As a result of a handful of events, 2003 has been a benchmark year in the discipline of asset management, the implications of which are reverberating around the world. All of these events were, in some manner, due to a failure of physical assets.
* The Colombia Space Shuttle disaster
* The New York blackout, the London blackout, and the blackout in Italy
* Six people, responsible for the management and maintenance of the rail lines, were charged with manslaughter regarding the Hatfield train disaster in the United Kingdom
The global reaction to these events has been the culmination of a continuous series of changes in this area since the early 1970s. These changes have encompassed attitudes within society, heightened levels of understanding as well as the competitive market forces acting on the function of physical asset management.
This is Part One of three-part note.
Part Two discusses the implications for asset management.
Part Three presents a new framework for asset management.
Changing Attitudes
Society has become increasingly intolerant of industrial incidents, particularly in the areas of safety and environmental integrity. It is no longer considered acceptable to cause harm to either the environment or to people and the communities that they live in.
In the past ten years this has been reflected in various changes in legislation and regulation in countries around the world. Some of the recent developments in these areas include:
* Changes to the regulations governing electricity providers in the United Kingdom—now providing a high degree of focus on risk management and mitigation.
* Wide ranging fraud legislation by the federal government of Canada in response to the Westray disaster
* Legislation in response to the Longford disaster in Australia
It is becoming obvious that in the future those responsible for the management of physical assets will be more likely to be called to account when there is a failure, and as can be seen by recent history, it is likely that it will not be companies but individuals.
In extreme cases incidents can also mean irreversible damage to a company's public image. Think of such disasters as the Exxon-Valdez environmental incident, the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal in India or more recently the linking of Powergen to the New York blackout. All of these incidents have remained chained to these companies in the public mind.
* The Colombia Space Shuttle disaster
* The New York blackout, the London blackout, and the blackout in Italy
* Six people, responsible for the management and maintenance of the rail lines, were charged with manslaughter regarding the Hatfield train disaster in the United Kingdom
The global reaction to these events has been the culmination of a continuous series of changes in this area since the early 1970s. These changes have encompassed attitudes within society, heightened levels of understanding as well as the competitive market forces acting on the function of physical asset management.
This is Part One of three-part note.
Part Two discusses the implications for asset management.
Part Three presents a new framework for asset management.
Changing Attitudes
Society has become increasingly intolerant of industrial incidents, particularly in the areas of safety and environmental integrity. It is no longer considered acceptable to cause harm to either the environment or to people and the communities that they live in.
In the past ten years this has been reflected in various changes in legislation and regulation in countries around the world. Some of the recent developments in these areas include:
* Changes to the regulations governing electricity providers in the United Kingdom—now providing a high degree of focus on risk management and mitigation.
* Wide ranging fraud legislation by the federal government of Canada in response to the Westray disaster
* Legislation in response to the Longford disaster in Australia
It is becoming obvious that in the future those responsible for the management of physical assets will be more likely to be called to account when there is a failure, and as can be seen by recent history, it is likely that it will not be companies but individuals.
In extreme cases incidents can also mean irreversible damage to a company's public image. Think of such disasters as the Exxon-Valdez environmental incident, the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal in India or more recently the linking of Powergen to the New York blackout. All of these incidents have remained chained to these companies in the public mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment