Title: A comparative study on asset management capability maturity models
Authors: Muhammad Nateque Mahmood; Subas Dhakal; Anna Wiewiora; Kerry Brown; Robyn Keast
Addresses: School of Civil Engineering and Surveying, University Southern Queensland, Australia ' School of Management, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Australia ' School of Management, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Australia ' School of Management, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Australia ' Southern Cross Business School, Southern Cross University, Australia
Abstract: Asset service organisations often recognise asset management as a core competence to deliver benefits to their business; however, it is less clear about how organisations know whether their asset management processes are adequate. This paper contends that asset management maturity models, which combine best practices with identified competencies, may provide a useful approach to test the capacity of organisations to manage assets. Existing capability maturity models are subject to wide variations in their implementation and sophistication. Drawing on five dimensions of effective asset management - spatial, temporal, organisational, statistical and evaluation - as identified by Amadi-Echendu et al. (2010), this paper undertakes a comprehensive comparative analysis of six existing maturity models to identify the gaps in key process areas. Results suggest incorporating these dimensions into an integrated approach to assess the maturity of asset-intensive organisations would provide a comprehensive approach towards assessing capabilities of asset service organisations.
Keywords: asset management; capability maturity models; CMM; integrated approach; whole-of-life-cycle; modelling; competencies.
International Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset Management, 2015 Vol.2 No.4, pp.328 - 347
Published online: 22 Mar 2016 *Full-text access for editors Access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article