Government Technical Advisors Group
TfL: Transport for London
TRACS: Traffic Speed Condition Survey
UKPMS: United Kingdom Pavement Management System
WGA: Whole of Government Accounts
ii
1 Part One: Introduction
1.1 What is Asset Management?
1.1.1 Definition
There is no definitive answer to this question. Asset management means different

things to different people. For the purposes of this framework the following
definition has been adopted. It has been specifically defined to match the
application of the concept to UK highway networks.
“Asset management is a strategic approach that identifies the optimal

allocation of resources for the management, operation, preservation and
enhancement of the highway infrastructure to meet the needs of current and
future customers.”
1.1.2 Themes
The definition brings together themes that define an asset management approach:
Strategic Approach: A systematic process that takes a long term view.

Whole of Life: The whole-life/life-cycle of an asset is considered.
Optimisation: Maximising benefits by balancing competing demands.
Resource Allocation: Allocation of resources based on assessed needs.
Customer Focus: Explicit consideration of customer expectations.
1.1.3 Scope
A typical highway network comprises road pavements, footways, streetlights, cycle-

ways, earthworks, signs, drains, road markings, traffic signals, street furniture,
structures and verges. The principles of asset management should be applied to the
management of all these components of the asset.
1.1.4 Enhancement of Existing Practice
Asset management represents more than simply an integration of existing

management systems and data. It builds on existing processes and tools to form a
continuous improvement framework that complements and supplements existing
practice.
Further Reading:
Example definitions of highway asset management are given in Appendix B.
1
2
1.2 Why Asset Management?
1.2.1 The Value of Road Networks
It is widely accepted that transport

infrastructure is vital to the economic well
being of our nation. For most local
authorities their road network is the most
valuable community asset under their
control. Despite this there is a growing
realisation that the management of these
vital and valuable assets is not receiving
the attention or funding required for the
provision of the optimal state of repair and
operation.
1.2.2 Challenges Facing Highway Authorities
Highway authorities exercise their duties to maintain, operate and improve their
highway assets under increasing pressures that include:
Inadequate budgets: with funding diverted to support other services

Limited resources: both staff and skill shortages
Mature networks: with a significant backlog of required maintenance
Increased accountability: to customers and funding providers
Increasing public expectations: the public are increasingly informed and
demanding
1.2.3 The Drivers for the Use of Asset Management
Whilst individual responses to these

challenges vary there is a trend towards a
more structured approach to the
management of road assets. Many highway
authorities are considering the
implementation of asset management
principles as a means of delivering better
outcomes to customers.
This move is being driven by:
Local Transport Plans
It is expected that the DfT will "strongly advise" highway authorities to prepare
highway asset management plans in the instructions for the next 5 year Local
Transport Plans. In Wales there is already a requirement to produce asset
management plans by 2006.
3
Whole of Government Accounts
The government is working towards the production of whole of government

accounts (WGA). WGA accounts will be commercial-style accounts covering the
whole of the public sector including local authorities. WGA will be produced on an
accruals basis and will use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP),
adapted where necessary for government. This form of accounting is known as
Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB). Under these requirements local
authorities will be required to value their highway assets.
The valuation will be required to not only assess replacement value but also to
assess the level and rate of depreciation in order to record current value in their
accounts. Experience internationally and locally (with other government
departments) shows that meeting these accounting requirements demands a
detailed knowledge of the asset (including condition and maintenance backlog).
This in turn drives a need for robust processes, based around asset management
plans, backed by databases providing valid, relevant and up to date core data on
the assets. It is anticipated that the introduction of these requirements in this
country will provide a similar demand for improved asset information.
In many other countries the introduction

of legislation requiring asset valuation has
been the catalyst for the development of
asset management practice and in
particular for the publication of asset
management plans.
The Prudential Code
The government has introduced the

Prudential Code to govern the way in
which local authorities manage their assets. The code requires local authorities to
have explicit regard to option appraisal, asset management planning and strategic
planning when making capital investment decisions and to demonstrate that their
plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable.
The code enables authorities to choose between revenue and capital intensive
options for service delivery, undertake ‘spend to save’ capital schemes and
undertake additional self-funded capital investment where they can afford to do so.
The code therefore enables the introduction of more sophisticated application of

asset management than is possible under the previous financial regime. A robust
asset management plan will be a valuable tool to any authority wishing to explore
the potential benefits that the code enables.
4
General Drivers
Asset management is also consistent and supportive of:
Best Value: this is by definition a

prime asset management
objective
Code of Practice for Highway
Maintenance: which refers to
asset management
Rethinking Construction: which
advocates an integrated approach
to the planning and delivery of
infrastructure works
It is a valid question to ask why a highway authority would not choose to adopt an
asset management approach i.e. why would an authority not want to:
Think strategically
Consider trade offs between alternatives
Establish performance goals and measure results
Consider the user
Be able to substantiate funding requests with facts
This is not to infer that these aspects are not routinely being undertaken. Most
authorities would however recognise that opportunity to improve their performance
exists under one or more of these areas. Asset management is a framework that
assists them to realise these improvements.
5
6
1.3 Benefits of Asset Management
1.3.1 What is a Benefit?
A benefit occurs when the customer receives an improved level of service for the
resources available, i.e.:
The same or better level of service at a reduced cost,
A better level of service at the same or marginally increased cost or
Where, owing to budgetary constraints, it is not possible to maintain the level of

service, the effects of the reduced level of service is mitigated through the
efficient use of resources.
1.3.2 Specific Benefits
Specific benefits of an asset management

approach are:
Reduced life-cycle costs
Defined levels of service
The ability to track performance
Improved transparency in decision
making
The ability to predict the consequences of funding decisions
Decreased financial, operational and legal risk and
Ability to discharge statutory valuation and financial reporting
responsibilities
The specific benefits of asset management are stepping-stones to the realisation of

better value.
1.3.3 Better Value
Asset management facilitates better decision-making by supplementing instinctive

engineering judgement and supposition with analysis (financial, economic and
engineering). It thereby enables an authority to better understand and manage the
relationship between cost and performance. The equation is presented below.
Value = Performance
Cost of Service Delivery
Where: Performance = Σlevel of service; condition, availability, safety etc
A better understanding of this relationship will facilitate more informed discussion

with fund holders. For example, it will enable the highway authority to document
the effects of under-funding on the levels of service provided and allow an
assessment of the concurrent risk taken.
7
8
1.4 Purpose of the Framework
1.4.1 Common Understanding
The term “asset management” is used

increasingly in relation to the management of
highway networks. There is, however, no
common understanding of what asset
management is and what can be achieved
through its application. This framework
endeavours to fill this gap.
1.4.2 Primary Purpose
The framework is intended to be a valuable reference for anyone wishing to

implement asset management. It will also assist UK local authorities to share
knowledge on the subject of highway asset management by providing common
‘ground rules’ and terminology. The framework promotes a deeper understanding
of asset management principles that will allow highway authorities to demonstrate
prudent stewardship of their assets and better justify funding decisions both
nationally and locally.
1.4.3 Use
It is anticipated that the framework will be used to:
Introduce the concept of By providing a summary of the principles and benefits

asset management of asset management suitable for briefing senior
managers, politicians and customers
Assist with the By providing a process-oriented reference to those
implementation of asset wishing to introduce the principles of asset
management management to their management procedures
Assist with the Part two of the document has been structured in such a
preparation of an asset way that an authority that documents how it will
management plan address each section will have the basis of an asset
management plan.
Further Reading:
This project's stage one report details international highway asset management
and cross sector asset management experience. The report includes an extensive
literature search and includes references to many documents that are available
on-line. The report is a useful reference for those wishing to explore the
principles of the framework in more detail.
9
10
1.5 Regional Differences
Highway asset management is in its infancy in the UK. Each country in the UK is
approaching the issue in a subtly rather than fundamentally different way. This
framework can consequently be applied in each country by simply applying the
general principles identified.
1.5.1 England
As at 2003, in England only one authority (Hertfordshire) has published a highway

asset management plan. The Highways Agency has not published an asset
management plan although like many other highway authorities, asset management
underpins a number of their current practices and initiatives. The Highways Agency
has carried out a valuation of their assets and their experience with this work is a
valuable reference. The Highways Agency has a number of current projects to
improve its systems and operations that will more closely align with an asset
management framework.
1.5.2 Wales
All Welsh highway authorities are tasked with producing asset management plans
for their networks by 2006.
1.5.3 Scotland
While no specific timescale has been laid down in Scotland for the implementation
of asset management, guidance issued in regard to the “Local Government in
Scotland Act 2003” refers to the requirement for authorities to demonstrate that
assets are being used efficiently and
effectively.
Scotland has also taken steps to improve

the quality of pavement condition data for
their network by undertaking a nation-wide
TRACS type survey for all highways in the
country. This has necessitated an
improvement in the extent and accuracy of
their network inventory information.
1.5.4 Northern Ireland
The Northern Ireland Road Service has been valuing their assets for the last three
years but has only had the asset valuation part of their financial statements signed
off by the Northern Ireland Audit Office for the last financial year.
11
12
1.6 Implementing Asset Management
The following simple macro process is an example of a method used to implement

asset management.
Current Practice
Desired Practice
Review
Gap Analysis
Implementation
Plan
Prepare Asset
Management Plan
Fig. 1: Process for Implementing Asset Management
It recognises that asset management is not entirely new and that each authority will
already be practising elements of the required processes. Implementation needs
therefore to result in a method, which complements current Practice.
Asset management is a process that enables the people who manage the asset to do
so in a more informed manner. The structured approach it necessitates can require
amendment of established practices and a change of mindset. Implementation
plans therefore may need to address issues that include:
Processes Existing and desired procedures
Collection, storage, management and analysis of asset related

Data & Systems
data
People Organisation, cultural change and resistance
The above issues are discussed in detail in the following sections.
13
1.6.1 Review of Current Practice
All authorities practice some elements

of asset management already. It is
therefore advisable to study current
practice and compare it with an asset
management approach. In doing so the
issues above should be explicitly
considered. The following questions
illustrate some of the issues that a
review of current practice should
examine.
People
People issues are likely to include consideration of:
For example those responsible for applying

Are the key decision makers the
for funding and distributing resources
appropriate people for the job?
between areas.
Does the current organisational In particular will the existing structure
structure allow the use of asset inhibit the free flow of asset information to
management? key decision-makers?
For example the ability to analyse asset
Do the key personnel have the skills
data for trends and exceptions and to
required to implement asset
apply economics to the assessment of
management?
alternative options.
Knowledge held only by individuals may
Do key individuals have personal include; where assets are, their
knowledge that is not available to maintenance history or where the
others? information that exists about certain assets
is stored.
Unfortunately the introduction of structured decision-making can be seen as a

threat by existing staff if they are used to acceptance of their decisions and
recommendations without significant questioning or evaluation. Some
organisational resistance can be encountered if this is the case.
14
Processes
Reviewing the way decisions are made in comparison to an asset management

approach may lead to significant changes within the organisation. A process review
should look at the way in which economic, condition and performance data are
integrated and used to supplement engineering judgement. Some of the key
considerations are:
Both internal and external communication channels

How is asset information
can be very important to the promulgation of revised
disseminated?
ways of working.
Politics can influence priorities and the way in which
How are political
budgets are allocated. Asset management planning
influences catered for in
needs to reflect the political environment that
current decision making?
highway authorities operate in.
What cognisance is taken of asset condition and
How are annual budgets
performance data in establishing the need for
set?
resources and the distribution of available resources?
Do budgets reflect levels To what extent does performance against established
of service? levels of service affect resource allocation?
The application of whole life costing requires
How are alternative
alternative solutions and treatments to be identified
options evaluated?
and compared with each other.
What analysis is carried out? For example - are
Are the best whole life economic evaluation techniques used? E.g. the
options identified? calculation of the net present value of alternative
options
How are improvement
Is this via a structured process?
projects identified?
Are the expected benefits of projects identified in
How are the benefits of
terms of their effect on levels of service and their
projects quantified?
effectiveness recorded post completion?
How are competing demands rationalised? How is a
How are alternative
decision reached on whether to pursue say street
projects compared?
lighting improvement rather than pavement repairs?
How are projects How are programmes produced and how far forward
prioritised? are programmes planned i.e. how many years?
15
Asset Data
Data is the foundation of asset management. A comprehensive review of the

existing asset data is recommended. Consideration of existing data should take
into account all types of asset related data including:
Inventory Data:
What?
Where?
Size?
Type?
Age? etc
Condition Data:
Measures of current condition
Performance Data:
Measures of non-condition related levels of service

A review of data should focus on what data is necessary to assist with making key
decisions, how it is used, what information is used to support funding decisions and
what data is not currently held.
Asset Data Systems
Most authorities will have existing data systems in place, for example UKPMS,
bridge management systems, street lighting, customer query systems etc. A review
of these in conjunction with any proposal to update internal processes is
recommended and should document:
What information systems are in use?

