Proceedings of the 2011 Industrial Engineering Research Conference

T. Doolen and E. Van Aken, eds.

Asset Management: A Systems Perspective

Vhance V. Valencia, John M. Colombi, Alfred E. Thal, Jr., and William E. Sitzabee
Air Force Institute of Technology
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433

Abstract
From a facilities and infrastructure perspective, asset management is often viewed as a framework to facilitate more
informed decision-making by combining engineering and business principles. The Federal Highway Administration
defines it as a performance-based framework to efficiently manage built facilities from a life-cycle perspective. As
such, it represents a systematic process for maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets in a cost-effective
manner with a focus on potential interactions within the universal system and its components. Viewed in this
manner, it would seem that systems engineering principles would have broad applicability to the field of asset
management. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of systems engineering and
infrastructure management best practices. Specifically, we explore synergies between the two fields and
hypothesize that the ISO 15288 processes can be applied to the engineering management of the infrastructure. After
defining infrastructure and asset management, we show how systems engineering tools, techniques, and
methodologies can be used within the context of broad infrastructure sectors and critically analyze the connections
between infrastructure management and systems engineering. In general, we show that systems engineering
principles have broad applicability to asset management but are not widely used.

Keywords
Infrastructure, asset management, infrastructure asset management, systems engineering

1. Introduction
In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers released its first “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” in
which it awarded an overall grade of “D” for the national infrastructure. Since then, it has issued subsequent report
cards in an attempt to highlight the impending failure of the nation’s infrastructure and elevate infrastructure needs
on the U.S. national agenda [1]. However, infrastructure systems are complex, vast, and thus difficult to manage.
Therefore, applying a systems approach to the management of civil infrastructure is gaining acceptance within the
infrastructure asset management field [1-3], but application of systems methods, processes, and techniques is limited
and varies according to infrastructure sector. With this paper, our goal is to provide a comparative analysis of
systems engineering (SE) and asset management (AM) best practices from the past 10 years. Specifically, we aim to
show that the International Standards Organization (ISO) 15288 processes, as described in the 2010 INCOSE
Systems Engineering Handbook (v 3.2) [4], can be applied to the engineering management of infrastructure.

2. Infrastructure Asset Management

There are many ways to define infrastructure asset management. For example, the U.S. Department of
Transportation defines asset management as a systematic process for maintaining and operating physical assets cost-
effectively through a combination of engineering principles and sound business practices [5]. Similarly, the
Transportation Asset Management Guide [6] considers the core elements of asset management to center on the
process of resource allocation to effectively manage assets. The elements of this process consider the following
tenets: an approach that is policy driven, options and trade-offs analyses, effective service and project delivery,
decision-making based on quality information, and continuous monitoring of the information base for feedback into
updates and improvements. Hoskins, Brint, and Strbac [7] describe asset management as activities for the upkeep of
a given infrastructure system such as inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement of parts of the system
network all at minimum cost. Finally, Grigg [8] synthesizes an asset management definition as “an information-
based process used for life-cycle facility management across organizations.” He goes on to write that important
features of the definition include an “assets” view of the infrastructure system and its component, life-cycle
management, enterprise-wide use of asset management, and the use of information-based processes and tools.
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

The common themes among the varying definitions lead us to offer our own definition: “Asset management is the
holistic assessment of a given infrastructure system using a life-cycle approach based on quality data for the purpose
of optimally managing physical assets at least cost to stakeholders.” This definition recognizes several themes.
First, there is a growing acknowledgement within the infrastructure industry that a holistic, life-cycle view, or
systems view, can provide the tools and techniques needed to address infrastructure issues. Second, it recognizes
the purpose of asset management can only be realized with quality data about the infrastructure system. Finally, the
definition identifies that asset managers have a duty to minimize cost to stakeholders. These costs are not only fiscal
constraints on operating budgets, but should be inclusive of the entire life-cycle cost of the system and intangible
costs such as environmental health, loss of public trust, and other social costs.

3. Systems Engineering
Similar to asset management, many authors have provided varying definition of systems engineering [9]. However,
the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) has published a handbook that offers a description
from the synthesis of three definitions [4]:

Systems engineering is a discipline that concentrates on the design and application of the whole (system) as
distinct from the parts. It involves looking at a problem in its entirety, taking into account all the facets and all
the variables and relating the social to the technical aspect [10].

Systems engineering is an iterative process of top‐down synthesis, development, and operation of a real‐world
system that satisfies, in a near optimal manner, the full range of requirements for the system [11].

Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems.
It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the development cycle, documenting
requirements, and then proceeding with design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete
problem: operations, cost and schedule, performance, training and support, test, manufacturing, and disposal.
SE considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal of providing a quality
product that meets the user needs [12].

When considering common themes of systems engineering from the handbook and other works, it is clear that asset
management and systems engineering share many of the same core concepts. For example, a life cycle approach
taking a holistic view is central to both SE and AM. Recognition that stakeholders determine value of the outputs of
the system is another shared theme between the two fields. Optimal design, operation, and management of a system
through informed decision-making are also goals shared by both fields.

4. The Need for a Systems Perspective

Many researchers and practitioners contend that traditional infrastructure management approaches are no longer
effective. Godau [2, 13] makes this claim due to complexities from technology and other external factors such as
economics, politics, and the environment. Robinson, Woodard, and Varnado [14] echo the need for change as
infrastructure systems are now more interconnected than ever. The American Society of Civil Engineers, through
in-depth roundtable discussions, found that a common thought among discussion participants was the need to take a
systems approach towards the nation’s infrastructure [1]. The underlying premise held by these researchers and
practitioners is that a systems orientation will help solve problems encountered in the management of infrastructure.

Indeed, some within the SE field feel that the profession can serve as a framework for engaging in this problem.
Cook and Ferris [15] write that SE, as a multi-methodology, is an appropriate way to solve traditionally non-SE
problems provided that the solution will be technical in nature. INCOSE itself has developed an Infrastructure
Systems Working Group (ISEWG) whose membership concerns itself with the application of the discipline of SE to
physical infrastructure. The ISEWG published a special infrastructure issue with its editor stating [16]:

“individual infrastructures, as well as the collective infrastructure, obey all the rules of systems. They are
all collections of assets, the subsystems, which individually and collectively perform functions ... they can
be considered a system of systems (SoS) since they interact with each other.”
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

The special issue goes on to highlight the SE applications to infrastructure such as rails [17], highways [18], water
[19], and energy [20]. All contributing authors to this issue conclude that SE undoubtedly has applications to
infrastructure asset management.

The application of SE provides benefits to the field of asset management. One such benefit is the understanding of
system interfaces as the definition and management of these interfaces is central to SE – it is the interactions of the
parts that produce the results desired out of the system [21]. At the design stage, a systems approach will generate a
greater understanding of not just the desired end-product, but also the problem at hand potentially leading to a
superior system. Finally, during operations and maintenance, infrastructure managers taking a systems view and
holistic decision-making approach might see reduced failures, reduced system risk, optimized functionality, and
optimized maintenance cost – which are benefits addressed in the papers reviewed for this study.

5. Comparative Analysis of SE Processes and Asset Management Practices

As previously stated, not all SE tools, techniques, and procedures are directly applicable to the field of asset
management. In fact, Godau [13] suggests that SE should be tailored to match infrastructure specific problems.
With this in mind, of the 25 systems engineering processes and life-cycle stages specified by ISO 15288:2008, we
highlight six of these processes and demonstrate their applicability to the needs of infrastructure managers. The
remainder of the paper relates these six SE processes to asset management practices and research found in the
literature. As a starting point, the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) [22] is referenced
against the process descriptions outlined in the INCOSE Handbook (v3.2) [4]. Practices and applications in the
literature are used to illustrate the SE process concepts in use. Figure 1 illustrates the direct comparisons of the SE
processes to be investigated to broad processes of asset management.

