One of the major challenges for public sector property professionals operating within the new discipline of asset management is to be regarded and trusted by service managers and policy makers as key partners in shaping corporate and service strategies. All too often, local authority property professionals are heard to complain that they have been left out of the loop. Arguably what is required is a management consultancy style underpinned by a range of generic and property specific technical competencies, which may either be lacking or unapparent in general practice surveyors. Indeed, the authors have observed over many years that there is a tendency for estates surveyors to insist on working only ‘on instructions’ and strictly within their silo, even though they may be better placed than other professionals to take the lead in delivery of certain corporate objectives.


The introduction of project and programme management techniques is undoubtedly leading to a more standardised approach, clarifying objectives and identifying and mitigating against risks within identified projects. In certain authorities the authors have noted that the adoption by local authority property departments of a project management interface has resulted in a significant improvement in their reputation and in customer satisfaction. Perhaps unfortunately, this change in style has more often than not been preceded by the introduction of generic leadership of the property function.


Notwithstanding this there remains a great deal of


organisational inertia and even opposition to realising asset management objectives. This is particularly so outside of the direct view of project / programme managers and some would argue that there is a blame culture within local government which deters innovation and risk taking, or that staff are not sufficiently empowered ‘to get things done’. What is clear is that it is vital to foster and reward a culture that leads to multi agency partnership working.


Estates surveyors may wish to reflect how they can best contribute toward multi agency asset management and to recognise the inroads that generic managers continue to make in all but the areas of technical expertise, which in any case is often outsourced or ‘bought in’.


Conclusions


The rational for collaborative asset management is simple to understand and there is an intuitive acceptance of the potential benefits that may arise from a cross-organisation approach. However, whilst it is simple to understand it is not so easy to implement. The authors are of the opinion that the development of a new multi professional discipline for public sector asset management will provide a new impetus for devising and implementing improvement and the estates profession is well placed to be in the vanguard of such an approach.


Alan Phelps Duncan Blackie


ACES BRANCHES NORTH EAST


Our planned branch meeting in Leeds on 1 July duly took place and again was well attended. It followed the successful format of previous meetings which have been arranged to provide quality CPD covering topics suggested by members. Two examples of papers discussed at set out below.


In addition, progress is being made on arrangements for the spring 2012 Conference in Barnsley. Daniella Barrow and her team of volunteers (none were press-ganged!) are putting together, in conjunction with colleagues at national level, a very interesting programme of events, both professional and social. The meeting runs from ???? to ???? and whilst more details will follow, all members are encouraged to make a note now in their diaries of what the branch believe will be an excellent event.


The other matter which happened in the summer was the annual award to a student at Northumbria University. For a number of years, the branch has provided an award to a surveying student for a piece of work they have undertaken. The winner in 2011 was Victoria Stewart and the picture below shows her receiving the award from branch executive member, Bernard White.


Bernard White


THE TERRIER - Autumn 2011


59


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