How do the existing systems assist with decision-making?
It is easy to be driven by the needs of proprietary software packages and to let
these influence process rather than the other way round. It is important when
developing an asset management approach that authorities focus on their business
needs i.e. they identify the key decisions they habitually make that affect the
performance of the asset and focus on creating processes that improve these
decisions. In doing so it is likely that the efficiency of making these decisions can
be enhanced considerably by the use of appropriate information systems (software).
Looking at processes prior to making any decisions about software systems allows an
understanding of whether existing business processes align with an asset
management approach; i.e. define desired process and purchase or develop
software where appropriate to assist in efficient delivery.
16
1.6.2 Defining Desired Practice
This framework can be used as a tool to define desired practice. In defining desired
practice the issues to be considered are similar but subtly different to those used in
the review of the current practice. Instead of asking how things are done now the
question is; how would we like them to be in the future?
Example issues to consider are therefore:
Who do we want to make the key decisions?

On what basis do we want to allocate resources?
What data do we need to assist with making these decisions?
What information will we provide to support funding applications?
What are the processes we want to use?
What information systems are required to support how we wish to operate?
What specific tools do we need?
In defining desired practice a long-term view should be taken. It should not be

unduly impeded by the hurdles that will have to be overcome to achieve the desired
practice, as this will be addressed in the gap analysis.
1.6.3 Gap Analysis
A gap analysis compares current and desired practice and quantifies the activities
required to change current practice to desired practice. The analysis should
consider:
Gap What are the differences between current and desired practice?
Cost What are the costs of closing the gaps?
Benefit How will the proposed changes benefit the customer?
Priorities Which items are most crucial to improving service delivery?
Resources Can resources be made available to action the desired changes?
There are a number of ways of carrying out a gap analysis and representing the
results. An example is included in Appendix C. The gap analysis focuses on
identifying the crucial tasks and making sure that they are given priority by
considering affordability and benefit. It may be desirable to have performance data
for all assets but can this be achieved at a reasonable cost? Would a sample of data
be sufficient for planning purposes? Are resources likely to be available to deliver?
17
1.6.4 Implementation Plan
The gap analysis can then be used to create an implementation plan detailing:
The actions required

Who has responsibility for their completion
A communication strategy to inform affected staff
A programme, possibly including a staged delivery
Costs
Items in the plan may include:
Training
Collection of additional data
Reorganisation of responsibilities
Changes to practices
Investment in new software systems or
development of existing systems
Further Reading:
An example output from a gap analysis exercise is included in Appendix C.
1.6.5 Preparing a Highway Asset Management Plan
An asset management plan is a document that states how a group of assets are to
be managed over a period of time. The plan provides a guiding reference for all
those engaged in delivering the highways service. This document is structured such
that, if an authority documents how they intend to deal with the issues covered in
each section in part two, they will have prepared a basic asset management plan.
Production Team
Ideally, the people tasked with delivering the service should produce the plan. This
will engender in them a sense of ownership of the plan and a greater incentive to
make sure that the tasks contained within it are delivered. It should however be
recognised that the existing team may not have the skills or the time required to
produce the plan and some assistance from other resources, internally or
externally, may be required.
Identify Scope, Structure and Content
Before embarking on production it is advisable to determine who will use the plan
and for what purpose. This will assist in defining the scope of the plan (e.g. what
asset will be covered by it, for example will winter maintenance facilities be
included?). Defining the structure and contents of the plan assists in gaining
confirmation of the scope of the plan.
18
1.6.6 Implementation Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the experience of organisations that

have implemented asset management.
Ensure that there is a highly visible and well-known

Ensure Corporate
corporate commitment to asset management prior to
Commitment
engaging in its implementation
Begin with a pilot in one area either of activity or
Begin with a Pilot
geography. Choose the pilot deliberately to occur in an
Project
area where key staff members are amenable to change.
Appoint an ‘Asset Manager’ to champion the asset
Appoint an Asset
management approach within the organisation. An asset
Management
management champion at a high level is particularly
Champion
important where organisational resistance is anticipated.
Provide ongoing training and briefing to those involved in
Provide Ongoing
the new processes. The training needs to include all the
Training
people affected, which may be a large group.
Successful implementation means that the process of
asset management becomes accepted practice. This
requires time and a concerted effort to change the way
Allow Time people think and act, to change processes, to collect,
analyse and interpret performance data and to
implement or improve software systems to make it all
easier.
Provide ongoing communication of the commitment to
change and the progress in delivering the changes.
Communicate
Manage expectations by setting targets that can be
Continuously
readily achieved. Demonstrate progress by publishing and
reporting on an implementation plan.
Case Study:
Hertfordshire County Council produced the first HAMP in the UK. Appendix C
contains a description of how Hertfordshire approached this task and the
structure of their plan.
19
20
2 Part Two: Framework
The framework is based on a generic asset management system. It is shown
diagrammatically below and described in more detail in the remainder of this
document. The framework illustrates how various activities are linked. It is the
linking of these activities into an overall management framework that is the
principal difference between asset management and current practice. The
remainder of this document follows this structure.
G oals,
O b je ctive s & Inven tory
Po licies
1. Startin g Poin t
Improvement Actions
C on d ition D em an d
A sse ssm en t A sp iration s
2. Le v els of Se rv ice
6 Reporting & Monitoring
Perform ance Life cycle

G ap s Plan ning
3 . O p tio n Id e n tificatio n
Performance Measurement
O p tim isation &

R isk
Bu dge t
A sse ssm en t
C on sid eration
4 . D e cisio n M ak in g
Forw ard W ork Physical W orks

Program m e & Services
5 . Se rv ice D e liv e ry
Fig 2: Generic Asset Management System
21
22
2.1 Starting Point
This section outlines the importance of

establishing a relationship between
asset management and other corporate Goals,
Objectives & Inventory
goals and objectives. It also identifies
Policies
the crucial role that inventory data
plays in enabling the application of
1. Starting Point
good asset management practice.
2.1.1 Goals, Objectives & Policies
Highway asset management is a way of running the ‘business’ of operating a

highway network. The development of asset management processes and plans must
therefore be guided by the existing overarching corporate objectives of the
authority. It is essential to define the relationship that is desired between asset
management priorities and other corporate goals and objectives.
Goals and objectives related to asset management aspirations must reflect those
that exist within other documentation that the authorities use to govern and drive
their works. If a highway asset management plan is being published it is important
to establish the context and scope of the plan and its relationship with these other
documents and their contents. Important considerations include:
What other policy and management documents exist?

- Best Value Improvement Plan
- Local Transport Plan
- Environmental Policies
- Structure plans etc.
What other standards are being applied that may effect the contents of the
plan?
- The Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance
- Local Maintenance Plans and standards
- Standards specified in works contracts
What is the desired relationship between the asset management plan and
other corporate documents?
Valuation
Resource Accounting and Budgeting is likely to affect the way in which funds are
allocated in the future. The value of the asset and the effect of any proposed
works programme upon that value will be an important consideration. Valuation
requires robust asset information to enable financial reporting requirements to be
met.
23
A replacement value for the asset is a common starting point for a valuation. This
may then be adjusted by one of a number of methods to provide a current value

that is intended to reflect the depreciated value of the asset. While the detail of
this process is beyond the scope of this framework, it should however be noted that
all highway valuations start by placing a value against the asset register, the
highway inventory. Most valuation methods then use some estimate of the
expected lives of the assets and their components.
Calculating expected lives and understanding the effect that maintenance

treatments have in prolonging those lives is therefore a critical valuation process.
It is also clearly a critical asset management process. The processes and data
requirements of valuation and asset management are largely the same. A well
developed asset management approach can provide the information required to
meet financial reporting requirements (valuation) and to improve the management
of the asset.
2.1.2 Inventory
The highway inventory is the asset register and is the starting point for any
valuation. In order to value the asset a valuer will need to know whether the
inventory is complete, accurate and up to date. A valuer will establish what level
of confidence exists in the data held and decide whether any omissions will
materially affect the valuation. Authorities will need to know, with some degree of
certainty, how good their asset inventory is, in order for their valuation to be
completed.
Asset inventory is the foundation stone on

which asset management processes are to be
built. It is only when appropriate inventory
and condition data are available to all staff
involved in the process that an overall view
and consistent management approach can be
achieved.
When analysed in combination with condition

and other data sets, e.g. accidents, traffic flows, this data can provide new
information on which critical decisions can be based. It is then possible to start
implementation of some of the more advanced asset management processes such as
optimisation and risk management that all rely on the existence of a
comprehensive, accurate and up to date asset inventory.
Data Review
All highway authorities hold inventory data. It is however typical for elements of
the inventory to be of unknown quality and not necessarily complete or up to date.
Before embarking on the adoption of asset management it is essential that the
quality and completeness of existing asset data be confirmed.
24
A data review exercise should take into account:
Current Data What data is currently held?

Desirable Data What data is required for asset management purposes?
Priorities Which items of data are the most critical to the service?
Are resources available to enable the desirable data to be
Resources
collected?
Data Quality How complete, accurate and up to date is current data?
Current Inventory Availability
A review of currently held inventory should cover what specific data is held on all
assets including:
Carriageway Earthworks, embankments
Bridges Footway/cycleways
Other highway structures Street lighting
Drainage Signs
Traffic Signals Road markings/studs
Safety fencing Verge and landscaped areas
A review of data should ask:

Where is the data held?
What level of detail is held? i.e. subcomponent level
Is it held electronically?
How is it updated?
How is it validated?
This will enable an assessment to be made of the level of confidence in the data
held. In addition specific consideration should be given to noting any database
systems in use or planned and the minimum data needs for Best Value Performance
Indicators (BVPIs), for running UKPMS and for any other corporate information
systems e.g. a GIS.
Desirable Data
The inventory data requirements for the adoption of a fully implemented asset
management approach can be determined from considering the purpose and
potential use of such data.
25
Typical desirable uses to consider are:
Uses: Purpose:
Asset Condition To increase understanding of the condition both current
Modelling and future
Programming To enable a long term programme to be established
Fault Identification To capture faults such that they can be analysed
To report on BVPIs and other statutory reporting
Reporting
obligations
Contract Management To enable management of contracted arrangements
Valuation To enable the value of the asset to be calculated
To increase understanding of achievement of non-
Non-condition related
condition related levels of service e.g. accident reduction
performance
and congestion/availability indicators
The data can then be tabulated against the component detail as in the example
below.
Asset Condition
Fault Reporting
Inventory Attribute
Non-condition
Programming
performance
Management
Reporting
Modelling
Valuation
Contract
related
Carriageway
Section Id 9 9 9 9 9 9
Section Name 9 9 9 9 9 9
Road Name 9 9 9
Start point 9 9 9 9
End point 9 9 9
Length 9 9 9 9 9
Geometry 9
Lane width 9 9 9 9 9
Surface type 9 9 9 9 9
Surface Dates 9 9 9 9
Maintenance Category 9 9 9 9 9
Salting route 9 9 9
Owner 9 9
CVI 9 9 9
Analysis of this output enables a rational assessment of what data is missing and
how important it is.
26
Network Referencing
It is essential that careful consideration be given to how any data collected is

location referenced. Most authorities will already be running more than one system
of network referencing e.g. link and node for UKPMS, co-ordinates for GIS,
Gazetteer for Streetworks Register. Any data collection exercises should ensure
that the data collected is referenced to National Grid Coordinates and the
Streetworks Register.
As asset management practice progresses there will be an increasing demand for

data integration. Asset managers will want to combine data sets to interrogate the
combined data for trends and exceptions.
A common location referencing or the
ability to integrate data from different
data sets with differing location
references will consequently rapidly
become essential.
Prioritising Data Collection
The principal test here is one of

materiality. Is this data materially
important to the management of the
asset or will an approximation be sufficient? A strategy for inventory collection
should consider:
Prioritising collection of the most critical items of data.