Systems Engineering Infrastructure Asset Management

Stakeholder Requirements Definition Process Levels of Service
Decision Management Process Optimized Decision Making
Risk Management Process Risk Assessment and Management
Information Management Process Information Systems and Data Management
Measurement Process Measure Levels of Service
Life CycleManagement Process Life Cycle Asset Management

Figure 1. Comparison of six SE processes to six AM processes.

5.1 Stakeholder Requirements Definition Process

The first steps in establishing asset management processes are similar to the first steps in systems engineering. In
SE, the initial phase of any given product is to determine stakeholder requirements which in turn drive system
development. For asset managers, given that infrastructure systems are already in place, and once asset inventories
have been established, their objective in defining stakeholder requirements centers on establishing levels of service
[22]. This process involves segmenting the customer base into identifiable groups and then understanding what
these customers value. This is necessary because, just as in SE, the differing values, agendas, needs, and interests of
the various stakeholders are used to judge the efficacy of the organization. For SE, organizational efficacy is
measured against the final product delivered; for AM, this is judged by the level of service provided.

The question of how to determine the appropriate level of service is a topic addressed by a number of researchers.
Rogers and Louis [23] and Ramesh and Narayanasamy [24] explore this question with regards to water service. The
former studied community water systems in the U.S. and the latter rural water delivery in India. Both found that
system inefficiencies resulted from decision-makers failing to properly account for stakeholder requirements.
Specifically, Rogers and Louis [22] contend that typical decision approaches lead to short-term positive impacts for
the immediate community (i.e., increased economic activity through capital improvements) but potentially result in
negative long-term impacts (i.e., system deterioration because of deferred maintenance). Ramesh and Naraynasamy
[23] find that in failing to recognize the lack of technical capability for municipalities in operating and maintaining
water infrastructure, the Indian government has provided excessive infrastructure which has resulted in excessive
water waste across the country. Rogers and Louis [22] offer that a systems analyses approach could help in bringing
appropriate levels of service from community water systems.
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

Work in the transportation sector concerning levels of service also begins with assessing stakeholder requirements.
Yin, Lawphongpanich, and Lou [25] provide an approach that estimates the necessary investment for maintenance
and repair of highway networks to maintain or increase levels of service. Their mathematical model accounts for
user preferences when deciding routes and factors in unknowns such as travel demand and asset deterioration. They
report that their model presents solutions that provide equivalent levels of service as compared to conservative
investment plans but at a much lower investment cost. Similarly, Yang, Bell, and Meng [26] present a model that
determines appropriate road capacity and levels of service by also accounting for route choice behavior of travelers.

5.2 Decision Management Process

Another key process for AM and SE practitioners is the decision management process. The definitions in the two
fields are similar in that the process involves selecting the optimal decision among a number of alternatives. Other
similarities in this process include utilization of classical decision-making approaches, namely risk-based and multi-
criteria decision-making, and the use and development of decision-making models.

Both fields recognize that there are two broad types of decision-making approaches: risk-based decision-making
and multi-criteria decision-making [9, 22]. The risk-based approach quantifies the alternatives and, combined with
the likelihood of an outcome, leads to the basis of a decision. Even though the IIMM emphasizes cost as the
primary means for quantifying alternatives, other asset management studies use different methods for quantification.
For example, Seyedshohadaie, Damnjanovic, and Butenko [27] use the idea of risk as a basis for maintenance
approaches on transportation infrastructure. Asset management has wide-ranging stakeholders with varied agendas
and so intangible impacts are significant to asset managers. The multi-criteria decision method seems to be able to
address intangible impacts and there are a number of works that present multi-criteria decision methods in
transportation [28, 29], facility management [30], waste management [31, 32], and energy [33].

