Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

A holistic approach to asset management in the

Netherlands

Jenne van der Velde , Leo Klatter & Jaap Bakker

To cite this article: Jenne van der Velde , Leo Klatter & Jaap Bakker (2013) A holistic approach to
asset management in the Netherlands, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9:4, 340-348, DOI:
10.1080/15732479.2012.657650

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2012.657650

Published online: 21 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 475

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [University of Leeds] Date: 24 June 2017, At: 03:04

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 9, No. 4, April 2013, 340348

A holistic approach to asset management in the Netherlands

Jenne van der Velde, Leo Klatter* and Jaap Bakker
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, the Netherlands, Centre for Infrastructure, P.O. Box 20000, Utrecht 3502, LA, the
Netherlands
(Received 27 February 2011; nal version received 7 November 2011; accepted 3 January 2012; published online 21 February 2012)

The objective of the national agency for road and water infrastructure in the Netherlands is to deliver best service to
the public at lowest life cycle cost, given public acceptable risk. This requires a sound and well-structured system of
management and maintenance. Such a system consists of elements such as reliable asset data, long-term performance
based maintenance programmes, clear steering objectives and transparent procurement strategies. Asset manage-
ment will make it possible to show what network performance can be achieved, at which costs and with which
associated risks. A model dening an asset owner role, an asset manager role and a service provider role was chosen
as a governing principle for the design of the asset management process. The design of the process described in the
paper sets the boundary conditions to carry out projects with the minimum amount of hindrance for the user while
involving the market in the best possible way.
Keywords: infrastructure management; bridges; life cycle cost; risk management; whole life costing

Introduction side, the public becomes more critical and demands

Rijkswaterstaat is an executive agency within the
Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environ-
ment. Rijkswaterstaat is responsible for the correct
functioning of the assets or properties of the ministry.
These consist of three networks: the main road
network, the main waterways network and the main
water systems. Approximately 9000 sta (full time
jobs) are working on 3300 km (*2000 miles) strategic
highways, 1700 km (*1000 miles) strategic waterways
and 65,250 km2 (*25,000 square miles) water systems
(such as dunes and surface water). The annual budget
for maintenance, operations, renewal and expansion of
these networks is approximately e5 billion. The mis-
sion of Rijkswaterstaat is to deliver best service to the
public at lowest life cycle cost, given public acceptable
risk. This requires a sound and well-structured system
of management and maintenance. Asset management
is an aid to this. In 2009 Rijkswaterstaat started a four
years programme to develop and implement asset
management. This programme will be completed in
2012.
Infrastructure management problem denition
The world of infrastructures for energy, transporta-
tion, water and communication is constantly changing.
It is not only that the use is ever increasing, recent
years have demonstrated that there is a move from the
public domain to a more privatised setting. On the one
better quality and better service, whereas on the
other side a political need arises to limit the (public)
costs of infrastructures. Incidents that happen, for
example a shutdown of a trac tunnel, are treated
as news items. Infrastructures might therefore appear
more risky, and new regulations and demands are
put in place to safeguard the public interest.
Infrastructures are under pressure, as one could
say, and managing authorities seek a way to manage
these dynamics (Wijnia and Herder 2009). This is
shown in Figure 1.
It is up to the infrastructure operators to resolve
this issue. In this light, it is no surprise that asset
management has gained the attention of many
infrastructure operators. Asset management, after
all, is the profession of balancing cost, performance
and risk over the life cycle of an asset. However,
when getting into the details of the infrastructure
system, it becomes clear that the total operation of
an infrastructure not only depends on the physical
assets, but also on other elements like information,
nancial means, human aspects and intangible
aspects. These elements are only to a certain extent
independent of each other. Over time the elements
might inuence each other. It is therefore probably
better to speak of elements that are loosely coupled,
instead of independent elements.
A exible approach is needed. The question is how
this can be achieved for long-lived assets like civil

*Corresponding author. Email: leo.klatter@rws.nl

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2012.657650
http://www.tandfonline.com
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Figure 1. Pressures on infrastructure systems.
infrastructure. Bridges and other structures are de-
signed for lifetimes of 50100 years. Todays main-
tenance of bridges is governed to a large extent by
yesterdays decisions on investments, choice of materi-
als, design procedures, construction methods and so
on. Todays maintenance practice will determine
tomorrows needs. The time lag between the decision
taken and its eects is often large, many years or even
decades.
Complexity is expected to increase with an un-
certain future at the horizon. The dynamics of the
systems can no longer be captured by reducing the
system in smaller subsystems and treating them as
more or less independent systems, breaking down a
road network into object classes like pavements,
bridges and such. A movement the other way can be
seen in looking at road infrastructure as a part of a
larger socio-economic system. New ways of thinking
are needed that transcends the connes of traditional
humanities and social and physical sciences. Of
necessity, this science will be embedded in the design,
implementation and management of systems, and
therefore the new science will be entwined with policy
(Johnson 2010).
Rijkswaterstaat has adopted asset management as
the governing approach for infrastructure manage-
ment. The developments described before were re-
garded to be the guidance for the design of the asset
management process. This will be described in the next
section, starting with the motivation and basic
principles. After that the various modules will be
described.
Design of the asset management process
A research on the state of asset management in the
Netherlands played an important role in the design of
the asset management process and the choices made by
341
Rijkswaterstaat. In this research, performed by the
Next Generation Infrastructures foundation (NGIn-
fra), a group of over 30 asset managers from all
infrastructures in the Netherlands were involved
(Wijnia and Herder 2009). The research aimed at
arriving at a representative list of issues in asset
management that would cross cut all infrastructure
sectors. Therefore asset managers from seven dierent
infrastructures and related sectors were interviewed.
The following are the infrastructures:
(1) Gas and oil
(2) Electricity
(3) Rail and road
(4) Drinking water
(5) Waterways and water protection
(6) Telecom
(7) Asset service providers
The focus of NGInfra lies with the long-lived
infrastructures of sectors 15. This aligns with the
focus of Rijkswaterstaat with special focus on public
domain assets, such as sectors 3, 4 and 5. It appeared
that many infrastructure asset managers had great
diculty in getting beyond the rst promising step.
Asset management acquired a strong foothold, but
that it was a bottom up process which did not reach the
strategic level. There were still diculties in convincing
the top management of the strategic value of asset
management and in aligning organisational goals with
technical and operational standards. Furthermore, it
was recognised widely that asset management required
a change in maintenance paradigms and that asset
management should focus on life cycle costing. Never-
theless, asset management was generally considered to
be an engineering discipline, even though lots of eorts
were spent on creating support for the initiative. Some
asset managers explicitly recognised the social and
cultural issues.
In light, the dynamics sketched previously Rijks-
waterstaat put a strong emphasis on the top down
processes that govern the management of public
services under political constrains. On top of this
comes the political choice to contract out operational
activities as much as possible, leaving a small public
organisation and a large part to market parties. In this
playing eld, Rijkswaterstaat acts as the interface
between the principal, the Ministry of Infrastructure
and the Environment and the private companies like
contractors.
Asset management
A number of leading organisations exist in the eld of
asset management. Two of them were selected for
342 J. van der Velde et al.
having suitable models for the asset management
process for Rijkswaterstaat.
The rst is the Institute of Asset Management
(IAM). This is a professional institute based in the
United Kingdom, dedicated to developing and pro-
moting best practices for the management of physical
assets. The IAM developed the publicly available
specication PAS 55 for the optimised management
of physical assets (BSI 2008). PAS 55 provides clear
denitions and a 28-point requirements specication
for establishing and verifying a joined-up, optimised
and whole-life management system for all types of
physical assets.
The second is the New Zealand Asset Management
Support (NAMS). NAMS is a non-prot industry
organisation established to promote asset management
through the development of best practice guidelines
and training. The International Infrastructure Manage-
ment Manual promotes a 3-ball role model that
involves separation of stakeholder interface from the
asset manager and functional service providers
(NAMS 2006).
One of the strong points of PAS 55 is that it aligns
very well to a certied quality management system
according to ISO 9001 (ISO 2008). Such an approach in
formalising asset management procedures as interacting
processes with the quality management system was
regarded not to be exible enough in this stage, given
the developments described before. Instead, the role
model from NAMS was chosen as a governing principle
for the design of the asset management process. It
should be noted that comparable models, for example,
building on strategic, tactical and operational levels of
asset management can be found in literature.
Asset management roles
Within the asset management process three roles can
be distinguished: the asset owner, the asset manager
and the service provider (See also Table 1).
Asset owner
The Dutch government, in this case the Ministry of
Infrastructure and the Environment, is the asset owner.
Table 1. Dierent asset management roles and the main activities.
Asset owner
Responsibilities and tasks
Overall network policy
Targets for performance and condition on a network level
Target for acceptable risk prole
He must be able to make strategic choices between the
networks, for example rail or road and within a broader
societal perspective between transportation infrastruc-
ture, education, health care, social services and such.
Further a choice has to be made between long term and
short term; what to invest, when and where.
Service provider
In the Netherlands the role of the service provider is
outsourced to private companies. The activities of the
service providers are operational maintenance actions,
such as the replacement of components. The service
provider has to consider how to inuence the
performance of the object in terms of reliability,
availability, maintainability and safety.
Asset manager
The role of the asset manager is to provide a link
between the asset owner and the service provider. In
the Netherlands, Rijkswaterstaat is the asset manager.
Dierent roles and main activities are described in
Table 1.
The asset management programme
In 2009, Rijkswaterstaat decided to implement the
asset management. The programme should be com-
pleted at the end of 2012. In this programme ve sub-
programmes are dened:
(1) Reliable and accurate asset data
(2) Stable long-term maintenance programmes
(3) Clear objectives and transparent requirements
(4) Transparent procurement procedures
(5) Life cycle costing
Reliable and accurate asset data
Asset data management calls for a network oriented
approach. In this approach, a decomposition of all
object classes can be handled eectively. The challenge
for Rijkswaterstaat was to develop a standard decom-
position of the physical objects. In the past, dedicated
Asset manager Service provider
Investment strategies Project delivery
Maintenance concepts Maintenance, execution and services
Technological standards Asset data management
Risk management Project management
Network management
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
decompositions were used for dierent object classes,
like bridges and pavements. One part of the solution
was the introduction of a sector wide normalisation
process for the decomposition on the levels element
and component. This project is realised by the NEN
institute, the Dutch Centre for Standardization. A
condition assessment code, originally developed for
buildings is used as a base for this process (NEN 2010).
An example of the decomposition for the Rijkswa-
terstaat assets is presented in Table 2. The lower levels,
object and below, are important for the communica-
tion between the asset manager and the service
provider about inspection and specication of main-
tenance which is outsourced to private companies. The
upper hierarchical levels in the decomposition, net-
work down to object, are important for the commu-
nication between the asset manager and the asset
owner.
All business processes have to communicate on all
these levels. The choice between which process is linked
to which level is essential. Dilemmas are how to deal
with organisational boundaries in relation to func-
tional boundaries. For example, management con-
tracts for regional divisions have to cope with
functional system boundaries, like nodes in the road
network.
A network wide evaluation of the quality of asset
data in 2008 showed that they were incomplete or
inconsistent. The databases in use were custom
developed for each object class. One of the problems
of the existing systems is that each system looks at the
network from its own perspective. This makes it
dicult, often impossible to relate information from,
for example, the bridge management system (BMS)
and the pavement management system (PMS), not to
speak of integrating information. Further additional
datasets were developed, mainly as dedicated Excel
sheets developed by local groups. This created a
patchwork of programmes and systems. The rst step
was to make an inventory of:
. What kind of assets do we have?
. How many assets do we have?
. What is the size of the asset?
Table 2. Example of the Rijkswaterstaat decomposition.
Level Example
Network Highways network
Sub network Ring road system Amsterdam
Network branch Highway between interchanges A and B
Object Bridge, tunnel and road section
Element Piers, bearings and pavement
Component Top layer, expansion joint seal
343
This step has been completed in 2009. The next
step was the completion of the data on quality of the
assets, like the condition of the assets, the remaining
lifetime of elements like pavements surfaces, expan-
sion joints in bridges, tunnel installations etc. The
data necessary for the underpinning of the main-
tenance programmes and the budget claims have
to be in order by the end of 2011. Besides the
data mentioned before, also construction data like
design calculations, drawings and specications are
needed. The quality of these data is another eld of
concern. Causes for incomplete data are as listed
below:
. The way design and building contracts were
executed. The focus of these contracts used to be
more on the delivery of the infrastructure in the
past, than on delivery of complete and correct
asset data.
. The long lifetime of structures, implies to keep
data over many decades in order; even while
these data are not used frequently. Assets have
been constructed over multiple decades, and data
might not have been recorded at all at the
construction, or badly maintained, or lost over
time.
The data problem is a concern that many asset
managers expressed according to the research of
Wijnia and Herder (2009); The data exist but are
not accessible, but in other cases the data simply did
not exist. Much of the data were experience in the
minds of the employees and not as a factual
recording. Getting the real data out instead of history
coloured by rules of thumb was regarded as a big
problem. Getting the asset data at a level sucient to
reach the goals set for the asset management
programme is a large investment. Ideally, this
investment should be justied by a sound costbenet
analysis. In practice, we are looking at a rst step to
get on a minimum acceptable level to make the asset
management process working, inherent to the process
from implicit to explicit data.
Stable long-term maintenance programmes
Development of the stable long-term maintenance
programmes (including prioritisation) is another im-
portant development at Rijkswaterstaat. The classical
bridge management process for example, resulted in a
list of damages to be repaired. This list was prioritised
to t into the (limited) available budget. Sometimes
this process resulted into a programme, based on
network related objectives. Such programmes contain
elements for strategic and operational planning, but
344 J. van der Velde et al.
they were not integral and not based on strategic goals
on a network level.
Another point of concern was that the heritage of
the budget driven organisation Rijkswaterstaat was in
the past. Complete use of the budget seemed more
important than using the budget for the purpose it was
claimed for. This resulted each year in new budget
claims and an unstable long-term maintenance pro-
gramme. A lot of energy was used to describe
bottlenecks that were never funded, instead to describe
the activities which were performed and how these
contributed in realising the strategic goals. To solve
these issues, an overall design of the maintenance
planning process was introduced. A central database
that integrates data of all object classes on a national
network scale has been developed in 2004 (Klatter
2005). The information must be available to the
dierent management levels and everyone should be
looking at the same picture; create a single point of the
truth. This database has been extended with software
such as planning tools. One of the new features was an
integrated planning of network branches (see next
section) for all object classes. The data of existing tools
like the BMS and PMS are uploaded in this planning
tool. The tools use the performance of the network and
risks (see next section) as the driving forces for
prioritisation. Such a process of network wide plan-
ning has been run on a preliminary basis for the past
two cycles and a nal version will be implemented in
the cycle starting in 2011. The outcome will be a stable
four years maintenance programme.
Clear objectives and transparent requirements
Clear objectives and transparent requirements are
important to justify the maintenance programmes.
Each hierarchal level in the decomposition needs a
specic description. Also requirements should be
connected throughout the hierarchical levels. Elements
required for these are as follows:
. At network level a network strategy.
. At element and component levels technical
requirements, (design) codes and regulations.
System engineering (SE) principles are used to
connect all these requirements and to assure compli-
ance within the dierent levels. SE is a methodology
used in design processes. The leading organisation
promoting SE INCOSE (INCOSE 2010), denes SE as
an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the
realisation of successful systems. SE considers both the
business and the technical needs of all customers with
the goal of providing a quality product that meets the
user needs. A three level structure is used:
(1) Network level.
(2) Network branch level.
(3) Object level.
Network level: the service level agreement
In a network level a reference level of maintenance is
dened, derived from relevant policy papers and
applied to the network. A key element is a risk prole.
Such a prole is expressed in terms of Reliability
Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS). The
RAMS approach is quite common in mechanical
engineering and in rail infrastructure. The European
requirements for rail infrastructure, EN 50126 (CEN-
ELEC 2007), are based on these RAMS requirements.
The application to bridge management is described by
Klatter, Vrouwenvelder and van Noortwijk (2009).
This risk prole can be used for the overall prioritisa-
tion in the network, for example between the high
capacity roads with high environmental impact and
other roads. The agreed level of performance is written
down in a service level agreement (SLA) between the
agency and the ministry. Today this is based on cost
and a reference level of maintenance. In the future this
will be based on cost, performance and risk. The SLA
is a long-term agreement between parties about the
performances which have to be delivered at a
predetermined level of quality/price mix. The period
of the long-term agreement concerns a period of four
years (de Graan and Menkveld 2004). The framework
of a service level agreement should be the link between
the goals of the ministry and the budget of the
products/services to be delivered by the agency.
Network branch level: optimising the network
Network branches are parts of the network with a
homogeneous performance prole. At this level a
balance between the dierent object classes, like
structures, pavements intelligent trac systems (ITS),
and such will be dened, based on performance, risk
prole and costs. This level plays a crucial role in the
translation between the policy objectives on a network
level and the practical execution of management and
maintenance at the object level. See also the section
Final process design.
Object level: maintenance plans
At object level, for example individual bridges,
maintenance plans have been drawn up. Such plans
contain all maintenance measures for the elements of
the structure. These plans also contain the cost of
routine maintenance and the inspection scheme. The
planning cycle is shown in Figure 2.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Figure 2. Cyclic process maintenance plans for structures.
A maintenance plan is drawn up for the rst time in
the design phase based on standard intervals and cost
indicators for standardised measures. These mainte-
nance measures are based on a maintenance strategy
drawn up for frequently used elements, for example
concrete elements, preserved steel, expansion joints
and bearings. Such a strategy requires a description of
the minimal acceptable quality or condition, or a
description of acceptable defects. The maintenance
plans are updated using the results of inspections.
Today these inspections are mainly visual inspections
with conclusions based on expert opinion. The update
of the maintenance plans is a manual action integrated
in the reporting process of the inspection. The BMS
supports this process. Development is ongoing to use
more objective information from measurements and
monitoring. In engineering practice the conclusions
from these other sources are still derived by assess-
ments from experts. The inspection results are used to
determine the maintenance need. Also the present risk
prole is determined. This is described in terms of
RAMS aspects and used in the network planning
process described in previous paragraphs. Mainte-
nance measures are clustered and optimised on a
network level and tuned with the pavement main-
tenance. After execution of maintenance the next cycle
starts.
Transparent procurement procedures
The policy in the Netherlands is to outsource activities
to private parties to an extent as high as possible. All
maintenance and construction works are contracted
out to private companies, contractors and engineering
rms. This means that 100% of the nal output and
outcome is realised through these contracts. This asks
for a well balanced mix of responsibilities and skills of
345
the government agency and the private parties.
Various main types of contracts can be distinguished:
. Performance based contracts: these include all
routine maintenance and small-scale repair and
replacement. These contracts are steered mainly
by operational objectives like reliability and
availability. To ensure safety for direct users
and the public is a major concern in these
contracts too.
. Contracts for larger scale maintenance: preven-
tive maintenance, element replacement, installa-
tion renewal and object renovation. The base for
these contracts is the multiyear maintenance
programmes, that result from prioritisation.
. Maintenance included in construction projects:
examples are Design (Built), Finance and Main-
tain (D(B)FM). This type of contact is used for
large new infrastructures or extension projects.
The nance component is used in the larger
projects (over 200 million Euros). The inclusion
of maintenance for 1030 years is expected to
give an incentive to optimise the maintenance
early in design and construction phases. A better
performance at lower maintenance cost is
expected.
The general policy is to scale up contracts; larger
areas, include larger scale maintenance in performance
contracts and longer contract periods. These develop-
ments bring a number of risks that have to be
mitigated. Looking at this at a network level this
may result in a patchwork of contract parties, each
contract party is acting on parts of the network. The
risk of conicts of interest at boundaries is real. A
dicult point is the exibility through the years needed
to cope with uctuating budgets. To make sure that
346 J. van der Velde et al.
this will work, procurement touches each of the three
elds discussed above:
(1) Reliable asset data are needed for a contractor
to prepare a realistic bid. Appraisal of risks
transferred to the contractor and the price the
owner is willing to pay for this. On the other
side, the asset data that are gained during
contract execution are needed for the agency;
both for its own management tasks and for re-
contracting to a new party, after the previous
contract period.
(2) To dene the maintenance need and to
prioritise this need to an executive programme
introduces a possible conict of interest be-
tween the agency and the contractor. Already
mentioned is the possible inexibility of long
year contracts. As policies and budgets shift
over time a xed contract scope may not be the
desired situation. Extending the scope without
competition can be expensive, while diminish-
ing the scope can result in costly penalties. This
makes the programming process more compli-
cated. Who will make what choices?
(3) Requirements and objectives have to be trans-
lated to contract specications. The documents
drawn up for use within the agency are often
not specic enough to serve as contract
specications. General accepted codes and
regulations often lack specic points needed
for the high level performance requirements of
the national infrastructure. Some of this is
specied in internal additional specications
and can be rewritten into contract specica-
tions. But many are implicit experience in the
heads of professionals. SE is expected to be of
help in theses specication problems. Last but
not the least, the new role model between the
agency and the market parties asks for a change
in attitude. The agency no longer sets detailed
specications based on an elaborated design,
but sets functional requirements instead. The
market party is now responsible for the design
and the assurance that the solutions built meet
the requirements. The new contract forms
imply an innovation in relations, roles and
responsibilities.
Life Cycle Costing
Previous sections dealt with asset management in the
operational phase, once the infrastructure has been
constructed. This section describes the asset manage-
ment aspects of new construction. The functional need
for new infrastructure originates from the asset
management process, when existing infrastructure falls
short in complying with demands. For new infrastruc-
ture Rijkwaterstaat uses the so-called MIRT (Dutch
acronym) procedure. The process is divided into a
number of clearly distinct phases (Bakker et al. 2010):
. Intake: in this phase the functional demand is
explored and elaborated.
. Exploration: in this phase possible solutions will
be developed to full the functional need. A
costbenet analysis is used to develop a
preferred solution among three alternatives.
These are fed into the decision process.
. Plan development: the preferred solution is
elaborated along with some alternatives.
. Procurement planning: the procurement strategy
is developed and contracts are designed.
. Execution: construction of the new infra-
structure.
. Operational phase.
LCC is being implemented as integral part of the
MIRT process. In the early phase of the process,
exploration, a LCC calculation will be made for the
solutions developed. In addition to the results of the
costbenet analysis the cost of construction, the LCC
prognosis (discounted present value) and the cost of
future maintenance are determined. These three costs
are updated through the following stages in the
process. In this stage of the project simple standardised
cost indicators are used. This ensures that future costs
in the operational phase are fully taken into account in
decisions on construction and funds are made available
for exploitation and maintenance.
Additional procedures have been developed for the
phase of procurement planning. In the choice of the
contract LCC considerations are taken into account.
The incentives the contractor will have based on the
contract type are balanced against the interests at stake
for the agency, to take as much advantage as possible
for future asset management. A dedicated tool has
been developed to include LCC aspects in the criteria
for selection of the most advantageous bid. The LCC
prognoses for the known solutions are used in this
tool. The lowest cost for construction is no longer the
predominant selection criterion. LCC are taken into
consideration as well (Bakker and Volwerk 2007).
Evaluation of recent projects showed that a cost
reduction up to 10% on life cycle cost will be achieved
by applying this procedure in the bid selection.
Final process design
In the previous sections a number of ingredients are
described. A good asset management practice calls for
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
a recipe to bring all these ingredients together in a
smooth working system. Base for all is a set of reliable
asset data. Three dierent types of instruments can be
distinguished:
(1) Objectives and standards
(2) Plans
(3) Contracts
The result is given in Figure 3. The role model of
the asset owner, asset manager and service provider
can be mapped over this gure.
The three categories in Figure 3 are described in the
following sequence:
Ad 1. Objectives and standards
This category sets a framework for the quality
required. This quality can be described by the aspects
of required performance, condition and risk prole.
Three hierarchical levels are used. The top level relates
to national policy papers and a national legal frame-
work. The bottom level contains (technological)
standards, guidelines, but also formats and tools, like
a bridge management system. The intermediate level is
the crucial one to be developed in asset management.
At this level the high level objectives are translated into
technological standards at a practical level. For
example, choices in parameters and performance and
safety class in design codes.
Figure 3. Final design.
347
Ad 2. Plans
This category contains the three level asset manage-
ment plans, described in the section Clear objectives
and transparent requirements.
Ad 3. Contracts
This category consists of three levels. At the top level
the agreement between the Ministry, asset owner, and
Rijkswaterstaat, is called the SLA. The mid level is the
internal management contracts between head oce
and departments of the Rijkswaterstaat. The bottom
category contain the contracts of the Rijkswaterstaat
with market parties.
The instruments in Figure 3 are still under
development in the asset management programme.
Some of these, the maintenance plans, the SLA and the
management contracts have been developed earlier
(Klatter and van der Vusse 2004), but have to be
modied to t in the new asset management process.
Others, the tactical framework and the network plans,
are new elements that have to be designed and
implemented in the next two years. Within the box
standards, guidelines, systems and tools, an important
task is to tune these to the adaptations made in the
decomposition and to integrate general design codes
and specications. This part of the work has to deliver
the specications for maintenance contracts as well for
the maintenance component of contracts for new
infrastructure.
348 J. van der Velde et al.
The asset management programme will be completed
within the next two years by the end of 2012. The full
implementation and management of the system there-
after should not be underestimated. Today the results of
the programme can already be seen in the organisation,
in a grown insight in the asset quality, maintenance
needs and eects on performance and risks.
Conclusions
The experience in the Netherlands with the introduc-
tion of an asset management programme learned that
asset data are the rst barrier to be taken. Next, a
stable multiannual maintenance programme based on
network level prioritisation rules is a big eort. Not
only to draw up the programme, but maybe even more
dicult to keep it stable in its execution. Ensure we are
still looking at the same picture that was taken at the
beginning of the year, after this year has passed, in
terms of scope, costs and planning. Documentation is a
third eld of the mega operation. The changes in the
operational practice, originally organised in object
classes, can be characterised as an intercultural
integration process. Further the interlinking of the
dierent hierarchical levels is dicult. In practice three
domains are distinguished: network level, object class
level and object-element-component level. The new
developed instruments will still take at least two to
four years to reach a fully implemented status.
Organisational-cultural issues make this operation
dicult, but challenging and rewarding.
References
Bakker, J. and Volwerk, J., 2007. Life cycle cost tenders for
infrastructure projects. In: Proceedings of the 5th Inter-
national Workshop on Life Cycle Cost Analysis and
Design of Civil Infrastructure Systems (LCC5). Seoul,
Korea: Balkema.
Bakker, J.D., Schavemaker, J., and ten Cate, M., 2010. Life
cycle cost optimisation for infrastructure. In: 2nd
International Symposium on Service Life Design for
Infrastructure, Delft, the Netherlands.
BSI, British Standards Institution, 2008. Public Available
Specication PAS 55-1 & 2: Asset Management. London,
ISBN 978-0-580-50976-6.
CENELEC, 2007. CLC/TR 50126-2:2007 Railway applica-
tions: The specication and demonstration of Reliability,
Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS), Co-
mite Europeen de Normalisation Electrotechnique
(CENELEC), Brussels, Belgium.
de Graan, G.B.K. and Menkveld, G.W.A., 2004. Asset
Management for the Highway Network in the Netherlands,
Asset Management for Highways, Birmingham, UK, 24
25 March 2004, IQPC.
INCOSE, 2010. Systems engineering handbook a guide for
system life cycle processes and activities [online]. Version
3.2. Available from: www.incose.org [Accessed 6 Feb-
ruary 2012].
ISO International Organization for Standardization, 2008.
ISO 9001, quality management systems requirements.
ISO technical committee ISO/TC 176, version 2008-11-
13.
Johnson, J., 2010. The future of the social sciences and
humanities in the science of complex systems. Innovation
The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23 (2),
115134.
Klatter, H.E., 2005. Bridge management integrated in
business intelligence. In: 4th International Workshop on
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastruc-
ture Systems, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Klatter, H.E. and van der Vusse, J.J., 2004. Total asset
management in the Netherlands. In: 2nd International
Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Manage-
ment, Kyoto, Japan.
Klatter, H.E., Vrouwenvelder, A.C.W.M., and van Noort-
wijk, J.M., 2009. Societal and reliability aspects of bridge
management in the Netherlands. Structure and Infra-
structure Engineering, 5 (1), 1124.
NAMS Group, 2006. International infrastructure manage-
ment manual 2006. Wellington, New Zealand. Available
from: www.nams.org.nz [Accessed 6 February 2012].
NEN, The Netherlands Centre for Standardization, 2010.
NEN 2767-4, Condition Assessment of infrastructure Part
1 Methodology. Delft, the Netherlands: The Netherlands
Centre for Standardization (in Dutch).
Wijnia, Y.C. and Herder, P.M., 2009. The state of asset
management at infrastructures in the Netherlands. In: 4th
World Congress on Engineering Asset Management and
Intelligent Maintenance Systems, September 2009,
Athens, Greece.