Ensuring the process achieves a high ‘value’ by being accurate and usable as
quickly as possible
Budgetary constraints
When establishing the extent of the features to be captured in a programme of

inventory data collection, one of the functions considered is collection of data that
relates to the prioritised levels of service provided by the network: -
Safety for road Data for structures, lighting, advisory or regulatory signage,
users traffic signals, safety fencing, and pedestrian crossings.
Pavement structure, surfacing, faults and repairs and
Integrity of the
drainage systems affect this function and include the data
network
necessary to process BVPIs, including UKPMS.
Other features on the highway network that have an impact
General service
on remaining levels of service for accessibility, financial
issues
performance, environmental impact etc.
27
Data Collection Advice
Data collection should be organised in a systematic manner. Issues to consider in

establishing a data collection strategy are:
Scale of collection exercise: collect the data across an obvious sub-division

of the network at the same time. Options include:
- Everything on a portion of the network, e.g. all principal roads then
‘another grouping’
- Everything for a complete feature e.g. all signs information
- An area or road hierarchy split, without some features, e.g. principal
roads, but don’t collect signs or point items
- Everything needing specific equipment or preparation e.g. roads with
extra traffic control, bridges needing access equipment, principal roads
by video with all other roads being walked (and/or driven).
Before starting the collection process, design the coding for the attributes
well and minimise the times that ‘other’ will be the option used for the
captured answer.
Use only trained staff for data collection. It should not be a fill-in job, to
do when things are quiet. Data collection staff should have an
understanding of highways.
Apply good quality control processes, including:
- Desk top validation checks
- Field checks of a sample of the data supplied
- Independent quality assurance checks for condition rating (i.e. use a
different person to rate and check the resulting data is within
acceptable limits for differences).
Ensure that processes are in place to update the data regularly once it has
been collected, to ensure that it continues to be reliable (i.e. complete,
accurate and up to date.
28
2.1.3 Starting Point Recommendations
Review corporate strategies and ensure that asset

Ensure Alignment with
management goals and objectives are consistent with
Corporate Aims
corporate goals.
Ensure alignment
Review existing documentation and decide what the
between AMP and
relationship will be between these and the asset
current strategy
management plan.
documents
Carry out a review of existing inventory data
Inventory data review concentrating on the items that will be of
significance to ongoing asset management activities.
Where data deficiencies exist, establish a programme
Establish a data for improvement that takes into account the cost of
improvement programme collection and the significance of the missing or
inadequate data.
Ensure that data Confidence in the data will only be retained if the
validation processes are validation and upkeep of the data is an ongoing
in place process.
Case Study:
The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has undertaken an asset
inventory survey commission for TfL as part of the Road2000 project. The project
is an example of a structured approach to data collection. Details of this project
can be found in Appendix C.
29
30
2.2 Levels of Service
This section describes what levels of

service are and why they are central to an
asset management approach. It highlights
Condition Demand
the issues to be taken into account when Assessment Aspirations
developing levels of service and notes that
they cover the condition of the asset and 2. Levels of Service
non-condition related measures of
performance.
2.2.1 What are Levels of Service?
Levels of service describe the quality of services provided by the asset for the
benefit of the customers. They are composite indicators that reflect the social,
economic and environmental goals of the community. Levels of service are
therefore the manner by which the highway authority engages with the customer
and are about reflecting the customer’s interests in terms that can be measured
and evaluated.
2.2.2 Use of Levels of Service
Levels of service are a way in which a highway authority can determine whether or
not it is meeting customer expectations and its statutory obligations in the delivery
of its highway service. They enable the Highway Authority to:
Document and measure the service provided

Rationally evaluate service versus cost trade offs
Determine if adequate focus is given to what is important to the customer
Establish if operational activities actively support the achievement of
strategic goals
Levels of service can be categorised as either:
Condition
Preservation of the physical integrity of the asset.
assessment
The service delivered by the asset in terms of its use,
Demand
generally expressed in terms of safety, availability,
Aspirations
accessibility, integration etc.
31
2.2.3 The Condition of the Asset
The physical condition of the asset in practice has two elements:
The perceived condition of the asset as “measured” by public and road user
perception.
The condition of the asset as determined by measurement and analysis of
road condition data (less obvious to the public and road users).
This distinction is important as whilst this framework promotes a focus on the
customers needs there may be instances (particularly in relation to the structural
condition of the asset) when the customer is not in a position to hold an informed
opinion.
2.2.4 Demand Aspirations
Demand aspirations is a term used to describe the non-condition related

performance requirements of the asset. These can relate to safety, availability,
accessibility etc. Such measures recognise that the asset provides a service to
customers by enabling them to travel.
The development of measures that reflect performance against these aspects and in
particular the development of a relationship between the resources allocated to
tasks that support them is critical if the principles of asset management are to be
applied fully across all aspects of the highways service.
Once a suite of levels of service and performance measures are put in place to
support them, it will then be possible to obtain some understanding of the
relationship between the cost and the level of performance against each level of
service. This information can then ultimately be used to inform decisions on the
allocation of resources between competing demands.
This ability to rationally assess competing demands is at the core of an asset

management approach. The information collected against levels of service is the
base data that can be used for optimisation, as described later in this document.
Demand aspirations may already be documented in the Local Transport Plan.
2.2.5 Developing Levels of Service
Figure 3 below illustrates a process for the development of levels of service.
In simple terms the requirements guide the development of the levels of service
into groups. These are a reflection of demands placed on the service.
Once the groupings are agreed, performance measures can then be developed that
enable the assessment of performance.
A series of performance measures then support each level of service, thus enabling
the level of service to be measured. For example by creating a means of weighting
each performance measure. Each authority will need to decide their own method
32
and weighting to reflect the condition and use of their network and the desires of
local customers. The following section describes the requirements in more detail.
Requirements Levels of Service Performance

Measures
Legislative
Safety
Requirements
Customer Availability/
Expectations Accessability
Organisational
Condition
Objectives
Best Practice
Environmental
Guidelines
Figure 3: Level of Service Development
N.B. The above groupings of safety, availability etc. shown are purely for illustration and may vary
between authorities.
Legislative Requirements
Levels of service need to take due cognisance of the legislative framework that
applies to the business of highway management. Specifically the following types of
legislation should be considered when developing levels of service:
Highways Legislation: e.g. The Highways Act 1980, The Roads (Scotland) Act
1984, Road Traffic Act 1991, New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, Traffic
Management Bill etc.
Environmental Legislation: e.g. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,
Weeds Act 1959, Ragwort Control Act 2003 etc.
Relevant General Legislation: e.g. Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 1994
When developing levels of service, managers need to consider how relevant pieces
of legislation affect their network. For example, a network with areas of
exceptional natural beauty may require environmental considerations to be given
greater prominence than elsewhere.
33
Customer Expectations
Highway networks are provided for the benefits of customers. The customer’s view
of the service being provided is, therefore, a highly important piece of information.
Customers should be directly involved in establishing the target performance of the

asset. It is then the role of the highway authority to demonstrate that customer
defined performance is being striven for, within existing budgetary and resource
constraints.
Customer consultation is an important tool for defining and managing customer

expectations. Customer surveys can be used to establish the degree of satisfaction
with current levels of service. Specifically surveys can assist by identifying:
Which aspects of the service are of most importance to the customer e.g. is
street-lighting more important than snow clearing during the winter?
The degree of satisfaction with particular aspects of the service.
Combining these two elements can provide useful information to assist authorities
to focus their attention on the areas of greatest customer need.
Public communication of the levels of service in a customer charter, or a similar

document, is recommended. The purpose of such a document is to record what
the reasonable expectations of both customer and highway authority are. It is a
tool that can assist in managing customer expectations and will generally:
Focus on areas known to be of importance to the customer.

Use concise English to describe the standards that are being set, in
terminology that the customer can understand and relate to.
Set out a procedure to be adopted for complaints.
Such documents exist in many authorities already and focus on the manner in which
services are delivered, setting standards for responses to queries etc. The adoption
of asset management encourages collation of a greater level of information about
overall performance i.e. the levels of service and their targets to be shared with
the customer.
2.2.6 Best Practice Guidelines
In addition, levels of service can be guided by best practice guidelines; for

example, the Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance. Whilst not a statutory
requirement, the Code of Practice may be used in future legal proceedings and
therefore deserves contemplation during this process. The code is underpinned by
asset management principles and makes explicit reference to asset management.
34
2.2.7 Organisational Objectives
Most authorities operate under regimes driven by predefined objectives contained

in local policy and strategy documents such as:
Local Transport Plan

Strategic Plans & Policy Documents
Structure Plan
Best Value Performance Plan
Mission Statements etc
It is important that levels of service are consistent with objectives contained in
these documents and are thus aligned with and support corporate strategies.
2.2.8 Levels Of Service Recommendations
A set of levels of service should be developed that

covers all aspects of the service (including both
Establish a full set of condition and demand aspirations). The levels of
Levels of Service service should be documented in auditable terms
such that subjective assessment of performance is
largely eliminated.
Undertake focused
It is essential that the customer’s needs and desires
consultation on Levels of
are demonstrably reflected in the levels of service.
Service
Case Study:
Hertfordshire’s Highway Asset Management Plan contains levels of service
covering the whole service. A sample section covering safety is included in
Appendix C.
35
36
2.3 Option Identification
This section describes how levels of

service are used to provide information
on the difference between the current Performance Lifecycle
Gaps Planning
performance and desirable performance
(performance gaps). This in turn enables
the identification of options for 3. Option Identification
addressing the gaps.
2.3.1 Performance Gaps
A performance gap is the gap between current performance and desired

performance.
The development of levels of service and the measurement of supporting

performance indicators will enable target performance to be documented. When
this is carried out for the first time there will inevitably be an element of
judgement involved in establishing targets. It is anticipate that once an ongoing
process of performance measurement and review is established then reviewing
targets will become a routine task.
The identification of a performance gap presupposes that a desired level of

performance has been established. This may not be the case although in the
establishment of levels of service it is typical to identify against each performance
measure the target required. An initial evaluation of performance gaps can be
undertaken by simply identifying those performance measures where the target
measure has not been met.
Services and Assets
Highway budgets are allocated to a combination of services and assets. Gaps may
exist between desired and current performance for;
Assets: the current condition of the asset is below that desired

Services: demand aspirations are not being met
The actions to address performance gaps are programmes of works. For the assets
it is recommended that lifecycle plans be developed that document the reasons for
selecting various works to address the performance gaps; i.e. the lifecycle plan
shows how different options are evaluated and selected.
For the services a long-term programme is required that is linked to the anticipated
achievement of level of service targets. Generally the action to address service
area performance gaps is the advancement of the programme of works. This
inherently creates tension with other competing demands when funding is limited.
The process of optimisation and the development of a forward works programme is
the tool used to manage the competing demands.
37
The Reasons for the Gaps
It should be noted however that a performance gap could exist for a number of
reasons as follows:
Customer Expectations
Gap 1
Management Perception of Performance
Gap 2
Actual Performance
Gap 3
Specified Performance Gap 4
Communication to Customers
Fig 4: Performance Gap Model
Gap 1: Customer Expectations – Management Perception: The customer’s

expectations of the service provided do not match the service provider’s
management perception of what is to be provided.
Gap 2: Management Perception – Actual Performance: The management

perception of the service quality does not match the actual quality of service being
provided
Gap 3: Actual Performance – Specified Performance: The service is not being

delivered to the quality specified in the relevant standards and/or contracts.
Gap 4: Actual Performance – Communication to Customers: There has been

inadequate communication with the customers resulting in them having a skewed
perception of the service delivered.
All of these possibilities should be considered in establishing what performance gaps

exist. The reason for the gap in accordance with the model above will significantly
influence the plans for addressing the gaps. Having established the gaps in
performance the options for closing the gaps should be identified and documented.
This is typically done by creating lifecycle plans for each asset group and by
considering the programme generated for service areas.
38
2.3.2 Lifecycle Planning
Lifecycle plans can be developed for all highway assets i.e.;
Carriageway Earthworks, embankments

Bridges Footway/cycleways
Other highway structures Street lighting
Drainage Signs
Traffic Signals Road markings/studs
Safety fencing Verge and landscaped areas
A lifecycle plan should document how different options are selected for closing
identified performance gaps and should cover;
Asset Lifecycle Options

Assets are created or acquired in response to one of three
demands;
Development: Where existing assets are improved and new
assets are created as part of new development.
Creation or
Capacity: Where the current system is operating above its
Acquisition
capacity one potential solution is the creation of new
(Build or purchase assets. A simplistic example would be the widening of a
a new asset) road to allow for increased traffic.
Performance: The explicit measurement of levels of service
will lead to information on where levels of service are not
being met. This may enable the identification of where
additional asset capacity is required.
In many instances routine maintenance regimes are
principally based on historical practices rather than
identified needs. Asset management demands the explicit
identification of need. Answering the following questions
Routine can assist this process:
Maintenance Condition Monitoring: Is the condition of the asset routinely
(Carry out routine measured?
maintenance to Routine Maintenance Standards: What routine maintenance
maintain the asset standards are in place and have they been reviewed in
in a serviceable relation to customer demands?
condition)
What level of reactive routine maintenance activity takes
place?
Are maintenance / safety inspection records used to assess
the effectiveness of routine maintenance activities?
39
Asset Lifecycle Options

Renew or replace the whole asset, or elements of it.
Renewals and replacements are the major treatments that
are used when routine maintenance alone cannot sustain
the asset. The identification of renewals/replacements and
Renewal or in particular the timing of such treatments is a fundamental
Replacement element of lifecycle planning. Advance asset management
(Carry out work to provides data to support the selection of the optimal time
return the asset to for a specific treatment.
its “as new” How are potential renewals identified?
capacity and
How are renewals/replacements evaluated?
condition)
How is the linkage between routine maintenance and
renewals evaluated?
How are the expected lives of treatments identified and
checked?
Upgrading
(Improve the asset Upgrade the asset or part of it to meet future needs.
above its original
standard)
Decommission or demolish obsolete assets.
Disposal Under what circumstances are assets disposed of?
What is the process for disposal?
In addition non-asset options should be considered such as:
Non-Asset Options
Manage demand Reduce the usage.
Amend standards Accept that the targeted (desired) performance cannot be

and targets met.
There will also often be treatment options within the categories above. An
example of this is shown below.
40
Using a pavement condition deficiency and structures condition as examples
Treatment Options
Pavement Example Structures example
High risk patching repair • Pointing of Masonry

Do minimum
method • Concrete repairs
• Replace bridge
joints/bearings
Medium-life
Surface dressing • Replace deck
treatment
waterproofing
• Saddle masonry arch
Long-life
Reconstruction Rebuild structure
treatment
Similar treatment sub-options exist for most asset types.
A lifecycle plan should document specific plans for how each phase of an asset’s life
is managed (i.e. from creation to disposal) and in doing so recognise the
interdependency of the phases. For example, it will recognise how the level of
investment in routine maintenance affects the renewals required, or how original
construction details affect the future demands for maintenance expenditure.
A lifecycle plan starts with the identification of options. It only however becomes
of significant value if the evaluation of those options is undertaken in a rigorous and
repeatable manner; i.e. if there is a process of optimisation.
2.3.3 Option Identification Recommendations
Assess performance gaps using performance measures

Identify performance
together with other data sources such as customer
gaps
feedback.
Explicitly document the Recognise that the gap may be a perception gap and
reasons for the could be closed or narrowed by enhanced
performance gap communication with customers.
Develop lifecycle plans Lifecycle plans for each asset group allow the options
for each asset group to be clearly documented.
41
Case Study:
A working group within SCOTS is currently assessing the backlog of maintenance of
not just the carriageway, but of the network as a whole i.e. footways, signing &
lining, structures, drainage, ITS and car parking equipment etc. The intention is to
update the report produced by the body in 1997, and to input to the overall
backlog figure for the UK. Details of this project are given in Appendix C.
Case Study:
West Sussex County Council have studied the funding levels required to meet the
safety targets for reduction in KSI by calculating the inferred effectiveness of their
safety schemes. This study is an example of identification and analysis of a service
area gap. Details of this project are given in Appendix C.
42
2.4 Decision Making
An improvement in decision-making is
one of the key benefits of asset
management. This section introduces Optimisation &
Risk
the concepts of optimisation and risk Budget
Assessment
management and states how budget Consideration
considerations are taken into account.
A full consideration of these advanced 4. Decision Making
topics is beyond the scope of this first
edition of the framework.
2.4.1 Optimisation
Optimisation is the process of identifying the optimal regime for the operation and
maintenance of the network. It requires analysis be carried out to find the most
cost effective means of providing for, or managing, the ongoing demands placed on
the asset. Optimisation is an advanced asset management technique and can only
be carried out if robust level of service information is available.
Services and Assets
Highway budgets are allocated to a combination of services and assets. Budgets

typically include money allocated to initiatives that are related to the operation of
the network, for example safety projects, integrated transport initiatives etc. as
well as maintenance budgets aimed at preserving the condition of the asset.
Optimisation techniques therefore need to address the demands on different parts
of the physical asset and of the different service areas.
Levels of Optimisation
The outcome of optimisation is the selection of the “best” option out of a range of
acceptable options. It presupposes that options that are clearly unacceptable for
any reason (economic, social, environmental or political) are removed from the
analysis. Optimisation can be undertaken at two levels:
Single Asset Optimisation to select the “best” option for a single

/Service service/asset effectively in the absence of any other
Optimisation constraints
Network Level Optimisation across a network to rationally assess and evaluate

Optimisation the competing demands of differing services and assets.
These forms of optimisation are discussed further below.
43
Single Asset/Service Optimisation
Single Asset/Service optimisation is about

prioritising for a single asset (for example
street lighting) or service (for example road
safety). The process commences with the
identification of the options available for the
asset under consideration. Once each option
is identified, it can be assigned estimates of
costs and benefits (both monetary and non-
monetary).
This form of optimisation is then simply a mechanism to rank these options by some
predefined system (such as net present value or benefit to cost ratio), with the
selected option being that which shows the best return. Single asset/service
optimisation is a ranking mechanism often used to identify project to be put
forward for funding.
Optimisation at this level is comparatively simple and provides the basic

information to enable network level optimisation to be tackled.
Network Level Optimisation
Network Level Optimisation is used in the development of forward works

programmes. It is the process by which the competing demands of differing
services and assets are rationally assessed and evaluated. A critical difference
between Single Asset/Service optimisation and Network Level Optimisation is that
the resulting selected option for each individual asset/service will not necessarily
be the optimal one selected when considering the asset in isolation.
There are two principal ways of conducting network level optimisation:
Optimisation based upon a single criterion (e.g. economic),

Single Criterion
which is used as a common denominator to assess options
Optimisation
with.
Optimisation that use a number of criteria simultaneously
Multiple Criteria
(e.g. economic, environmental, image, etc) to assess option
Optimisation
with.
44
Single Criterion Network Level Optimisation
In many situations, network level optimisation can be undertaken on a single

criterion (often economic). In this situation making the progression from the Single
Asset/Service level decision-making through to network level optimisation is a
relatively simple and straightforward process.
Consider a simple network consisting of three single assets (A, B and C) each with
three options (A1, A2, A3 etc). In the absence of any financial constraint, and with
an objective of maximising the NPV, then the resulting selected strategies would be
A2, B2 and C1 as this combination would lead to the maximum NPV for the network
as a whole. The total cost of these three strategies is £62,000.
Asset Option Benefits Costs B/C NPV

A A1 30000 10000 3 20000
A A2 60000 15000 4 45000
A A3 60000 20000 3 40000
B B1 120000 30000 4 90000
B B2 125000 25000 5 100000
B B3 56000 28000 2 28000
C C1 132000 22000 6 110000
C C2 112000 28000 4 84000
C C3 45000 15000 3 30000
The mathematical process of optimisation requires the consideration of all possible

combinations of options. In the above example of 3 assets, each with 3 options for
treatment, a total of 27 different results would need to be calculated before those
identified in blue could be confirmed as the optimal solution. The number of
combinations is equal to the number of options per asset, to the power of the
number of assets. Therefore even for a relatively small network and a moderate
number of options per asset, the number of combinations to be considered quickly
becomes large and requires the use of computer models to enable the analysis to be
carried out.
Multi Criteria Network Level Optimisation (MCO)
When more than one criterion is used to define the optimum solution the above
single criterion optimisation may be inappropriate and multiple criteria optimisation
(MCO) should be considered. MCO is a much more technically difficult concept to
explain than the single criterion optimisation discussed above. There are two main
methods of undertaking an MCO:
Use a method of weightings to combine the multiple criteria into a single

value and then using the single criterion techniques discussed above, or
Use a multiple criteria optimisation technique
The first of the two above techniques requires the establishment of weighting
factors to enable combining reporting lines (e.g. economic, safety, image etc.) into
a single number. These weightings should be established for the geographic area of
45
interest, as different parts of society may have a diverse range of priorities. For
instance, a large urban area with significant congestion issues may focus on the
economic and social issues, while a society based in a natural forest location may
be willing to forgo economic benefits for environmental protection.
The use of pure MCO techniques is a significant subject matter in its own right and
is not discussed further here. It is through the process of optimisation that the
greatest benefits of asset management can be gleaned. Optimisation can be aided
by the use of sophisticated analysis tools such as deterioration models and whole
life costing analyses.
Further Reading:
Birmingham City Council has developed a prioritisation process that combines
discrete data sets to enable identification and prioritisation of proposed projects.
This is an initial form of single asset optimisation. Appendix C includes a
description of this work.
2.4.2 Budget Considerations
Whilst the asset management approach advocates the identification of needs, these
must often be tempered by the reality of the available budget. Often management
decision must be taken within the context of limited budget availability. The
processes described above should lead to the ability to support funding applications
with rationalised decisions for splitting budgets across implementation programmes,
as well as within the programmes, in order to meet the levels of service.
Determining the funding demands for proposed levels of service needs to take into
account:
Requested Service
Reflecting customers stated desires
Level
Established Service
Current level of service
Level
Optimum Service Taking into account national and local policy, legislation,
Level projected use and engineering principles & requested level
Attainable Service A service level that re-interprets the optimum service level in
Level the light of available resources
46
Budget considerations can determine the appropriate means of optimisation.
Consider the example given above, but with constraints of having a budget of only
£50,000, yet also having to do at least one option for each asset. In this case,
options A1, B2 and C3 are selected when optimising at a network level, despite
options A1 and C3 not being the optimal for that particular asset.
Asset Option Benefits Costs B/C NPV