Given these decision-making approaches, decision-making models are a necessary component to the process.
Blanchard and Fabrycky [9] suggest that decision-making models and simulations are useful tools in the process as
they enable the study of the system at far less cost and with far less time compared to direct observation of the
system. The use of decision models are widely used in asset management. Fenner [34] reviews decision
methodologies in the water/wastewater sector and finds that current models lead to maintenance activities only on
the highest risk or most critical sewers. He suggests a change in established decision methods is needed so that
maintenance activities are carried out that affect the wider catchment system. He also reviews promising
developments in his field such as non-critical sewer assessment, sewer survival models, usage of performance
indicators, risk analysis through sediment build-up, and rehabilitation cost analysis, but finds that a lack of data
prevents meaningful analysis of options by municipalities. Similar to Fenner, Hoskins et al. [7] suggests that
changes to electricity industry decision models are necessary and presents a decision approach that recognizes the
constraints of limited budgets. Claiming to be generalizable to other infrastructures, their six-step approach is
contingent on the ability of managers to quantify and model the condition of a component, relate the component to
the overall system, and then model the component’s deterioration over time. This approach promises to lead asset
managers to more informed decisions; however, much like Fenner, Hoskins et al. [7] finds that the availability of
data limits the quality of decisions.

5.3 Risk Management Process

There is considerable overlap in how asset management and systems engineering treat risk management. Both the
SE Handbook and IIMM provide similar outlines for the risk management process with key steps including setting
the risk context, identifying the candidate risk, analyzing each risk, developing risk treatment strategies, and
continuous monitoring and review of the risk management process [4, 22]. Additionally, both sources define risk in
the same manner and that risk is composed of the likelihood an event will happen and the consequence of that event
happening. Finally, both advocate the use of risk rating tables to visually depict the magnitude of a given risk.

Although the considerable overlap suggests that risk management is a well-developed concept in SE and AM,
several studies offer insights that may allow even greater incorporation of risk management into the asset
management process. For example, Piyatrapooni, Kumar, and Setunge [35] suggests the use of risk maps that
synthesize individual risks onto a single graph and categorize each risk event into one of three “tolerability regions.”
Risk mapping could then be incorporated into the decision-making process to lead to more confident decisions by
asset managers. Austin and Samadzaeh [36] propose a novel metric for systems engineers to measure the
effectiveness of a risk management system. They found that a large body of literature exists which evaluate
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

different risk management systems, but found that the literature did not offer a “risk management effectiveness”
metric. They propose a measure of effectiveness metric with the aim to contribute to the improvement of the overall
SE risk management system. This metric is fully applicable to asset management systems. Specific applications of
risk management principles in differing sectors of infrastructure include applications in facility management [37],
water infrastructure [23, 38], transportation [27, 39], and energy [40, 41].

5.4 Information Management

The SE information management process is the overall process that ensures relevant information is collected,
available in a timely manner, valid and complete, and accessible through an archive database of information [9].
Asset managers recognize the need for information management systems [5, 42-44]. The IIMM provides
characteristics of good asset management systems which include proper information architecture, ease of upgrades
and expansion, ability to integrate data across platforms, adequacy of information technology support, and sufficient
resources provided by the organization to support the information management system [22].

Examples of information systems used by asset managers are geographic information systems (GIS) which relate
geospatial data to specific components of an infrastructure system, maintenance management systems (MMS) which
store and manage information regarding an organization’s maintenance activities, and pavement management
systems (PMS) and bridge management systems (BMS) which are used extensively in the management of U.S.
roads and bridges. These and other tools like them enable the collection and analysis of asset data and are central to
effective asset management processes [5]. In addition to data collection and analysis, other key components of these
systems include feedback and update mechanisms, analytical models, and built-in processes which identify and
recommend capital improvement, maintenance, and repair investment strategies. The use of information
management systems has been proven to increase management effectiveness [5, 45]; however, the increasingly
complex, interdependent nature, and data availability on today’s infrastructure systems present a data management
problem in the form of data integration for asset managers.

