NZTA Asset Management Audits Update


Published on

RIMS Forum - 20 March 2013
Tony Lange - NZTA

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NZTA Asset Management Audits Update

  1. 1. Asset Management Plan ReviewTony Lange (Investment Assurance P&I) 20 March 2013 Renew/ Plan Build Operate Maintain dispose
  2. 2. Why?• Our last review was in 2007 (desktop)• Help with the next NLTP in 2015• Identify strengths and weakness (gaps)• Innovate• Share and improve 2 2
  3. 3. Why- Road maintenance Task Force?RMTF identified AMPs as key to achieving best whole-of-life cost for the network is strong asset managementpractice, which includes enabling the use of innovativeservices, products and methods of procurement. Thisrequires:•effective planning and delivery to achieve best value for money objectives•improved knowledge sharing•a consistent road classification system and levels of service across the whole network•greater collaboration between asset owners. 3 3
  4. 4. How?•The most effective way to do these reviews is through a self- assessment completed by the AO.•We follow with a discussion between the AO’s senior decision-makers, roading asset manager(s) and our auditors. Our updated approach will provide better value to the NZTA and our partners through:•identifying strengths and weaknesses of your own asset management processes and investment decisions;• assisting your understanding of the NZTA’s expectations and ensuring consistency in our future evaluations of your programmes; and,•developing joint understanding of common risks and issues through sharing lessons learnt. 4 4
  5. 5. How?We developed a self assessment questionnaire in collaboration with industry Life Cycle Understanding Failure ModesManagement 1 How do you develop your three Long-Term Plan, Integrated Transport year capital and operating Programme, Asset Management Plan and program? legacy LTCCPs are major inputs being used to develop the 3 year programmes. Requirements 50 90 from capital development and operations divisions are also being considered in this process. 5 5
  6. 6. Our results so far. General/Overall Demand Growth Level of Service Risk Life cycle 40 50 60 70 80 90 Desired Actual “nothing changes – if nothing changes” 6 6
  7. 7. Our findings so far?• Life Cycle• Risk• Aiming too high?Moving forward• Road Efficiency Group 7 7