A A1 30000 10000 3 20000
A A2 60000 15000 4 45000
A A3 60000 20000 3 40000
B B1 120000 30000 4 90000
B B2 125000 25000 5 100000
B B3 56000 28000 2 28000
C C1 132000 22000 6 110000
C C2 112000 28000 4 84000
C C3 45000 15000 3 30000
The above situation can be expanded to also consider the timing of expenditure
within an option, such that options that spend money in different years can be
considered.
Organisational Constraints
The development of levels of service needs to reflect the organisational constraints

that may exist. These could typically include:
Inadequate financial resources: i.e. the authority cannot afford to deliver

the desired level of service
Resource Constraints: availability
of suitably skilled and
experienced resources may
prevent the authority from being
able to achieve target levels of
service.
Political constraints: may affect
the availability and distribution of
funding or may make certain
approaches to work programming
unacceptable
2.4.3 Risk Assessment
The process of risk management is widely applied in other asset sectors. This
section provides guidance on how risk management could be applied for a UK road
network.
47
Risk Identification
Risk identification is the formal recognition and documenting of events that have
the potential to adversely affect the delivery of the service to the customer. The
type and relative importance of different risks will vary from authority to authority.
It is recommended that highway authorities carry out a risk identification exercise
considering the following areas as a minimum:
Safety: in the context of both the road user and the safety of those involved
in delivering the service (e.g. road workers)
Natural Events: predominantly the weather and its effects,
- Snow and Ice,
- Flooding,
- Extreme wind, Fog, etc
Physical Risks: where the failure
of the asset could lead to failure.
For example:
- The collapse of a structure
- Street-lighting failures
- Collapse of drains leading to
flooding
Economic: the potential for economic changes to affect the ability to deliver
the service could include such potential changes as:
- Oil price rises affecting the cost of bituminous materials
- Dramatic increases in inflation increasing costs
Legislative:
- Changes to key pieces of legislation
- Changes in government policy
Resources: the potential future availability
Public Liability: claims
In addition a number of other potential risks with less obvious relevance include:
Reliance on key personnel for service delivery (i.e. the risk of loss of
institutional knowledge)
Systems: the potential loss of key information if information systems fail
Politics: the potential for unexpected policy changes as a result of a change
in the relevant local politicians
The lists above are not exhaustive. They are intended as a prompt to assist an
authority to identify the risks that apply in their locality.
48
Risk Analysis
Risk analysis is a process by which an authority determines which events are the
most critical to them. Determining the level of risk involves:
Determining the consequences or impact of failure: considerations are likely

to include:
- Loss of life, or injury
- Failure to meet statutory requirements
- Loss of revenue
- Repair costs
- Third party losses
- Reduction in the service provided, e.g. reduction in the level of
availability if closures are required in order to undertake unplanned
maintenance activities
Determining the likelihood of the event occurring:
- Statistics for flood events
- Accident statistics
A number of alternative analysis methods are available for carrying out risk
analyses. These include:
Qualitative analysis: using descriptive scales

Quantitative analysis: using numerical scales to rank the relative risks
Whichever method is used it will provide some documented basis for an authority to
make a decision about the level of risk it wishes to take on and therefore to identify
the actions required to minimise existing risks to an acceptable level.
One method of assessing risk is to place a monetary value on the risks by pricing the
“consequence of failure”. By doing this it then becomes possible to evaluate the
cost benefit ratios of differing risk reduction actions.
Risk Reduction
Risk management enables authorities to weigh the cost of acceptance of a risk or to

plan appropriate risk reduction actions. Actions likely to be available to reduce risk
are:
Capital or maintenance expenditure to reduce the probability of failure

Reduce the impact of a failure by the production of contingency plans
Insure against the consequential loss
A combination of the above
Alternatively the risk can be accepted and the consequential cost met should the
event occur.
49
Ongoing Monitoring and Review
Identification of critical assets, explicit assessment of the risk of failure and a

review of the documented course of action to mitigate those risks should become a
routine task. In doing so, however, it should be noted that;
The effort of evaluating and managing risks must be proportionate to the

risk exposure
Risk management can in some circumstances influence the cost of insurance
2.4.4 Decision Making Recommendations
Establish a process for identifying the total funding

Needs based funding
need to meet the published Levels of Service.
Establish a process of resource allocation that utilises
Resource Allocation
the asset information available, and evaluate the
Process
benefit delivered for each pound invested.
Explicitly evaluate and
Carry out a risk assessment and management
document the risk
exercise and document its findings.
profile
Establish a process for evaluating improvement
Project Evaluation
projects including a review of outcomes in
Process
comparison with anticipated benefits.
50
2.5 Service Delivery
This section outlines the importance of

taking a long-term view of forward
planning through the production of a Forward Work Physical Works
forward work programme. It also Programme & Services
identifies the link that needs to be
established between the delivery of 5. Service Delivery
works and services and forward planning.
2.5.1 Forward Work Programme
An integrated forward work programme is

the most frequently used tool for
demonstrating that long-term needs of
the asset have been considered and
evaluated. The programme itself is only
a record. It is the process of producing it
that is important, and in particular, the
way in which alternative improvement
projects and maintenance treatments are
evaluated and ranked.
A forward work programme should cover the maximum period possible. A minimum
period of 10 year is recommended. Only by projecting forward the anticipated need
can the best whole life options be identified.
The forward work programme should

integrate the works required from all funding
streams and initiatives. By bringing all the
proposed works on the network into one
location it enables co-ordination of works on
the network to take place.
The forward work programme can assist with

both short-term road space/traffic
management issues and longer term planning.
When good quality condition data is available for analysis it is possible to predict
the likely future major maintenance schemes and their locations. The timing of
non-condition related work can then be reviewed to ensure situations don’t arise
where new work is destroyed by subsequent tasks.
Long-term programmes are built on projections using currently available data and
knowledge. As such there are limitations on the reliability of these projections, in
particular in terms of the precise location and nature of individual projects in the
later years of the programme. Aggregating anticipated needs is however a valid
method of predicting future funding requirements.
51
Typical levels of confidence that may be achieved in a long-term programme are
shown below;
Year(s) Description Confidence Level

1 Work is in progress 100%
2 Firm recommendation 95%
3-5 Reasonable assessment 75%
6-10 Informed assessment 50%
The later years of the forward works programme are essentially a planning tool. As
the projects in the later years may only be speculative, care should be taken over
how widely available this documentation is made so as not to create unreasonable
expectations.
2.5.2 Physical Works and Service Delivery
All authorities use some form of supply chain to deliver the service. An array of
different arrangements exists. None of these arrangements preclude the use of
asset management but some may have elements within them that may make the
adoption of an asset management approach more difficult. This will particularly be
the case if a supplier’s commercial needs are not aligned with what is best for the
asset. Some existing term contracts may include terms that encourage suppliers to
spend budgets fully rather than allocate them based on need. It is advisable to
review contracted arrangements in the light of asset management requirements to
determine if they present a hindrance to progress.
The delivery of physical works and service delivery should recognise the need for
information. There are often cost effective solutions for data capture that can be
incorporated into the works at a minimal additional cost. Combining inspection
regimes with condition rating and monitoring is one of the more obvious examples.
Other opportunities may include collection of missing inventory data by teams
carrying out routine repairs.
2.5.3 Service Delivery Recommendations
Produce and manage a forward works programme that

Forward Works
covers at least 10 years and brings together all the
Programme
works planned on the network.
Alignment of contracts Review the current service delivery methods and
with asset management contracts to establish whether they support an asset
approach. management approach.
Evaluate the data collection methods and use the
Contractor data
potential to maximise economies of scale with the
collection potential
service providers.
52
2.6 Reporting and Monitoring
This section describes a process for the

development of performance measures
and provides guidance on the desirable
Performance Improvement
attribute of a performance measure. It Actions
Measurement
then outlines the importance of the
identification of improvement actions 6 Reporting & Monitoring
as a means of fostering a culture of
continuous improvement.
2.6.1 Performance Measurement
Carefully constructed performance measures are an essential asset management

tool. Performance measures are however only of use if they guide and inform the
decisions of the people managing the network and consequently ideally should be:
Current: provide information about current performance

Available: At the fingertips of those who need to know, when they need to
know
Reliable: Provide information that will not be subsequently proven to be
inaccurate.
Performance measures can be used as follows:
Report on annual performance to external stakeholders, e.g.

Best Value Performance Indicators. They provide a snap shot of
Strategic: overall performance but do not generally assist with the day-to-
day management of the asset.
Primary Purpose: To report on performance to others
Provide ongoing management information to the Highway
Authority, e.g. random auditing to determine the general
condition of the asset (designed as an ongoing management
Tactical: tool).
Primary Purpose: To assist in resource allocation decision

making
Provide operational information to service deliverers. They are
principally focused on assisting in the management of service
delivery and may typically be focused on time to carry out a
Operational: specific task, e.g. time to respond to reports of dangerous
defects.
Primary Purpose: To provide information to improve the
efficiency of service delivery
53
Types of Performance Monitoring
In general asset management measures are focused on the tactical issues. It is

however important that there is alignment between the efforts at all levels. There
are a number of different ways of carrying out performance measurement. The
following are some of the most commonly used.
Random Auditing: Audits can

include customer satisfaction
surveys, sample condition surveys
and ad hoc inspections. Random
audits are frequently used to
independently audit the
performance of Highway
Authorities who are working under
quality management systems.
Their purpose therefore is to
provide an independent crosscheck
on performance.
System Audits: Where asset management software systems have been
implemented the system, if properly used, will provide a source of
performance management data. For example customer query systems will
be able to provide response times to queries and also be able to identify
areas of exception. I.e. particular types of complaint or query or particular
geographical areas generating a high number of queries
Monthly: Where established management systems are in place it is possible
to obtain monthly performance statistics. In general these may focus on
activities and the time taken to complete them. Progress against an
established programme may also provide a useful management tool.
Annual: Some indicators will be based upon information supplied by others
annually. This limits the use of such indicators to annual reviews.
Compliance Monitoring
Depending on the service delivery arrangements in place there will be varied

opportunities to gather and report on compliance with contracted requirements.
This is particularly important where performance specifications have been utilised
and it is recommended that in such instances performance measures are not only
included in the contract but that the results are made available to the wider asset
management team.
It is recommended that each authority establish a performance-monitoring regime

that comprises an appropriate combination of the above.
54
2.6.2 Developing Performance Measures
The key steps in defining highway network performance indicators are:
Identify the objective
Many authorities have published vision, mission and goal statements, as well as
objectives. In these instances the objectives form a logical starting point for the
development of performance measures and specifically to identify what aspect of
performance is being measured.
Objectives are often grouped. For example, into areas such as safety, availability,
customer service, asset preservation and environmental. This is the approach
recommended, by grouping proposed performance measures to support levels of
service.
Consideration should also be given to other existing documents. For example the
Local Transport Plans can also provide a starting point and often a number of
existing developed measures.
The important consideration in starting, by identifying the objective first, is to

establish that the elements of the service being measured genuinely contribute to
the delivery of a strategic goal. This helps to develop an understanding of how the
system of service delivery is (or isn’t) supporting progress toward achieving
established strategic goals.
Select the input data
It is advisable to start with data that is readily available or can be easily obtained.
Do not assume that new data sources are required. It is likely that much of the
data needed to support desired performance measures is already being collected.
It may simply not be being collated and provided to others. Maintenance history
records for example can provide the input for maintenance cost analysis, which can
provide intervention triggers for treatments.
Ideally a performance measure should be:
Objective: desirable but some subjective measures are inevitable.

Repeatable: able to be repeatedly measured with appropriate accuracy.
Reproducible: able to be reproduced by a different operator and
instrument.
Aligned with Objectives: linked as closely as possible to Highway Authority
strategic goals
Cost Effective: Data collection cost must be reasonable compared to the
perceived benefit.
Manageable: able to be influenced or controlled by the service deliverers
Model able: Ideally it should be possible to predict the change of a measure
with time using some form of model e.g. a pavement deterioration model
Safe to Measure: Ideally via high-speed data collection.
55
Test the data
Using historical figures if possible, run tests on the proposed measures to determine
if they are practical to measure and compute.
Many attempts to establish performance-monitoring regimes have failed due to the

lack of commitment of those tasked with collecting and monitoring the information
gathered. It is important that where possible:
Data is gathered as an integral part of carrying out the work, rather than as
a separate task
Data is collected by the people who need to use it to make decisions
Check the validity of the results
Check the validity of the result to ensure that they genuinely reflect current
performance. The precision of the performance measures and the ability to
measure to an appropriate level of accuracy is a critical issue when performance
measures are established and target values set. Problems are likely to occur when
the difference between the target level and the measured condition is small and
the accuracy of the measuring method could be the reason for non-achievement
rather than the actual performance provided.
Regular Monitoring and Reporting
There are a number of ways in which performance measures can be summarised and
reported. In deciding upon a reporting format considerations should be given to:
Showing the alignment between the measures to outcomes/strategic goals

Reflecting a balance between competing demands
Presenting only information that the audience requires
Keeping the number of measures manageable
Balanced Scorecard
Increasingly there is a demand for organisations to report on not only the financial
performance of their assets but also on the social and environmental effects of
their actions. Under such a regime the outcomes of their actions are reported
against the social, economic and environmental outcomes. This means a move
away from a purely financial reporting to being able to demonstrate to stakeholders
that they are also managing their social and environmental responsibilities. Clearly
there is an inherent tension between these competing demands.
A balance scorecard approach is therefore appropriate as a tool for demonstrating

the level of attention given to each outcome area. Developing a scorecard requires
input from a variety of stakeholders. The example below illustrates how a series of
outcomes can be collectively presented. In this example the size of the slice
56
represents comparative importance and the radial measure shows current
performance.
The exact detail of this

120 example is not important.
110
100
90 It is included to illustrate
80
one means of visually
Whitehall Standards
70
60 Road User Charter Targets
50
40 representing a range of
HA Strategic Performance Indicators
30 Route Management Strategy Indicators

20
10 performance results in a
Customer Satisfaction
0 Ministerial Indicators
format that can be quickly
Operational Targets
understood. Numerous
SCORE alternative methods of
96.7
presenting such results
exist and it is for each
authority to decide
whether such reporting is
important for them and to determine an appropriate presentational format.
2.6.3 Improvement Actions
Review
Asset management, and the framework in particular, is structured to support a

process of continuous improvement. It is anticipated that the performance
monitoring and reporting regime will be complemented with activities to review the
plan and the processes used. Review activities may include:
Ongoing Performance Review: looking at results, the factors contributing to

the performance and options for dealing with substandard results
HAMP: in other countries where the production of HAMPs is mandated by
legislation a formal review and update of HAMPs is required on a three-year
cycle. Three years is considered long enough for the implications of the
actions required by the original plan to have taken effect. Three years
would appear to be a reasonable review period for adoption in the UK.
Improvement Plan
As asset management is a relatively new concept authorities adopting it are likely

to identify a series of desirable improvements they wish to put in place in order to
advance their asset management practice. It is common for initial asset
management plans to include a significant documented improvement plan. An
improvement plan should detail not only the specific actions to be taken but also
outline which levels of service the actions are intended to benefit. This will ensure
that a focus is maintained on the outcome of the improvement and the ultimate
benefit it may provide to the customer.
57
2.6.4 Reporting and Monitoring Recommendations
Establish a set of performance measures for each level

Develop Performance
of service. Measures should enable reporting at all
Measurement Regime
levels (e.g. strategic, tactical, operational etc.)
Develop a Performance Establish a reporting regime that provides timely and
Reporting Regime useful performance data to appropriate personnel
Include an improvement plan in the HAMP that covers
Include an Improvement
all desired improvements (i.e. data, systems, process,
Plan
skills etc.)
58
Appendix A: References
1. CSS/TAG, Preparation of a Model Framework for Asset Management (Plans) for a
Highway Network in the UK: Stage One Report: Review of International and Cross-
Sector Experience, May 2004.
2. Whole of Government Accounts Programme Website: http://www.wga.gov.uk
3. International Infrastructure Management Manual: New Zealand, National Asset

Management Steering Group.
4. Hertfordshire’s Highway Asset Management Plan: April 2002.
5. Infrastructure Asset Valuation Manual: New Zealand, National Asset Management

Steering Group
6. Data Management for Road Administrations: A Best Practice Guide, Western

European Road Directors (2003).
59
60
Appendix B: Definitions of Asset
Management
A myriad of definitions exist for asset management. A selection of these is given
below:
Organisation - Country Definition of asset management:

Federal Highway A strategic approach to the optimal allocation of resources
Administration - USA for the management, operation and preservation of
transportation infrastructure.
Organization for Economic A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and
Cooperation and operating assets, combining engineering principles with
Development - sound business practice and economic rationale, and
International providing tools to facilitate a more organized and flexible
approach to making the decisions necessary to achieve the
public’s expectations.
Austroads - Australia Asset management may be defined as a comprehensive and
structured approach to the long-term management of assets
as tools for the efficient and effective delivery of
community benefits.
National Asset The goal of infrastructure asset management is to meet a
Management Steering required level of service in the most cost-effective way
Group (NAMS) & Institution through the creation, acquisition, maintenance, operation,
of Public Works rehabilitation, and disposal of assets to provide for present
Engineering of Australia and future customers.
(IPWEA) - New Zealand &
Australia
Transportation Association Asset management is a comprehensive process that
of Canada - Canada allocates funds effectively and efficiently among competing
pavement, structure, and other infrastructure needs.
Civil Engineering Research Asset management is a process for extending infrastructure
Foundation (CERF) & life at the lowest possible costs. An asset is anything with
Partnership for monetary value. Even though asset management employs
Advancement of information management and computer technology, it is not
Infrastructure and its a computer program. Rather, it is a decision-making
Renewal (PAIR) - USA process for identifying optimal (cost-effective) methods for
the design, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation,
retrofit, replacement, or even abandonment of an asset.
Government of Victoria Asset management is the process of guiding the acquisition,
(Australia) use and disposal of assets to make the most of their service
delivery potential and manage the related risks and costs
over their entire life.
61
62
Appendix C: Case Studies
C1 Implementation: Gap Analysis
The following chart shows the result of one method of gap analysis.
Gap Analysis
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Per f or mance
Cor por ate Buy-In Data Management Ser vi ce Expectati on For war d Pl anni ng Wor k Achi evement Asset Condi ti on
Measur ement
Cur r ent 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.0
2-Year Tar get 40.0 45.0 60.0 42.0 35.0 50.0 55.0
5-Year Tar get 82.0 77.0 91.0 71.0 79.0 70.0 89.0
Courtesy of Opus International Consultants (UK) Ltd.
This example looks at the development of asset management in terms of:
1. Corporate Buy-In: to establish the level of commitment of senior management

and politicians to the adoption of asset management principles.
2. Data Management: an assessment of the completeness and quality of inventory
data held
3. Service Expectation: an assessment of how well documented levels of service
are and whether they are actively used to track performance.
4. Forward Planning: the planning horizon in use and in particularly the length of
forward work programmes
5. Work Achievement: an assessment of how well records of works carried out are
kept and used to support appropriate decisions
6. Asset Condition: is an assessment of the extent and confidence held in
condition data for the full set of assets being managed.
7. Performance Management: looks at the extent and use of performance
measurement and how well linked the measures are to desired performance as
described by levels of service.
Contact Details:
Paul Hardy. Opus International Consultants (UK) Ltd.
T: 0115-959-9611 E: [email protected]
W: http://www.opusinternational.co.uk
63
64
C2 Implementation: Hertfordshire’s Highway Asset Management
Plan
Hertfordshire County Council began exploring the idea of introducing an asset

management regime to the management of their highway assets during 1999.
An external consultant was appointed to facilitate the process of producing the first
draft of the asset management plan. People from all aspects of the highway service
have been involved in the production of the plan to ensure that it is a plan that is
“owned” by appropriate personnel.
The plan took approximately 9 months to produce and contains the following
sections:
Purpose and Introduction

Goals and Objectives
Levels of Service
Demand Management
Lifecycle Management Plans
Financial Management
Information Systems
Performance Measurement and
Monitoring
Improvement Plans
Hertfordshire’s experience illustrates that:
Developing and implementing an asset management approach can not be

undertaken overnight: it takes time
Producing a HAMP is only one element of asset management and in this
instance was the catalyst for a number of improvement initiatives
The Plan was the product of a collective effort involving a group of people
within the county council
The Plan is the starting point for the development of asset management
within Hertfordshire, rather than the end. It includes a 3-year programme
of planned improvements.
Contact Details:
Alan Armson
T: 01707-356552 E: [email protected]
65
66
C3 Inventory: Road2000 Asset Inventory Collection Project
Framework: This project is an example of an inventory and condition data

collection. It illustrates an effort to obtain appropriate details for a set of assets
that can be used to rationalise funding decision-making on a London wide basis.
Purpose: The Transport Commissioner's asked for an asset survey to be carried out
of both the Transport for London Road Network TLRN and the Borough Principal
Road Network (BPRN). Through the ROAD2000 project London Borough of
Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) as lead borough are managing a project on behalf of
Transport for London (TfL) to collect asset inventory information on London's
Principal Road Network.
Scope: The project involved the collection of inventory data for the borough
principal road network in the 33 London boroughs. The survey collects map based
inventory data and assigns every inventory item with a coarse/lay person’s
condition rating.
Progress: Phase 1 comprised the collection of inventory data on street lighting

columns, trees and gullies and each feature was assigned a condition rating on a 1
to 4 scale (where 1 is "no defects or minor/cosmetic defects” and 4 is "asset
unsafe/unfit for purpose”). During this phase data was collected on 45,736 street
lighting columns, 57,546 gullies, 27,374 trees, (130,656 point items in total). Data
collection for this phase started in March 2002 and was finished by June 2003. A
team of 12 surveyors /data collectors completed the survey which was
topographically based rather than RMMS based.
Phase 2 is currently underway and comprises the further collection of data on

traffic lights, safety bollards, street furniture, posts and signs in addition to a full
check of the Phase 1 data. After each borough is surveyed the data is subjected to a
rigorous process of in-house verification and a 10% QA check out in the field before
delivery of the data to TfL. Phase 2 started in August 2003 and was completed in
March 2004.
Cost: Phase 1 cost approximately £740 k. This cost includes project setup, the
identification, procurement, and delivery of hardware (12 tablet PC's, 2 GPS
stations, 1 server), the identification, procurement, and delivery of purpose built
software, licensing, external technical support, a management team, and field
survey staff. The cost of phase 2 is £716k. The lower per item cost is anticipated
due to establishment costs being taken up in phase 1.
Benefits: The condition rating will enable an initial rational assessment of the
condition of these assets to be made. If future surveys were to collect information
in a consistent manner the data could be used to predict future deterioration and
thus future funding needs. The survey will enable TfL and the boroughs to compare
the number and condition of assets across London on a consistent basis.
Contact Details:
Gordon Prangnell, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
67
68
C4 Levels of Service: Hertfordshire’s Safety Levels of Service
Framework: Hertfordshire’s Highway Asset Management plan contains Levels of