Much like SE, information system data integration is of importance to asset managers because poor integration
results in organizational inefficiencies and suboptimal decision-making [42, 43]. Problems of current information
processes include: (1) data storage within “silos” resulting in duplication and inconsistencies, (2) data errors
resulting from translation and re-entry into different systems, (3) data source fragmentation which creates difficulties
in generating comprehensive views, and (4) an overall, highly inefficient information management system [42, 43].
Data integration is not a new field of study in AM as the past two decades include works addressing this problem
[42, 46]. However, these works report that asset managers are behind other fields in addressing this problem due to
organizational fragmentation across industry and government. Organizational fragmentation leads to data
fragmentation and presents a serious challenge in data integration. Given information’s central role in asset
management, it is imperative that data integration be taken into account when developing AM information systems.

5.5 Measurement Process

Tied to the information management process is the measurement process. The measurement process as defined by
INCOSE is the collection, analysis, and reporting of data on product performance and organizational processes
which support management decision-making and contribute towards performance improvement of the system [4].
Similarly, asset managers collect performance measures for the comparison of system performance to levels of
service. The IIMM categorizes these measures into two types: asset condition states and system performance [22].
Two particular concerns are the ability for asset managers to provide accurate measures of condition states and the
ability to determine future performance of infrastructure systems.

Asset condition states and system performance do not necessarily have direct relationships with each other [22]. A
degraded asset may or may not lead to degraded system performance and degraded system performance is not
necessarily indicative of degraded assets. For example, water pipes with severe corrosion could still function
properly in transporting water. Alternatively, a poorly functioning electrical grid does not necessarily point to
inefficiencies from degraded substations, electrical lines, transformers, or other assets. Such cases could be caused
from operator error or severe weather. However, a failed condition state of an asset would undoubtedly lead to
performance failure. So although the metric of interest is system performance, asset condition states must also be
measured to prevent system performance failure. Of interest in the literature is the use of remote sensors for
structural health monitoring of civil structures such as bridges and buildings [47-49]. These researchers explore
recent developments in the design and use of sensor technology given its low cost and accessibility as compared to
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

currently practiced and labor-intensive visual inspections. In general, they find that the technology has proven
valuable in detecting substantial damage caused by a single, disruptive event, but further work is needed to develop
sensing methods for early stages of damage caused by gradual deterioration.

Condition states by themselves are only useful to asset managers in providing the current condition at a given point
in time. More useful to asset management is the ability to predict component performance, which would lead to
system performance forecasts. Therefore this component modeling is of particular interest, specifically
mathematical models which provide a means of predictive assessment for the asset of interest [44, 50, 51]. Because
of the great variety of asset types, techniques for condition asset measurement vary greatly. For example, Sitzabee,
Rasdorf, Hummer, and Devine [44] document the process of gathering data for low-value/high-volume assets (road
markings) through visual inspection and random sampling. Abu-Elanien & Salama [50] on the other hand, gather
data for transformers (high-value/low volume assets) and do so through inspection of each individual asset and with
techniques beyond visual inspection. Mathematical deterioration models are applied using condition assessments
and other factors and the results of such models are considered by asset managers as they construct their respective
maintenance plans or make key decisions in maintenance and repair activity.

5.6 Life-Cycle Model Management

Finally, the issue of life-cycle model management for asset managers is addressed. As defined in the INCOSE
Handbook, life-cycle model management is an organizational process that creates life-cycle models as a basis for
common reference to a project’s life-cycle [4]. Additionally, feedback mechanisms from this process are generated
for systems engineers to determine if the organization is following its own management process and adjustments are
made accordingly. The IIMM considers life-cycle models similarly but focuses more on the operations and
maintenances phases of the system life cycle [22].

