What 230 Buildings Taught Me About Asset Governance
Most organisations don’t have an asset problem. They have a governance problem they haven’t identified yet.
There’s a difference between managing assets and understanding asset governance.
Most organisations think they’re doing the former. Very few are doing the latter well.
Over the course of my career—most recently overseeing 230 buildings and a fleet of 130 vehicles in a shared services model I’ve learned that asset governance is not a system, not a register, and not a report.
It’s a discipline.
And if you get it wrong early, you spend years paying for it later.
1. Asset Audits: Decide What Actually Matters (Early)
One of the first and most critical governance decisions is deceptively simple:
What are we actually auditing?
Capital assets only?
Or everything ncluding FFE (Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment)?
I’ve seen organisations try to “capture everything” without understanding the operational burden that comes with it. The result is predictable:
bloated asset registers
poor data quality
systems nobody trusts
On the other hand, I’ve also seen the opposite where FFE is ignored entirely, and suddenly millions of dollars of distributed assets have:
no ownership
no lifecycle tracking
no accountability
The key lesson:
Scope is a governance decision, not a data exercise.
And just as important:
Every asset must have an owner.
Not a department.
Not a cost centre.
A person accountable for its performance, cost, and risk.
Without this, your asset register is just a spreadsheet with no consequences.
2. Lifecycle Planning: Strategy vs Reality
I’ve delivered full lifecycle models, 10-year capital plans, and end-of-life forecasting across multiple portfolios.
On paper, most organisations say they want this.
In practice, very few are actually committed to it.
Because lifecycle planning exposes uncomfortable truths:
assets that should already be replaced
underfunded maintenance
deferred capital that is quietly building risk
And here’s where governance either holds… or collapses.
If your executive team is only focused on:
2–5 year financial optics
short-term EBITDA improvements
bonus-driven outcomes
then your lifecycle plan becomes a document that gets acknowledged… and ignored.
ISO 55000 is very clear on this:
Asset management must align with organisational objectives and deliver long-term value.
That means:
You cannot claim asset maturity if your decisions are short-term.
The real question is not:
“Do we have a lifecycle plan?”
It’s:
“Are we willing to follow it when it impacts the bottom line?”
3. Infrastructure Risk: What Are You Actually Managing?
When people talk about asset risk, they often default to condition.
But condition is only one piece.
From my experience, infrastructure risk sits across three real dimensions:
1. People Risk
Do you have the capability to maintain the asset?
Are your contractors competent?
Is knowledge locked in individuals?
2. Financial Risk
Are you underfunding lifecycle replacement?
Are you deferring maintenance to protect short-term budgets?
Are you accurately forecasting cost-to-serve?
3. Safety Risk
Are assets compliant today not just on paper?
Are inspections meaningful or just procedural?
Do you truly understand critical failure points?
Most organisations over-index on compliance reporting and under-index on real risk visibility.
The result:
They feel safe right up until they’re not.
4. Portfolio Oversight: Do You Actually Know What You Own?
This sounds basic.
It isn’t.
Across large portfolios, I’ve consistently found:
duplicate assets
missing assets
inconsistent classifications
no clear linkage between assets and financial systems
Before you can optimise a portfolio, you need to answer a simple question:
“What do we actually have?”
When I completed full asset audits across national portfolios, the biggest value wasn’t the data itself.
It was the clarity.
Clarity that enabled:
accurate capital forecasting
standardised maintenance models
better procurement decisions
informed acquisition strategies
In one case, this clarity supported a strategic shift from a leased to an owned model—unlocking long-term cost efficiency and balance sheet strength.
Because governance is not just about control.
It’s about enabling better decisions.
5. Governance Is a Leadership Issue, Not a Systems Issue
You can implement:
CMMS platforms
asset registers
lifecycle models
dashboards
…and still fail at asset governance.
Because governance is ultimately driven by:
leadership discipline
organisational alignment
willingness to make long-term decisions
I’ve seen high-performing asset environments with simple systems.
And I’ve seen failing environments with world-class technology.
The difference is always the same:
Leadership intent.
Final Thought: Asset Governance Is a Board-Level Responsibility
After managing assets across hundreds and in some cases thousands of sites, one thing is clear:
Asset governance should not sit buried in operations.
It belongs at the board and executive level.
Because the consequences of getting it wrong are not operational.
They are:
financial
reputational
safety-related
And often, they’re irreversible.
The Question Every Organisation Should Ask
Before investing in another system, another audit, or another consultant, ask:
Do we actually have the discipline to govern our assets properly?
Because if the answer is no—
no framework, not even ISO 55000, will save you.