Service covering the whole service.
Scope: Hertfordshire’s plan contains levels of service grouped into the following
categories:
Safety of the asset

Condition of the asset
Availability / Accessibility of the asset
Environmental impact of the asset
Customer Service
Financial performance
The following table is an extract from the safety “outcome”/level of service.
Progress: The plan was published in February 2002
Outcome Level of Service Performance Measures

Safety Accident Reduction 12 indicators measured
monthly. Some only available
at the end of the year.
Safety Related Defects 10 indicators, 8 measured
monthly
Emergency Management Single indicator reported
monthly
Education, Training and Three LTP indicators reported
Publicity quarterly.
User Perception One locally developed
indicator based on user
surveys.
A number of performance measures are generally required to contribute to the

measurement of each level of service. Some performance measures may contribute
to the delivery of more than one level of service. Example performance measures
supporting a level of service are given below.
69
Outcome: Safety
Level of Service: Safety Related Defects
Performance Measure Method of Calculation
Percentage of killed and seriously injured Number of accidents with road asset
accidents in which asset condition is condition mentioned as a contributor
reported as a contributing factor. divided by the total number of
(qualifying) accidents, expressed as a
percentage.
Percentage of potholes repaired within 24 Number of potholes repaired within 24
hours of alert hours divided by the number reported
faulty, for publicly reported faults,
expressed as a percentage
Percentage of unauthorised objects on the Percentage of hazardous objects
network removed removed from the road corridor within
2hrs (contract response time) of
notification, expressed as a
percentage
Percentage of signs missing Number of signs missing/dirty divided
by the total number of signs observed
on an audit/scouting route, expressed
as a percentage.
Number of accidents where snow and ice Number of accidents reported as a
are identified as contributing factor number
Number of traffic signals not operating as Number of traffic signals not working
planned properly divided by the number
reviewed, expressed as a percentage.
It should be noted that it is important the performance measures include items that
are measured on an ongoing basis, so that actions can be taken to address
performance deficiencies progressively as opposed to waiting for annual reporting
figures. This issue is covered in more detail in the section on performance
measures.
Costs: Carried out as part of general management processes
Benefits: The provision of a consistent set of levels of service with supporting

performance measures allowed the highways service to lead the environmental
department when its department performance management process was initiated
Contact Details:
Alan Armson
70
C5 Performance Gaps: SCOTS Maintenance Backlog Study
Framework: This project is an example of a rational evaluation of a performance

gap. In this instance the gap is the difference between the desired condition of the
asset and current condition.
Purpose: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the maintenance backlog using
factual data and a consistent method across all Scottish Authorities.
Scope: A working group within SCOTS is currently assessing the backlog of

maintenance of not just the carriageway, but of the network as a whole i.e.
footways, signing & lining, structures, drainage, ITS and car parking equipment etc.
The intention is to update the report produced by the body in 1997 and to provide
input to the overall backlog figure for the UK.
In order to use available data, authorities have been grouped on the basis of the
proportion of urban/rural network. Five groupings, cities, urban (> 60% urban
network), semi urban (< 60% but >30% urban network), rural (< 30% urban network)
and island authorities have been established. Both of the cities and islands were
established as it was considered that they had particular issues either relating to
the usage of roads or the costs of maintenance which were different to the other
groupings.
Progress: Each group is now gathering information on the wide range of categories
of infrastructure, using the available data from any authority in the group e.g. if
only one authority has detailed information or costs for footways then that
information will be used as a proxy for the group with pro–rata costs based on
comparable length of network. Indeed if detailed information and costs are only
available for part of an authorities network then this can also be factored to cover
the network as a whole.
Benefits: This approach is aimed at using the available statistical and condition
information to the maximum effect, allowing all authorities in the group to input
data and to gain an impression of the position in their authority even if the
information they have is limited.
Contact Details:
Hugh Murdoch
T: 01224 522420 E: [email protected]
71
72
C6 Optimisation: Birmingham City Council
Birmingham had been using the Maintenance Assessment Rating and Costing for
Highways (MARCH) condition assessment system to gain knowledge of its Network’s
condition and requirements since the early seventies. It was used to produce
suggested treatments, priority listings, and an annual maintenance backlog figure.
The MARCH system’s drawback was that it was working in isolation without access
to other condition data on which to base its calculations. When UKPMS came along
we recognised an ideal opportunity to store all our condition data in one location.
Currently Birmingham’s UKPMS system holds CVI, DVI, Deflectograph, and SCRIM
data with TTS data being loaded shortly.
All this data is useless however if it does not correspond accurately to your
Network. Birmingham decided to digitise its Network with each Highway section
being accurately measured against OSCAR centre line data with start and end nodes
marked and their coordinates noted. The benefits from this is a confidence in the
accuracy of the Network allowing easy audit of raw condition data and also an
ability to supply Condition Survey Contractors accurate and clear mapping prior to
survey.
Once the data has been inputted and processed Condition Indices are allocated to
defective sections. These indices together with the findings from Deflectograph,
SCRIM, and BVPI reports are then used to produce the annual Highway Maintenance
Priority Listing. In addition, using the digitised network, thematic maps are then
produced with the poorest sections of highway highlighted for easy identification
out on site.
Birmingham has recently completed a project undertaken with Marsh Associates Ltd
where SCRIM data has been analysed automatically and linked to the latest accident
data and works records. The result is a priority listing specifically designed to treat
sites with poor skidding characteristics based on the principal of treating those sites
with the greatest risk first. Once again these sites are displayed thematically giving
each site a ranking. A picture paints a thousand words, and that is certainly true
when you are trying to display the condition of your network. Once the network is
accurately linked to a GIS system then the possibilities are numerous.
Birmingham will soon commence the installation of an asset management system
and envisage the UKPMS network forming the framework on which to hang the rest
of our asset data.
It is anticipated that GIS will play a major part in providing the full benefits of an
asset management system to both the client and the customer. With the future
requirements of public access to Local Government data, a GIS mapped framework
could be easily displayed on the internet and, with the correct security features, be
available to all.
Contact Details:
Barry Wilcox. Condition Survey Project Leader. Birmingham City Council
T: 0121 303 1111 E: [email protected]
73
74
C7 Performance Gaps: Dorset’s Study of Pavement Maintenance
Backlog
Framework: Dorset County Council (DCC) has an established Pavement

Management System (PMS) based on 100% condition survey coverage of the principal
and non-principal classified and unclassified road networks. Reliable data can be
obtained from the system to determine the proportion of the networks that are
defective and estimate the budget required to meet specified targets. This data
has been used over a number of years to provide predictions of the effect of
different budget scenarios on future trends in network defectiveness and has
assisted elected members in making annual budget decisions.
The methodology followed in Dorset has been to use machine-based surveys

wherever possible. SCRIM has been used to define safety requirements and high-
speed machine based surveys have been used on principal A, and non-principal B
and C roads. Budget predictions have therefore for some time been based on a
survey regime that is in close agreement with the proposals from NRMCS that are
recommended for implementation in 2005. Where visual survey results have been
used their interpretation is supported by local calibration to reflect treatment need
based on detailed engineering assessment.
The Dorset PMS was used in support of evidence to the Transport Select Committee
Inquiry into Road and Pathway Maintenance, the recommendations from which were
published in June 2003, and has been used more recently to inform the DCC Local
Public Service Agreement (LPSA) targets for highway condition having regard to
likely budget availability from the Local Transport Plan settlement for structural
maintenance. The methodology developed for Dorset was also used by WDM Ltd for
their Project Report to the UK Roads Board on “Estimating Budgets to achieve the
Government Targets for Highway Maintenance in England” published in November
2003.
Purpose: To identify and repair local roads, ensuring that the most defective roads
are prioritised appropriately, in order to halt overall deterioration and meet agreed
LPSA targets by 2005/06. Then to aim to reduce the proportion of defective roads
to a preset level of 8% for principal (A) and non-principal (B) roads and 12% for
minor/non-principal (C and D) roads.
Scope: For principal (A) and non-principal (B) roads, DCC assess the local road
network in terms of structural (deflection), functional (roughness, rutting) and
safety, (skid resistance and texture) condition. For minor roads, the UKPMS
condition indices for structural, edge and wearing course are used. This data is
collected, processed, referenced and stored on the County Council’s PMS.
The asset information in the PMS is used to assess need, prioritise pavement
treatments and produce predictive models. For principal (A) and non-principal (B)
roads the information is also used with predicted deterioration rates to obtain
future budget requirements using preset defect targets. Budgets can also be
estimated for minor roads.
75
The budget required to treat defects can be estimated from the length of road that
requires treatment, a unit cost of maintenance treatment for each class of road and
treatment type and an assumed return maintenance period and hence design life of
20 years for principal and non-principal (B) roads and 30 years for non-principal (C
and D) roads. The 30-year design life assumption for minor roads was derived from a
long-term research project (10 years) carried out in Cornwall.
Progress: The PMS has enabled DCC to predict that percentage reductions of 0.5%,
2% and 3% in the defectiveness of A, B and C, and unclassified roads respectively (as
measured by BVPIs 96 and 97) should be achievable as “stretch” targets by 2005/06
if current LTP allocations for structural maintenance are maintained. Progress
towards these targets is now monitored on a regular basis.
Budget requirements to meet the present government target of eliminating the

carriageway backlog by 2010 (ie, of reducing the defectiveness of principal (A) and
non-principal (B) roads to 8% and of minor/non-principal (C and D) roads to 12% as
measured by BVPIs 96 and 97) or, conversely, the date by which the target will be
met at current budget levels also continue to be updated annually.
Benefits: The principal benefits that have been gained are in the ability to advise
elected members and government departments of the budgetary implications of
meeting condition targets and in consequently being able to set realistic targets
having regard to budget availability.
Ability to anticipate the cost of meeting the agreed LPSA condition targets has
increased confidence in allocating the structural maintenance budget between
works aimed specifically at reducing carriageway defectiveness as measured by
BVPIs 96 and 97 and other works (eg, bridge maintenance, footpath maintenance
and drainage).
Contact Details:
Mike White
Head of Highways and Transportation, Dorset County Council
Richard Bastow
Highways Manager, Dorset County Council
76
C8 Performance Gaps: Surrey’s Funding for Bridge Management
Framework: This project illustrates an approach to the funding problems faced by

many authorities. It highlights the information that can be available to support a
funding application. It is consistent with an asset management approach as the
report highlights performance gaps and funding needs.
Purpose: The purpose of the report is to establish the funding required to maintain
the standard of the Council’s bridge stock at an acceptable level.
Scope: In December 2002 Surrey County Council undertook a review of their

Funding for Bridge Management. The review addressed the following questions:
How much money is required to maintain the bridge stock in a satisfactory
condition?
What is satisfactory condition?
Do we have enough money?
What are the future prospects?
Progress: The report assesses the following:

The recommended level of funding required for maintenance based on a
percentage of replacement cost (using a figure from a CSS report)
Comparison of funding figures with other authorities
The CSS bridge condition index as a measure of deterioration
A financial review of current and historical spending on bridges and highway

structure
This information is used to draw conclusions on the condition of the asset currently,
its expected future condition and the funding implications. It also highlights that a
risk management approach is already in place on some bridges where they have
failed assessments and are now under a regime of special inspections. The report is
update on an annual basis. It is recognised in the report that improvement should
be sought in:
The accuracy of some of the data used in the analysis
The method of establishing a replacement value
The continued development of the national CSS Bridge condition indicator
77
Despite this the key finding in relation to future funding needs are clearly identified
and are supported by analysis of a number of current studies and recommendations.