As such, two views, a global systems view or component level view, can be taken of asset life-cycle. First, a global
system view can be taken of the entire system usually to understand overall system life-cycle costs (LCC) or life-
cycle value (LCV). A review of published case studies shows successful implementation of LCC in the facility
construction, energy, and transportation sectors [52]. Kim et al. [53] demonstrates its applicability by developing an
LCC estimate for light rail transit. The objective for conducting these analyses is to achieve the lowest long-term
costs in system operation and maintenance rather than choosing alternatives that result in short-term savings [22].
Unfortunately, policy makers typically gravitate towards the latter approach which results in increased future risk
due to deferred maintenance and repairs. Slightly different from LCC is the idea of measuring and quantifying value
in LCV which places emphasis on stakeholder requirements, both present and future. Some argue that analyses of
LCV lead to better designed systems since perceived value changes with stakeholders over time [54]. Developing a
system that can endure these changes will lead to a more valuable system and they illustrate their case with the
development of the U.S. cellular infrastructure.

An alternative view of life-cycle can be taken at the component level of a system for the purpose of analyzing
component performance. Abu-Elanien and Salama [50] apply asset management modeling techniques on electrical
transformers in order to determine performance degradation over time. Their approach is mimicked for other
electrical distribution assets as demonstrated by Hoskins et al. [7] for oil-filled circuit breakers. The implications
from these component models are applicable to the greater energy distribution system since these are critical
components to the larger systems. Component life-cycle analyses such as these are necessary inputs used in various
asset management decision processes and contribute data to system life-cycle costs, as already discussed.

Finally, the SE Handbook specifies that life-cycle model management should include a feedback mechanism for
regular review of its processes. Asset management holds this component of life-cycle management in much the
same way. Without doing so, asset management organizations risk misalignment of its management processes with
strategic objectives, legal and regulatory requirements, and customer expectations [5, 22]

6. Conclusion
This paper has provided a comparative analysis of systems engineering and asset management practices found in the
literature from the past 10 years. Researchers in the field of systems engineering and asset management assert that
SE processes can be applied to asset management and this paper explores that claim. Six processes described in the
SE INCOSE Handbook are elaborated. Specifically, the processes of stakeholder requirements definition, decision
management, risk management, information management, measurement, and life-cycle model management are
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

viewed as having direct applicability to the AM field and examples of their application are illustrated by various
works in the asset management and systems engineering literature. In fact, the need for a systems approach to
infrastructure asset management has been highlighted by practitioners in the field. Systems engineering researchers
have found that SE practices are applicable to areas outside their expertise and the increasingly complex and
interconnected nature of infrastructure systems make it suitable for application of the SE discipline. However,
application of systems methods, processes, and techniques is found to be limited and the techniques vary according
to infrastructure sector. Nevertheless, continued crossover of SE processes and techniques into the field of asset
management hold promise for greater effectiveness in the management of infrastructure systems.

References
1. Powell, A. E., 2010, "The Infrastructure Roundtables: Seeking Solutions to an American Crisis," Civil
Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA.
2. Godau, R. I., 1999, "The Changing Face of Infrastructure Management," Systems Engineering, 2(4), 226-
236.
3. Hudson, W. R., Haas, R. and Uddin, W., 1997, Infrastructure Management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
4. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, 2010, INCOSE,
San Diego.
5. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999, Asset Management Primer, Office of Asset Management, US
DOT, Washington, D.C.
6. Cambridge Systems, I., 2002, Transportation Asset Management Guide, American Association of State and
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
7. Hoskins, R. P., Brint, A. T. and Strbac, G., 1999, "A Structured Approach to Asset Management within the
Electricity Industry," Utilities Policy, 7(4), 221-232.
8. Grigg, N. S., 2003, Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Infrastructure Management, Lewis, Boca Raton.
9. Blanchard, B. S. and Fabrycky, W. J., 2011, Systems Engineering and Analysis, Fifth Edition, Prentice
Hall, New York.
10. Federal Aviation Administration, 2006, National Airspace System: Systems Engineering Manual, Air
Traffic Organization, Operations Planning.
11. Eisner, H., Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, Second Ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York.
12. INCOSE, 2004, "What is Systems Engineering?" http://www.incose.org/practice/whatissystemseng.aspx
(14 June 2004).
13. Godau, R. I., 2004, "Infrastructure Systems Engineering," INCOSE Insight, 7(1), 7-11.
14. Robinson, C. P., Woodard, J. B. and Varnado, S. G., 1998, "Critical Infrastructure: Interlinked and
Vulnerable," Issues in Science & Technology, 15(1), 61.
15. Cook, S. S. C., 2007, "Re-Evaluating Systems Engineering as a Framework for Tackling Systems Issues,"
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(2), 169-181.
16. Jackson, S., 2004, "From the Editor: Infrastructure Systems Engineering," INCOSE Insight, 7(1), 3.
17. Williams, D., McManus, M., Patel, D. and Williams, J., 2004, "Trends in Underground Railway
Infrastructure Development," INCOSE Insight, 7(1), 9-11.
18. Krueger, M. E., 2004, "Highway Infrastructure," INCOSE Insight, 7(1), 18-22.
19. Doukas, L., 2004, "Can Systems Engineering Provide the Solutions for Water Infrastructure Projects?"
INCOSE Insight, 7(1), 23-27.
20. Bauknight, G. C., 2004, "International Energy Infrastructure," INCOSE Insight, 7(1), 28-30.
21. Maier, M. W. and Rechtin, E., 2002, The Art of Systems Architecting, 2nd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
22. Maunsell Project Management Team, 2006, International Infrastructure Management Manual, NAMS
Group Ltd, New Zealand.
23. Rogers, J. W. and Louis, G. E., 2008, "Risk and Opportunity in Upgrading the US Drinking Water
Infrastructure System," Journal of Environmental Management, 87(1), 26-36.
24. Ramesh, R. and Narayanasamy, N., 2008, "When Facilities Become Excessive: An Empirical Study in
Tamil Nadu," International Journal of Rural Management, 4(1 & 2), 181-199.
25. Yin, Y., Lawphongpanich, S. and Lou, Y., 2008, "Estimating Investment Requirement for Maintaining and
Improving Highway Systems," Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 16(2), 199-211.
26. Yang, H., Bell, M. G. H. and Meng, Q., 2000, "Modeling the Capacity and Level of Service of Urban
Transportation Networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 34(4), 255-275.
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

27. Seyedshohadaie, S. R., Damnjanovic, I. and Butenko, S., 2010, "Risk-Based Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Decisions for Transportation Infrastructure Networks," Transportation Research Part A,
44(4), 236-248.
28. Rybarczyk, G. and Wu, C., 2010, "Bicycle Facility Planning using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis," Applied Geography, 30(2), 282-293.
29. Iniestra, J. G. and Gutiérrez, J. G., 2009, "Multicriteria Decisions on Interdependent Infrastructure
Transportation Projects using an Evolutionary-Based Framework," Applied Soft Computing, 9(2), 512-526.
30. Montmain, J., Sanchez, C. and Vinches, M., 2009, "Multi Criteria Analyses for Managing Motorway
Company Facilities: The Decision Support System SINERGIE," Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(3),
265-287.
31. Vego, G., Kučar-Dragičević, S. and Koprivanac, N., 2008, "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
on Strategic Municipal Solid Waste Management in Dalmatia, Croatia," Waste Management, 28(11), 2192-
2201.
32. Hokkanen, J. and Salminen, P., 1997, "Choosing a Solid Waste Management System using Multicriteria
Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, 98(1), 19-36.
33. Mills, D., Vlacic, L. and Lowe, I., 1996, "Improving Electricity Planning — use of a Multicriteria Decision
Making Model," International Transactions in Operational Research, 3(3-4), 293-304.
34. Fenner, R. A., 2000, "Approaches to Sewer Maintenance: A Review," Urban Water, 2(4), 343-356.
35. Piyatrapoomi, N., Kumar, A. and Setunge, S., 2004, "Framework for Investment Decision-Making Under
Risk and Uncertainty for Infrastructure Asset Management," Research in Transportation Economics, 8199-
214.
36. Austin, Milton A., III, and Samadzadeh, M. H., 2008, "An Objective Method to Measure the Effectiveness
of a Risk Management System," 508-511.
37. Taillandier, F., Sauce, G. and Bonetto, R., 2009, "Risk-Based Investment Trade-Off Related to Building
Facility Management," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(4), 785-795.
38. Pollard, S. J. T., Strutt, J. E., Macgillivray, B. H., Hamilton, P. D. and Hrudey, S. E., 2004, "Risk Analysis
and Management in the Water Utility Sector: A Review of Drivers, Tools and Techniques," Process Safety
and Environmental Protection, 82(6), 453-462.
39. Mansouri, M., Nilchiani, R. and Mostashari, A., 2010, "A Policy Making Framework for Resilient Port
Infrastructure Systems," Marine Policy, 34(6), 1125-1134.
40. Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E. and Giacchetta, G., 2009, "Development of Risk-Based
Inspection and Maintenance Procedures for an Oil Refinery," Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 22(2), 244-253.
41. Nordgård, D. E. and Sand, K., 2010, "Application of Bayesian Networks for Risk Analysis of MV Air
Insulated Switch Operation," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 95(12), 1358-1366.
42. Halfawy, M. R., 2010, "Municipal Information Models and Federated Software Architecture for
Implementing Integrated Infrastructure Management Environments," Automation in Construction, 19(4),
433-446.
43. Rasdorf, W., Hummer, J. E., Harris, E. A. and Sitzabee, W. E., 2009, "IT Issues for the Management of
High-Quantity, Low-Cost Assets," Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 23(2), 91-99.
44. Sitzabee, W. E., Rasdorf, W., Hummer, J. E. and Devine, H. A., 2009, "Data Integration of Pavement
Markings: A Case in Transportation Asset Management," Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
23(5), 288-298.
45. Burns, P., Hope, D. and Roorda, J., 1999, "Managing Infrastructure for the Next Generation," Automation
in Construction, 8(6), 689-703.
46. Shen, W., Hao, Q., Mak, H., et al., 2010, "Systems Integration and Collaboration in Architecture,
Engineering, Construction, and Facilities Management: A Review," Advanced Engineering Informatics,
24(2), 196-207.
47. Chang, P. C., Flatau, A. and Liu, S. C., 2003, "Review Paper: Health Monitoring of Civil Infrastructure,"
Structural Health Monitoring, 2(3), 257-267.
48. Lynch, J. P., 2004, "Overview of Wireless Sensors for Real-Time Health Monitoring of Civil Structures,"
Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Structural Control and Monitoring, .
49. Lynch, J., 2007, "An Overview of Wireless Structural Health Monitoring for Civil Structures," Physical
and Engineering Sciences, 365(1851), 345-372.
50. Abu-Elanien, A. E. B. and Salama, M. M. A., 2010, "Asset Management Techniques for Transformers,"
Electric Power Systems Research, 80(4), 456-464.
 Valencia, Colombi, Sitzabee, and Thal

51. Ching, J. and Leu, S., 2009, "Bayesian Updating of Reliability of Civil Infrastructure Facilities Based on
Condition-State Data and Fault-Tree Model," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(12), 1962-1974.
52. Korpi, E. E., 2008, "Life Cycle Costing: A Review of Published Case Studies," Managerial Auditing
Journal, 23(3), 240-261.
53. Kim, G., Kim, K., Lee, D., Han, C., Kim, H. and Jun, J., 2010, "Development of a Life Cycle Cost Estimate
System for Structures of Light Rail Transit Infrastructure," Automation in Construction, 19(3), 308-325.
54. Browning, T. R. and Honour, E. C., 2008, "Measuring the Life-Cycle Value of Enduring Systems,"
Systems Engineering, 11(3), 187-202.