AM thus cuts across numerous aspects of an organisation with Woodhouse, J. [Online] (2001, 1) mentioning that AM consists of individual meliorations bound together by a common understanding, and collection of tools and pro- cesses. According to Amadi-Echendu et al. (2007, 117), since the early begin- nings of AM in the 1990s, arguments have been made to have the discipline of AM adopt an interdisciplinary and a synergistic approach to aspects such asALC, maintenance, risk, reliability, performance, quality, efficiency, finance, procurement and sustainability (Van der Lei et al. 2012, 117; Woodhouse, J. [Online] 2001; Campbell et al. 2010, 15).
During the first few years after the turn of the century the need to con- sider Asset Life-Cycle Management (ALCM) was highlighted by scholars in order to address inefficiencies within the existing AM models as well as incor- porate sustainability aspects with Woodhouse (2000, 3) and Amadi-Echendu (2004, 1157) mentioning that industries were moving towards a more holistic approach to AM. In support of this Schuman and Brent (2005, 566) propose an ALCM model which integrates existing frameworks and practices such as project management, systems engineering and operational reliability.
The practice ofALCMhas developed in sophistication over the past 30 years and evolved into its own discipline. Combined with the need to develop strate- gies to reduce risks to business-critical assets the BSI developed the PAS 55
for Physical Asset Management (PAM) first emerged in 2002 and was pub-
lished in 2004 (Tywoniak et al. 2008, 1561; Woolpert Inc. [Online] 2012, 1561; Campbell et al. 2010, 455). ThePAS55 was the first attempt at clarifying and standardising the meaning of physicalAMsystems, after calls from industry to develop a unified view on what AMmeans in practice. The PAS55 originated from a joint project by the BSIand theIAMand provides a definition ofPAM
that considers an optimised combination of performance, maintenance, capital investments, maintenance, resources, risks and sustainable development with a LC perspective (Tywoniak et al. 2008, 1561; Campbell et al. 2010, 455).
Industries such as mining, manufacturing, utilities and transport widely adopted PAS 55 and as a result the standard was accepted as a platform to
develop the ISO 55000 series of international standards that was published in January 2014 and supersedes the PAS 55 documents (Hastings 2015, 5; In- stitute of Asset Management (IAM) [Online] 2014; Kersley and Sharp 2014, 3). ISO 55000 series of standards consist of ISO 55000 (introduction to AM), ISO 55001 (the AMstandard) and ISO 55002 which provides interpretation of the requirements set out in ISO 55001 (International Standards Organisation 2014a; International Standards Organisation 2014b; International Standards Organisation 2014c; Kersley and Sharp 2014, 3). The ISO 55001 has rapidly been adopted by organisations who are already PAS 55 certified and organi- sations who are eager to benefit from good AM practices (Kersley and Sharp, 2014, 3).
TheGFMAM, consisting of a number of maintenance and AMorganisations
around the globe, was established in 2010 with the objective of aligning the
Asset Management Body of Knowledge (AMBOK) through a collaborative
process. TheGFMAMpublished the Asset Management Landscape document in November 2011, which is an attempt to build a common perspective or collective view on the discipline of AM.
Figure 2.1: Traditional functional and activity-centred organisation (Adapted from GFMAM (2011, 6))
The Asset Management Landscape consist of three key areas namely the Core, Knowledge and Practices and Support and is represented by figure
2.1 (GFMAM, 2011, 6).
The core of the Asset Management Landscape framework includes 39 sub- jects, describing the scope and discipline of AM, and was developed based on an international review and consensus process considering AM models and assessment methodologies (GFMAM 2011, 7; IAM 2015b, 4).
The GFMAM members incorporate the Asset Management Landscape into
their respective AM frameworks where the 39 subjects are used to develop a universal approach to AM and its definitions through an international ac- cord. One such member is the IAM that published the first edition of their influential Asset Management – An Anatomy in February 2012 after their an- nual conference in June 2011 (GFMAM 2014, 4; IAM 2011, i). The second edition of the IAM Asset Management – An Anatomy, was published in July 2014 and aligned with the ISO 55000 as well as the GFMAMAsset Manage- ment Landscape (IAM, 2014a, i). IAM (2011, 3) and IAM (2015a, 3) notes that the BSI PAS 55:2008 specification lists 28 requirements while the ISO 55001:2014 lists 24 clauses specifying 71 “shall statements” requirements that an organisation needs to meet in order to exhibit prudent AM practices and a robust AMsystem, often leading to confusion when discussing the 39 subjects described in the Asset Management – An Anatomy and the GFMAM Asset Management Landscape (International Standards Organisation 2014b; British Standards Institution 2008b). The difference is that ISO 55001 and PAS 55-1 is a check-list of requirements on the organisational AM system while the 39 subjects, arranged in six subject groups, is a description of theAMBOK in its entirety (IAM 2014c, 2; GFMAM 2014; British Standards Institution 2008a). Emphasis is placed on the fact that knowledge and competency throughout the AM discipline cannot be gained through merely being familiar with the management system standard. Although it is important to have knowledge of the PAS 55 and ISO 55000 series, it is not the entire picture. It is critical to comprehend the entire discipline which is represented by the 39 subjects; however, a person’s responsibility within an organisation can determine the level of knowledge required (IAM 2011, 2; IAM 2014a, 3). In order to maintain its application across many different types of organisations the ISO 55000 series documents explain the requirements of an AM system, but does not specify how this is achieved – there is still a need to have applicable knowledge and interpret the standard in order for it to be effectively utilised (IAM, 2014a, 3).