i.e. the most up to date information currently available has been used to identify
and quantify the funding gap.
Benefits: The report establishes a rational basis for the evaluation of funding needs
for highway structure maintenance in Surrey.
Contact Details:
Graham Cole, Structures Group Manager, Surrey County Council
78
C9 Optimisation: Transport for London’s Maintenance Funding
Model
Framework: This project illustrates the use of condition data to identify and
quantify performance gaps (in this instance a backlog of maintenance works) and
the development of a model to aid decision making and to thus optimise resource
allocation.
Purpose: TfL and the London Boroughs have completed condition assessments for
all London’s principal roads and have developed a co-ordinated programme to clear
the road maintenance backlog using TfL’s Asset and Inventory Management (AIMS)
system. A model has been developed as part of AIMS to target funding where it is
needed over time and on an equitable basis.
The purpose of the model is to evaluate the most cost-effective maintenance

programme of maintaining roads in order to clear the backlog in a specified
timeframe. Levels of funding required in each year are calculated using the model.
The results provide TfL with a rational and consistent method for establishing
maintenance needs on London’s principal road network and thus to inform budget
decisions.
Scope: TfL utilise United Kingdom Pavement Management System (UKPMS). UKPMS
is used by Highway Authorities to obtain condition index (CI) ratings of the
carriageways and footways. The condition of the carriageways and footways is rated
from 0 to 100. The higher the indicator, the worse the condition of the road.
Roads with CI ratings of 70 and above are in poor condition, with structural
degradation that may cause a safety hazard to road users. The percentage of
carriageway with CI ratings of 70+ is the National best value performance indicator
(BVPI) and the carriageways with CI ratings of 70+ can be considered to be the
backlog. Condition information enables prioritisation of spend on maintenance to
take place.
Model
The model evaluates the following:
How much investment is required, over time, to clear the backlog

How long it would take to clear the backlog given a certain funding pattern
What level of investment is required to maintain footways and carriageways
in a state of good repair after the backlog is cleared
This model demonstrates that:
If the level of funding is not adequate then the backlog will increase as will
the pressure on revenue maintenance funding.
Treating the roads with a condition index of 50-70 is the most economical
way of maintaining the road network.
79
Assumptions
The model utilises UKPMS road condition survey data and treatment
recommendations. The costs are the current non-discounted average rates
for carriageways and footways, including TM, design, supervision and
premium time allowances.
A 15-year life cycle of the carriageways and footways.
Further development
The model is in its infancy and is

based on one year’s data. As the data
is collected over several years, on a
consistent basis, the spending model
and performance of the network, over
time, will be refined and more
accurately reflect true conditions.
Benefits
The model establishes a rational basis

for the funding need for carriageway
and footway maintenance for
London’s main roads.
Contact:
Dana Skelley, Chief Engineer, Transport for London, Street Management Services
T: 020 7941 7061 E: [email protected]
80
C10 Performance Gaps: West Sussex’s Road Safety Funding
Effectiveness
Framework: This project is an example of a ‘non-condition’ assessment for a needs

based predictive analysis.
Purpose: The new national (and local) road safety targets set in 2000 required a
reduction of 40% in numbers of KSI by 2010 compared with the average for 1994-98.
Existing levels of investment in road safety schemes were determined by a

combination of demand and priority assessment, underpinned by best value review,
public opinion survey and ongoing requests from elected representatives, Parish
Councils and other Stakeholders.
The project was seeking to determine the appropriate level and distribution of
investment required in a range of different programmes to meet the 2010 targets
with a degree of confidence.
Scope: The performance of existing scheme types was assessed from historic data
on scheme costs and benefits (i.e. terms of casualty reduction). Information on
existing levels of budget provision, programme content and potential additional
funding was collated and analysed in a spreadsheet, together with a gap analysis
model linked to a forecast of casualty reduction outcomes.
Progress: The first iteration was completed in 2003 to support the general
performance review of road safety and bidding for supplementary funding. In 2004
the analysis was refined with more data to show the effect of more or less
additional resources.
The initial work showed that trend based forecasting combined with the analysis of
the relative benefits derived from each type of programme enabled options for
influencing the desired outcome to be modelled. For example, programme type A
has a higher benefit/cost ratio than type B, so transferring investment from B to A
improves the outcomes for casualty reduction.
In practice, decisions on relative levels of investment and overall levels of funding

are both influenced by factors such as ability to deliver schemes and responding to
priorities linked to other areas of programmed work, such as highway maintenance.
Therefore the predictive model can:
Optimise the appropriate levels of spend for each programme type whilst
demonstrating the overall outcome for forecast casualty reduction.
Enable flexible analysis to show the effects of modifying rates of investment
in connection with other asset management priorities.
Provide a basis for arguing the case when bidding for additional funding and
determination of programme priorities.
Help define more explicit links between investment levels of services and
outcomes.
81
Cost/benefits: This is an inherent part of the project so, for example, the benefit
is in the enabling of better outcomes for the same level of overall investment. It is
estimated that an outcome improvement of up to 20% can be achieved using this
methodology within an asset management framework.
Contact Details:
Rob Salmon
82
C11 Valuation: Northern Ireland Road Service’s Valuation
Framework: The Northern Ireland Road Service are one of the first authorities
within the UK to tackle the valuation of their assets. Their experience illustrates
that this is not an easy task and that a number of iterations may be required before
an acceptable set of accounts are produced.
Purpose: The purpose of the exercise was to meet government accounting

requirements. Current management approaches developed by Roads Service have
been driven by Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB).
Scope: Roads Service is an executive agency of the Department for Regional

Development for Northern Ireland. It is sole highway authority responsible for trunk
and non trunk roads and the associated structures comprising 2,610 km of Trunk
Road, 22,405km of non-trunk roads, 10,042km of footway, 22,885 Hectares of land
and 10,150 structures. The valuation covers all these asset groups.
Progress: The first infrastructure valuation was produced for the Agency Annual
Accounts for the year 1998/99 however, difficulties with the process and the
underlying assumptions used to produce the valuation led to the Northern Ireland
Audit Office disclaiming the accounts in 1999/2000. By the year 2002/03 many
issues were resolved and a clear audit opinion obtained. The infrastructure
valuation has a very significant impact on the Agency’s Accounts and the
Department’s Resource Accounts because of its scale:
Gross Value £m
Trunk Roads 3,941
Non Trunk Roads 7,508
Footways 269
Land 7,992
Structures 932
Special Features 158
Communications 18
Total 20,878
The valuation also has a large impact on Resource Budgets:
Cost of Capital £963m

Depreciation £60m
This is of great concern given the volatility and unpredictability of depreciation

figures produced from the existing survey techniques and any significant swing in
this figure can affect maintenance spending.
Roads Service considers that the reliability of the valuation is dependant on the
quality of data captured from operational systems, very high-level quality assurance
standards and a project planning methodology.
However, the outputs of the depreciation figures that have the greatest impact on
the Agency’s budgets still depend on unrepeatable and unpredictable road condition
83
survey techniques. Depreciation on the trunk roads is based on the output of the
deflectograph surveys and that on the non-trunk roads on the output from the
Coarse Visual Inspection regime.
Roads Service is content to continue to rely on its operational systems and its
valuation model and has no plans to convert to an asset management approach.
Copies of the annual report and accounts for 2002/03 can be downloaded from:
http://www.roadsni.gov.uk/Publications/corp_docs/AnnualReport0203.pdf
Contact Details:
Jean McKay Financial Accountant
T: 028 8676 6980
E: [email protected]
84
C12 Service Delivery: Rotherham’s Integrated Inspection Regime
Framework: This project illustrates an approach that integrates contract

management with data collection thus linking performance measurement with
service delivery.
Purpose: The purpose of the project was to improve the efficiency of highway
inspection at the same time improving the data available to support decisions on
maintenance works. It resulted from concerns over the quality of early CVI data
obtained from contracted surveys.
Scope: In response to these concerns Rotherham developed an integrated

inspection regime, (documented in a Local Code of Practice for Highway
Inspections). In principle this involves integrating walked CVIs within a system for
Safety and Service (detailed) highway inspections. The frequency of inspections
was established to allow integration and compliance with the National Code of
Practice for Maintenance Management. In addition to these three main forms of
inspection a number of other inspections to produce local performance indicator
data and for checking contract compliance were also inbuilt. Data is collected
using hand held PCs. Software has been rewritten to support the revised
procedures.
Progress: The new regime was implemented in August 2001 and proved to be very
flexible in accommodating ad hoc inspections resulting from reports because of the
limited geographical area covered by each inspector. The Council in 2003 developed
its community strategy for service delivery through the creation of Streetpride.
Integrated inspections are still undertaken but to accommodate the need for the
inspectors to spend more of their time interacting with local groups the task of CVI
inspection is now undertaken by two dedicated inspection staff. Further progress is
being made in the use of hand held PCs with the acquisition of iPAQs for all
inspectors.
Benefits: Reduction in the size of inspectors “patches” resulted in greater

ownership. Performance in meeting due dates for inspections improved across the
board and strengthened even further the Council’s claims defence (80% repudiation
rate). The improved standard of CVI data and the spreading of inspections across
the permitted time range for acceptability has allowed for quarterly monitoring of
Indicators to improve trend-lines. The development of a number of Local Indicators
using data from the inspections has been possible and these form part of the
Council’s Performance Plan. The recent move to two dedicated inspectors for CVI /
DVI inspections, whilst producing some loss of efficiency has permitted easier
accreditation compliance and further consistency in data quality to be achieved.
Contact Details:
Robert Stock
Street-pride Network Principal Engineer - Network Management Group
T: 01709 822928 E: [email protected]
85
86

Highway Asset Management Framework v1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Highway Asset Management Framework v1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Highway Asset Management Framework v1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Framework for Highway Asset Management

The Guidance has been superseded by the Highway Infrastructure Asset

The number of organisations that have contributed to the development of the

Framework for Highway Asset Management

Working Group Members

The concept of highway asset management is becoming increasingly important for

Drivers for Change

A number of specific drivers are creating heightened interest in asset management.

The Aim of the Framework

Introduce the concept of asset management as it applies to UK road

The Way Ahead

This document establishes a framework on which we can build our knowledge,

The output from stage one is a report on current

Stage Two: Framework for Highway Asset Management in the UK.

Part 1 contains an introduction to asset management including

An outline of the reasons for interest in asset management

Details of the potential benefits that can be gained by its adoption.

Part 2 contains the framework. The framework is a generic asset management

Framework for Highway Asset Management

Part One: Introduction 1

1.2 Why Asset Management?…………………………………. 3

1.3 Benefits of Asset Management………………………… 7

1.4 Purpose of the Framework……………………………… 9

1.5 Regional Differences………………………………………… 11

1.6 Implementing Asset Management…………………… 13

Contents Page No.

Part Two: Framework 21

2.2 Levels of Service………………………………………………. 31

2.3 Option Identification………………………………………… 37

2.4 Decision Making………………………………………………… 43

2.5 Service Delivery………………………………………………… 51

2.6 Reporting and Monitoring………………………………… 53

Framework for Highway Asset Management

C1 Implementation: Gap Analysis 63

The following terms are used in the framework:

Highway Authority: The organisation responsible for the management and

Levels of Service: Levels of service are a statement of the performance of the

Demand Aspirations: Non-condition related levels of service covering areas such

Validation: the formal checking of data for completeness and accuracy.

Performance: A term used to describe the overall service delivered as measured

Highway Asset Management: The application of asset management to the

Decision Conferencing: Facilitated group meetings during which a group of

Service Area: An area of service delivery, generally defined by the division of

Optimisation: The process of identifying the optimal regime for the

The following abbreviations are used in this report:

AM: Asset Management

AMP: Asset Management Plan

BVPI: Best Value Performance Indicators

CCT: Compulsory Competitive Tendering

CSS: The County Surveyors’ Society

CVI: Coarse Visual Inspection

DfT: The Department for Transport

GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GIS: Geographical Information System

HAMP: Highway Asset Management Plan

ITS: Intelligent Transport System

KPI: Key Performance Indicator

KSI: Killed and Seriously Injured

LoS: Level of Service