austroads webinar-minimum levels of componentisation for ...€¦ · 2 today’s moderator eliz...

11

Minimum Levels of Componentisation for Road Infrastructure Assets11 September 2018

22

Today’s moderator

Eliz EstebanCommunications OfficerAustroads

P: +61 2 8265 3302E: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

33

About Austroads

The peak organisation of Australasian road transport and traffic agencies

• Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales

• Roads Corporation Victoria

• Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland

• Main Roads Western Australia

• Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia

• Department of State Growth Tasmania

• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics Northern Territory

• Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate, Australian Capital Territory

• Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

• Australian Local Government Association

• New Zealand Transport Agency

44

Our structure

55

Housekeeping

Presentation = 35 mins

Question time = 15 mins

+ =www.austroads.com.au/webinars

http://www.austroads.com.au/webinars

66

GoToWebinar

Please type your questions here

Let us know the slide number your question relates to

77

Austroads Guideline and research report

Download from Austroads Website:https://austroads.com.au/publications/asset-management/ap-r577-18

https://austroads.com.au/publications/asset-management/ap-r576-18



88

Gary Rykers (presenter)Manager Asset Management Victoria & TasmaniaProject Technical and Stakeholder Leadwsp-OpusM: +61 477 344 260

Andrew Golding (Q&A)Director, Transport System Asset ManagementDepartment of Transport and Main RoadsP: (07) 3066 0823 or 0407 114 676E: [email protected]

Today’s presenter


99

AgendaTopic PresenterProject Background and Introduction

Gary Rykers(Technical and Stakeholder Lead)

Why?What?

Project ScopeResearch ReportTerminologyStakeholdersGuideline

How?ImplementationImpactsHypothetical Case Study

Q&A Andrew Golding (Austroads Project Manager)

1010

Project Background and Introduction

1111

Introduction to Team

Austroads Project ManagerAndrew Golding

wsp OpusProject LeaderSusan Chamberlin

wsp OpusTechnical & Stakeholder LeadGary Rykers

Austroads Project Working Group

Stakeholders-Finance and Audit

Industry Representatives

AustroadsAssets Task Force

Austroads Board

Project Team Review Team

1212

The Project Team

Liam Terris&

Patrick CarrRMS NSW

Daniel VerdouwDSG Tas

KellyDang

VicRoads

Soula EfstathiadisDPTI SA

Ian BarrMR WA

Andrew Golding

TMR QLD

Shane TepperDIPL NTAustroads

Project Working Group

Neil PincombeTCCS ACT

Wayne Robinson

NZTA

Kym FosterALGA

Matt Barry NTC

Mick SavageIPWEA

Patrick Flemming

Qld Audit Office

RicDe SantiTas Audit

Office

John Comrie

Independent Auditor

1313

Project Purpose

• To develop prescriptive guidance material that will facilitate improved integration of Asset Management and Financial Management disciplines. The project will deliver prescriptive guidance regarding minimum levels of componentisation for complex assets, applicable to State / Territory Road Agencies and Local Government Authorities.

• The project deliverables will provide a benchmark to stakeholders and users (i.e. road management authorities & auditors) for driving a more consistent approach to preparation of financial statements. In turn, this will enable more efficient collation of national data sets used to enable equitable reform initiatives, such as national funding reform.

1414

Project Purpose



1515

Project Purpose



1616

Project Purpose



1717

Project Purpose



1818

Why?

How?

10 mins

What?

20 mins

Why?

5 mins

1919

Asset Classification Structure

“The classification of asset is one of the most important steps in financial reporting, asset accounting and asset management.

Asset managers rely on an asset hierarchy classification for service planning, management and cost and performance reporting.

Assets should be classified to suit both financial reporting and asset management purposes. The needs of accountants and asset managers should be identified and considered fully in developing the asset classification and hierarchy.”

- Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Manual (IPWEA 2015)

2020


Used to inform asset data structure and associated reporting, as follows:

• For use by asset management and information technology practitioners to inform asset hierarchy and/or reporting requirements.

• For use by asset management and financial management practitioners to inform asset valuation processes.

• For use by financial reporting practitioners to inform how recognised assets are rolled up for financial reporting.

Function

Location

Asset

Item

Relevant accounting standard terminology > Asset Class, Component and Item

2121

What’s the problem? National Perspective

• Road Agencies perform similar functions in the delivery of community services, on asset types that are similar in nature and function.

• National reform initiatives rely on comparable financial data, sourced from road management organisations (State/Territory Authorities, Local Government Authorities, etc)

2222

What’s the problem? National Perspective

• The flexibility within AASB standards has led to many different interpretations; specifically in relation to AAM2102 project scope:

−appropriate levels of asset componentisation

− terminology within AASB standards (i.e. Asset Class, Component and Item)

• From a whole of state / cross jurisdiction perspective, this lack of consistency results in a reduction in confidence when comparing financial data and financial statements.

• This has the potential to inhibit effective national reform.

2323

What’s the problem? Organisation Perspective

A common approach to financial valuation is the use of ‘stereotypes’ which includes:

• Different functional road classifications having different design standards and therefore different modern day equivalents (good practice)

• Unit rates typically incorporating many different Asset Types, with different useful lives (questionable practice, as generally not aligned to renewal work practices)

2424


Stereotype approaches adopted by many organisations typically group high value Asset Types (e.g. Pavements) with lower value Asset Types (e.g. minor culverts, signs, etc.)

• This approach is adequate to meet accounting standard compliance requirements, but

• Does not provide value to asset management functions, due to lack of transparency.

2525


In such circumstances, asset management functions and financial management functions do not align well, resulting in:

• Inefficient organisational costs associated with data management and

• Lack of ability to leverage financial valuation data for use in forward planning processes.

2626

PerspectivesIndividual Agency Asset Management requirements

Accounting Standard requirements

Asset Management

Financial Management

Financial Reporting

Cross Agency Consistent TerminologyIntegrated Asset Management and Financial Management

Single Asset Classification Structure for:• Asset Management• Financial Management• Financial Reporting

Asset Classification Structure – increasing level of inventory data granularity

2727

Project Goals

Principles used in development of Guidelines:1. Must comply to Accounting Standards2. Facilitate better integration of Asset Management and Financial Management3. Facilitate harmonisation 4. Increase the ease of cross-jurisdictional comparability5. Reduce barriers for regulatory reform

Tasked with developing Prescriptive GuidanceTherefore, need to codify how the prescription will apply. Primary focus on:• Terminology• Asset Classification Structure• Item Definition

2828

What?

How?

10 mins

What?

20 mins

Why?

5 mins

2929

Project Deliverables

Guideline Research Report Communication Material

3030

Program Overview – Two year project

Stage 1

• Establish project and team

• Project Inception

Stage 2

• Literature Review

Stage 3

• Current practice Stakeholder Survey

Stage 4

• First Draft Research Report

• Updated First Draft Research Report

Stage 5• First Draft Guideline

• Updated First Draft Guideline

• Conformance Assessment

• Draft Impact Statement + Gap Analysis

• Second Draft Research ReportStage 6• Research Report Final and Guideline FinalStage 7• Project Webinar

• Austroads Board Review & Approval

3131

Project Scope

3232

What does Prescriptive Guideline cover?

Current Replacement Cost Variables

Componentisation

Curves

Useful Lives

Remaining Useful Lives

Gross Replacement Cost unit rates

Residual Value unit rates

INCLUDED in Prescriptive Guidelines

EXCLUDED from Prescriptive Guidelines

Minimum levels of Componentisation to enable improved integration of asset management, financial management and financial reporting

3333

What does Prescriptive Guideline cover?

Asset Classes

Road Infrastructure Assets

Maritime Infrastructure Assets

Land and Buildings

Plant and Equipment

Intangibles

INCLUDED in Prescriptive Guidelines

EXCLUDED from Prescriptive Guidelines

Asset Types within Road Infrastructure Assets is guided by Austroads Data Standard for Road Management and Investment in Australia and NZ

3434

Terminology

3535

Terminology – Literature Review Findings

Accounting Standards

• Asset Class

• Component

• Item

Terminology used across the various documents is significantly different, often with the same terms having different meanings to different jurisdictions.

Key Finding: “in principle” guides do not adequately drive consistent application

Description of surfacing Jurisdiction Doc Ref#“Sub-component” NZTA 076

“Sub-class” Queensland 077

“Component” South Australia LG 021

3636

Alignment of Terminology in GuidelineAssetClass

(Level 1)

AssetSub-Class(Level 2)

AssetType

(Level 3)

AssetSub-Type(Level 4)

AssetComponent

(Level 5)

Level 1 and Level 2 have direct alignment

to ‘Asset Class’as defined within


Levels, 3, 4 and 5have direct alignment

to ‘Component’as defined within


AssetSub-Component

(Level 6)

Level 6provides detailed

componentisation for engineering and asset

management purposes

An individual Item, within an asset group,

may be recognisedat Level 2, 3 or 4

subject to theItem Test

Single Asset Classification Structure for:

• Asset Management

• Financial Management

• Financial Reporting

Confirmed that asset accounting concepts of Asset Class and Component are insufficient to fullydescribe the complex nature of road infrastructure assets.

3737

Alignment of Terminology in GuidelineAssetClass

(Level 1)

AssetSub-Class(Level 2)

AssetType

(Level 3)

AssetSub-Type(Level 4)

AssetComponent

(Level 5)

Level 1 and Level 2 have direct alignment

to ‘Asset Class’as defined within


Levels, 3, 4 and 5have direct alignment

to ‘Component’as defined within


AssetSub-Component

(Level 6)

Level 6provides detailed

componentisation for engineering and asset

management purposes

An individual Item, within an asset group,

may be recognisedat Level 2, 3 or 4

subject to theItem Test

Confirmed that there are different approaches to defining an Item, within the Asset Classification Structure.

Floating Item concept.The level which an asset Itemis recognised, may differ depending on the Item Definition Approach.

3838

Stakeholder Engagement

3939

Stakeholder Groups – Government Split

State/Territory Road Authorities

• NZTA

• TMR QLD

• RMS NSW

• ACT Govt

• VicRoads

• DSG Tas

• DPTI SA

• MRWA

• DoT NT

Federal

• DIRD

• NTC

• CGC

Local Government

• IPWEA

• ALGA

• Individual LGAs via ALGA State based groups

4040

Stakeholder Groups – Functional SplitAssets Owners

• State Road Authorities• Local Governments

Funders

• Treasuries• DIRD• Grants Commission

Advisory Associations

• ALGA• IPWEA• NTC

Finance / Auditing Industry

• Regulatory

• Standards Boards

Government

• Treasuries

• Auditors General

• Valuers General

Advisory Associations

• Auditor Reference Groups

• State-based industry groups

4141

Stakeholder Survey Participants

Financial/Auditor

48%

Technical/Engineering52%

Number of Verified Respondents: 227

4242

Do we need a Guideline?

There was very strong support to the need for prescriptive asset componentisation Guidelines

4343

Research Report

4444

Research Report StructureExecutive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Deliverables Overview

4. Literature Review Summary

5. Stakeholder Survey Summary

6. Discussions and Determinations

7. Alignment Assessments

8. Guideline

9. Impact Assessment and Transition Statement

Report provides details which support the

Guideline

4545

Guideline

4646

Guideline Structure

PART 1 Guideline Overview

PART 2 Guideline Application

Attachment A Item Test Process Workflow

Attachment B Asset Classification Structure

Attachment C Item Test Worksheet

Attachment D Statement of Conformance

Attachment E Hypothetical Case Study

4747

Key Guideline Outputs

Guideline provides a structured approach to determining, for groups of assets:• the recommended ‘Item definition approach’, and• the associated ‘minimum inventory data requirements’

Item definition approach Minimum inventory data requirementsDescribes recommendation for how a group of assets will be recognised as an Item, including relationship to the levels of the Asset Classification Structure.Options are:• Average Weighted Asset• Network Asset• Simple Asset• Complex Asset

Describes the minimum level of asset inventory data that should be available to an organisation and that should be expected by an auditor.Options are:• Desk top assumptions• Sample data• Full asset inventory data• Component level inventory data

4848

Key Guideline Components (pun intended)

Asset Classification Structure(Appendix B)

Gross Replacement Costs

Item Test Process Workflow(Appendix A)Table 1

Item Definition Approach Minimum Inventory Data

INPU

TSM

ETH

OD

SO

UTP

UTS

4949


Refer Appendix B Item recognition level depended on Item Test

ComponentAsset Class

Separate identification of the Asset Sub-Classes, in the notes to financial statements

5050

Gross Replacement Cost EstimatesAsset Class (level 1)

• Road Infrastructure

Asset Sub-Class (level 2)

• Roads

• Roadside

• Drainage

• Mechanical & Electrical

• Structures

• Land Under Roads

Asset Type (level 3)

• As per Austroads Data Standard

• Refer appendix B for details

GRC estimates to be established via reference to existing agency information, such as:

• Previous financial year valuations

• Cost reports for information management systems

• Analysis of current contract schedules

5151

Item TestItem Test can be applied at:

• Level 2: Asset Sub-Class

• Level 3: Asset Type

Item Test is dependent upon:

• % of Gross Replacement Cost (GRC), relative to a group of assets

• As well as three qualifying questions to test:

• Is it practical to apply an average weighted unit rate to the group of assets? (e.g. Roadside)

• Are Items in Asset Type common? (e.g. Signs)

• Is it practical to split items into Components? (Earthworks)

5252

Process Workflow and Table 1

Option GRC% Weighted Average Unit Rate Practical?

Common Items?

Components Practical?

Recommended Item Definition Approach (Including Minimum Inventory Data Required)

Item Test applied at Asset Sub-Class (level 2)

1 <1% Yes N/A N/A Average Weighted Asset1 • Avg. ‘weighted’ GRC Unit Rate, combining

unit rates for individual Asset Types, applied to a group of assets that make up an Item.

• Concept of modern day equivalent applied, to describe the typical assets expected within a segment, typically differentiated by functional road classification2.

• If inventory data is not available for the group of assets, an estimate of assets within a segment, typically by functional road classification2, may be extrapolated from sample data or desk top assumptions.

2 ≥1% to <5% Yes N/A N/A Average Weighted Asset • Avg. ‘weighted’ GRC Unit Rate, combining

unit rates for individual Asset Types, applied to a group of assets that make up an Item.

• Concept of modern day equivalent applied, to describe the typical assets expected within a segment, typically differentiated by functional road classification2.

• If inventory data is not available for the group of assets, an estimate of assets within a segment, typically by functional road classification2, may be extrapolated from sample data.

Refer Appendix A: Item Test Process Workflow

Complimentary methods to put the Item Test into action

Start

Determine Road Infrastructure Class

GRC

Estimate Asset Sub-Class GRC %

Is it practical to apply an average weighted unit rate to the group of

assets? 1

GRC% <1%Average Weighted

Asset

Avg. Weighted GRC Unit Rate based on

desktop assessment

GRC% ≥1-<5% Average Weighted Asset

Avg. Weighted GRC Unit Rate based on

sample data

Items recognised at

Sub-Class(level 2)

Is Sub-Class GRC% ≥ 5%?

Item Test Applied at Asset Type

Level

Asset Type GRC?

GRC% <1% Are Items in Asset Type common? ²

Yes Network Asset

No Simple Asset

Avg. GRC Unit Rate based on desktop

assessment

Individual Recognition based

on desktop assessment

GRC% ≥1-<5% Are Items in Asset Type common? ²

Yes Network Asset

No Simple Asset

Avg. GRC Unit Rate based on sample

data

Individual Recognition based

on sample data

Items recognised at

Type(level 3)

GRC% ≥5-<10% Simple AssetIndividual

Recognition based on full inventory

GRC% ≥ 10% Is it practical to split Items into Components? ³

No

YesComplex

Asset

Items Recognised at Component Level

based on full component level

inventory

Items recognised at Component

(level 5)

Item Test Applied at Asset Sub-Class Level

Estimate Asset Sub-Class GRC

Amounts

Estimate Asset Type GRC Amounts

Estimate Asset Type GRC %

No

Is actual GRC% within same range as previous estimate?

No

Yes Financial ReportFinancial

Statement& Audit

Item Definition Approach

Minimum inventory data requirements

Recognition level within Asset Classification

Structure

Item Test Financial Reporting

Fair Value Calculation

NOTES:

1. The adoption of a Weighted Average Asset valuation approach requires applicat ion of the modern day equivalent concept to describe the typical assets expected, of ten differentiated by functional road classifications. This approach is generally considered practical for low value groups of assets, where road standards provide an adequate level of guidance regarding the asset types specified for construction, typically differentiated for each functional road classificat ion.

2. This question is a prompt to establish if individual Items, within a group of assets, are similar to the point where a common gross replacement cost unit rate can be applied.The term ‘common’ in this quest ion should not be interpreted to mean that a consistent modern day equivalent would be assigned for every individual Item within the group of assets. Rather, Items within a group of assets may still be assessed as common where Item at tribution, such as asset dimensions and materials, will result in a dif ferent unit rate.

3. This question is a prompt to determine if Items within a group of assets can be split into separable asset components (level 5), in accordance with complex asset requirements.

4. The Item Test should be applied, up to the point of fair value calculat ion, at least 12 months in advance of the next scheduled revaluation cycle. This should allow sufficient t ime to address identified data gaps and to consult with internal stakeholders and auditors.

Asset Sub-Class GRC?

Yes

No

Yes

Conduct Valuation

NTC Expenditure Classification

Guidelines

Austroads Data Standard

Complete during the year of the next scheduled revaluation cycle

Table 1: Item Definition Approach and / or

5353

Item Definition Approach

little or minimal value(group Asset Types)

significant value Bene

fit

Valu

e

Average Weighted Asset(e.g. Roadside Asset Types)

Network Asset(e.g. Signs)

Simple Asset(e.g. Culvert)

Complex Asset(e.g. Pavement Base & Sub-base) Co

mpl

exity

Item Definition Approach determined via Item Test (i.e. GRC% and Qualifying Questions)

5454

Minimum Inventory Data

Complexity of inventory data required is determined via Item Test. That is:• GRC% and• Qualifying Questions

Options are:• Desk top assumptions Average Weighted, Network or Simple• Sample data Average Weighted, Network or Simple• Full asset inventory data Simple Assets• Component level inventory data Complex Assets

5555

Item Test Worksheet

Used to record, by asset group:

• GRC% estimates

• Answers to Item Test qualifying questions

• Data Gaps identified

• Recommended Item Definition Approach (Output)

• Minimum Inventory Data Requirement (Output) Notes in Item Test Worksheet align to Guideline Process Steps

See Guideline Attachment C

5656

Key Procedural Requirements

• Attachment B prescribes minimum requirements for level 1 Asset Class, level 2 Asset Sub-Class and level 3 Asset Type.

• Each level of the Asset Classification Structure must have a many to one relationship with the level immediately above it, as per Attachment B.

• For the purposes of applying the Item Test, the Gross Replacement Cost of the Road Infrastructure Asset Class (GRCRoad Infrastructure) is to exclude the value of Land Under Roads.

5757

Key Procedural Requirements

• Implementation of the Guideline includes separate identification of the Asset Sub-Class categories (as a minimum) in the notes to financial statements.

• An entity may make a decision not to value selected Asset Types

• If they consider the collective value to be highly immaterial and they consider desk top assumptions related to asset data to provide negligible value to asset management functions.

• Any such decisions will be subject to normal auditing processes to assess the appropriateness of materiality assessment decisions.

• If an entity decides not to value selected Asset Types, this is to be acknowledged in the notes to the financial statements.

5858

How?

What?

20 mins

How?

10 mins

Why?

5 mins

5959

Project Success

Question: What does success for this project look like?

• Answer: Organisations adopt Guideline as part of next revaluation cycle

• Answer: Organisations adopt Asset Classification Structure for asset management functions

• Answer: Auditors use Guideline to supplement annual audit of financial statements

• Answer: Increased consistency* in financial statements allows greater comparability

* Level 2 categories reported (as a minimum) in the notes to financial statements.

6060

Implementation

Step Step Description Recommended Timing

1Apply the Item Test, up to the point of fair value calculation. This should be a relatively quick and easy process, which will assist with organisation specific implementation planning.

>12 months in advance of the next scheduled revaluation cycle

2 Consult with internal stakeholders and auditor regarding proposed changes to business processes.

3 Address identified data gaps, including associated information management considerations, and complete fair value calculation.

During the year of the next scheduled

revaluation cycle4 Complete financial report and financial statement, including audit.

6161

Implementation

Leave at least a 12 month lead time, in advance of their next scheduled revaluation cycle

Step Step Description Recommended Timing

1Apply the Item Test, up to the point of fair value calculation. This should be a relatively quick and easy process, which will assist with organisation specific implementation planning.

>12 months in advance of the next scheduled revaluation cycle

2 Consult with internal stakeholders and auditor regarding proposed changes to business processes.

3 Address identified data gaps, including associated information management considerations, and complete fair value calculation.

During the year of the next scheduled

revaluation cycle4 Complete financial report and financial statement, including audit.

6262

Implementation – Step 1

Quick process, to apply the Item Test, up to point of determining recommended:

• Item Definition Approach

• Minimum Inventory Data Requirements

GRC estimates to be established via reference to existing agency information, such as:

• Previous financial year valuations

• Cost reports for information management systems

• Analysis of current contract schedules

Item Test 12+ months

6363

Implementation – Base Expectation

• Collaboration required with:− Asset Manager, Finance Manager and IT Manager.− Auditor (of financial statements)

• Data Gaps identified will require time to address

• Guideline is not a substitute for organisation business processes.

• Implementation is likely to require changes to current business processes.

• Level of impact will depend on the asset management and financial management practices currently in place for the organisation.

6464

Potential Impacts

Potential impacts can be grouped into the following categories:

• Depreciation Expense / Asset Portfolio Value

• Financial Reporting & Audit / Compliance Risk

• Revaluation Timing

• Disclosure Requirement

• Asset Management Information Systems

• Cost/Effort Imposition

• Unit Rates / Useful Lives

• Potential to Realise Value to Organisation

See Research Report Section 9 for further details

6565

Relative Impacts

Level of impact will depend on asset management and financial management practices currently in place for the organisation.

6666

Disclosure Requirements – AASB 108

• ‘Change in policy’ or ‘Change in estimate’

• Auditor assessment based on merit (i.e. organisation specific determination)

• Anticipate likely outcome to be ‘change in estimate’, for the following reasons:

− Will continue to assess fair value, via current replacement cost methodology

− Change in componentisation unlikely to significantly impact the valuation approach

− Therefore, unlikely to materially impact the organisation’s financial statements.

6767

Hypothetical Case Study

Collaborative effort to apply the Item Test (Step 1)

• Joe – Finance

• Jane – Engineering

• Jack – Capital Works

• Jerry – Planning

Outputs:

• Item Test Worksheet (Attachment C)

• Data Gaps

See Guideline Attachment E

6868


Business decisions are required regarding Item definition approach adopted. Examples as follows:

Asset Management need results in alternative to recommended Guideline minimum:

• For Road Barriers and Pathways, an asset management need has previously been identified which triggered collection of a full inventory data set.

