Towards an Asset Management Framework of Asset Characteristics, Asset Environment, Lifecycle Phases, and Management

  • T. E. Van der Lei
  • Y. C. Wijnia
  • P. M. Herder
Conference paper


In 2007 “the state of asset management in the Netherlands” for infrastructures was established by a national study conducted by the Next Generation Infrastructures research programme (NGInfra). This study showed that within the Netherlands different interpretations of asset management exist. The way asset management is implemented in practice differs widely. Differences included tools, processes, organizations and value systems. Within the EURENSEAM network, a European network of asset management research groups, an asset overview was created in November 2009 consisting of the characteristics of the assets and the context of the assets, and the asset lifecycle phases. We have developed this overview into a framework and interviewed Dutch asset management practitioners. The intention was to see if the practitioners could fill in the framework and relate to it. In this paper we report the findings of these interviews and discuss this onset for an asset management framework that allows for the comparison of different perspectives on asset management. Foreseen future work is the development of taxonomies for assets and for asset management.


Asset Management Cathodic Protection Port Authority Important Asset Life Cycle Phase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Jongerius J, Meijerink T, van Miltenburg J (2007) Added-value performance, infrastructure asset management in the Netherlands, a study in seven sectors. Evers & Manders Consult BV, HoevelakenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    PAS 55—Optimal management of physical assets. British Standards InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    NTA 8120 (2009) Asset management—requirements for a safety, quality and capacity management system for electricity and gas distributionGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finger M, Groenewegen J, Kunneke R (2005) The quest for coherence between institutions and the technologies in infrastructures. J Netw Ind 6(4):227–259Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Komonen K (2008) A strategic asset management model: determination of corporate strategy for physical assets. In: Euromaintenance 2008. Conference Proceedings. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schuman CA, Brent AC (2005) Asset life cycle management: towards improving physical asset performance in the process industry. Int J Oper Prod Manage 25(6):566–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eurenseam (2009) Eurenseam networkmaps. Seville November 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Port of Rotterdam Authority (2008) Annual report 2008. Port of Rotterdam, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delta (2009) Jaarverslag 2009, Omgevingsbewust Ondernemen. Delta N.V., MiddelburgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. E. Van der Lei
    • 1
    • 3
  • Y. C. Wijnia
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. M. Herder
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Section Energy and IndustryDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.D-Cision bvZwolleThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Next Generation Infrastructure FoundationDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations