Rationale & Objectives for collaborative approach


The rationale for adopting a collaborative approach to asset management is set by the policy and resource context articulated above. However most organisations involved in collaborative asset management identify it as more than simply a response to financial pressures. Whilst by no means an exhaustive list many organisations recognise that a new cross-agency approach to managing assets can:


● Help to identify new ways of reducing the costs of property assets.


● Facilitate an improvement in service delivery


● Support the creation of multi-service facilities to improve clients experience of accessing public services


● Improve the image, quality and cost of public services ● Lead to the creation of a new class of investment vehicle


● Provide an effective mechanism for delivering community infrastructure


● Provide an intelligent public sector partner for major schemes, such as those utilising TIF


● Contribute to achieving a sense of civic pride and community identity


Methodological Approaches


The diagram below illuminates some of the key components that underpin collaborative asset management.


The


methodological approach to collaborative asset management taken by most areas / organisations has tended to concentrate on these four components. In nearly all cases organisations have identified the need for engagement, data and opportunities; whereas some, rather than all, have focussed on vision. These components and the approaches taken are summarised briefly below:-


around commitment, resource constraints and decision- making. In addition a single senior-level ‘champion’ for collaborative asset management can help to raise the profile of the initiative and sustain engagement over time. This latter point is important as collaborative initiatives tend by their nature to be long term and the process of securing and maintaining engagement needs to be seen as a long term activity in it s own right.


● Data – Data collection has tended to happen in two ways – basic data at a building level + management data at an organisation level. Building level data tends to include value, tenure, area, running costs and backlog maintenance. Data returns tend to be more robust for the office and investment portfolios, which are typically, managed by central teams with the greatest data gaps across the broad range of front-line service assets. Devolved responsibility for


property budgets


undermines the ability to provide running cost data with most significant data gaps including: floor space; backlog maintenance and running cost data. Management data has concentrated on organisational models for property service delivery; activity spend and organisational size & costs. This includes identifying FTEs & staff costs across major areas of activity; spend on external services & supplies and types and number of property IT systems.


The main purpose from the data collection work is to understand the size and nature of the collective portfolio in an area and hence to quantify the potential scope for coast savings or value release. Given the difficulty (and cost) associated with data capture at a building level and the likelihood that many properties will not be affected by rationalisation plans there are questions over whether data collection should concentrate initially at the portfolio level and whether early work should consider a long term data strategy to secure a common approach to data collection and the potential for common data systems.


● Opportunities – a range of approaches have been adopted to identify potential


rationalisation opportunities. The


most common of these is spatial mapping of public sector assets to identify ‘hot spots’ where there is the coincidence of a large number of public buildings within a small geographic area. This then provides the basis for an area-based review process to identify rationalisation opportunities. Other mechanism to identify opportunities include informal workshops which bring together service and property perspectives to explore possible asset sharing ideas; or scenario planning where a range of both radical and modest rationalisation opportunities are explored and documented at a high level in order to secure commitment or rejection from key decision makers, with the supported scenarios then explored in more detail.


● Engagement – most organisations have recognised the need to secure and sustain commitment to joint working. Mechanisms such as pan-public sector asset management boards have been created to ensure senior member and / or officer involvement and appropriate cross-agency engagement. In some cases external representation has been used as a means of providing project assurance or to act as ‘moderating influence’ across the variety of participating agencies. Experience to date suggests that such approaches need to ensure that they have senior level representation as such people are better placed within their own organisation to resolve any issues


THE TERRIER - Autumn 2011


● Vision - this is perhaps the area where to date there has been more limited work. This may reflect that many organisations have adopted a pragmatic, ‘let’s get on and do it’ approach which is


commendable. Some


organisations have developed a shared vision in a belated fashion as work proceeds and used this to agree common objectives and shared implementation priorities. There is no implied criticism of this approach but the development of a brief shared vision at an early stage of joint working can act as a mechanism to secure commitment, resolve potential conflicts in priorities and also provide a strategy around which to coordinate resources and action. To


57


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64