• As such, it was decided to treat these two Asset Types as Simple Assets, as opposed to the minimum Guideline recommendation of Network Assets.


6969

Hypothetical Case StudyAverage Weighted Asset approach may be adopted for multiple Asset Types in an Asset Sub-Class:

• The total estimated GRC% of the Roadside Asset Sub-Class is 5.9%.

• The remaining Asset Types within the Roadside Asset Sub-Class were all relatively low value, totalling 3.2% when Road Barriers and Pathways are excluded.

• Some of the remaining Asset Types were considered common and some were not.

• Some of the Asset Types has data sets and some did not.

• Notwithstanding these complexities, a balanced decision was made to treat the Roadside Asset Sub-Class (excluding Road Barriers and Pathways) as an Average Weighted Asset, based on 10% sample data collected across differing functional road classes.


7070


Some Asset Types may be broken into Asset Sub-Types:

• Abdul has a structured hierarchy for ITS Assets, with suitable Asset Sub-Types.

• Some ITS Assets Sub-Types already have a full inventory data set.

• He has been requesting funds to complete a data collection program for remaining Sub-Types, due to technological obsolescence and the need for asset upgrade programs.

• Kick off a 20% sample data collection program for remaining ITS Assets Sub Types, to support this already identified asset management need.


7171


Complex assets need to identify which Components will be adopted:

• Bridges are a Complex Asset.

• Components for valuation purposes will be Superstructure and Substructure, because renewal program often replaces superstructure and maintains existing substructure (i.e. different useful lives).

• Decision was made not to separately componentise Substructure and Footings, as per Guideline example, because they have a similar useful life. Rather, footings will be incorporated into the Substructure component.


7272


A Network Asset approach may be adopted, in consideration of functional road classifications.

• Treat ‘Open Drains’ and Kerb & Channel’ as a single Asset Type called ‘Roadside Drainage’.

• Recognise as Network Asset, with a Modern Day Equivalent for each functional road class.

• Kerb & Channel data recently collected to be supplemented by desk top for Open Drains.


7373


Top Management supportBarry – Chief Financial Officer

Bob – Executive Director Engineering

12 month implementation plan• Update of capitalisation and financial valuation business processes• Mapping of asset management register to finance fixed asset register• Data collection program (desk top and field based)

Staged approach• 2019/20 – Roads, Roadside and Drainage Asset Sub-Classes• 2020/21 – Mechanical & Electrical, Structures and Land Under Roads

More consultationAuditor

Works Managers


7474

Benefits – Individual organisations• Improved data integration

• Increased reporting efficiencies

• Greater transparency and evidence for financial valuation reporting

• Improved availability of financial information to inform forward planning processes

• Greater confidence in financial information to inform performance metrics

• Improved data analytics to inform optimised decision making by top management.

7575

Benefits – Wider road sector

• Consistent reporting

• Cross organisation knowledge-sharing

• More equitable reform initiatives.

7676

Andrew GoldingDirector Transport System Asset ManagementDepartment of Transport and Main Roads

P: (07) 3066 0823 or 0407 114 676E: [email protected]

Questions?


7777

Upcoming Austroads webinars

Topic DateGuide to Project Delivery Part 5: Road Construction Quality Assurance 20 September

Operations of Automated Heavy Vehicles in Remote and Regional Areas 25 September

Register at https://austroads.com.au/webinars-and-events

https://austroads.com.au/webinars-and-events

7979

Register at http://www.austroads.com.au/event

www.wrcsydney2023.com.au

http://www.austroads.com.au/event

http://www.wrcsydney2023.com.au/

80

Thank you for participating

austroads webinar-minimum levels of componentisation for ...€¦ · 2 today’s moderator eliz...

Documents