ENGLISH HERITAGE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE HISTORIC ESTATE

boliviahonorableΔιαχείριση

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

65 εμφανίσεις











ENGLISH HERITAGE
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE HISTORIC ESTATE



2011-15

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Plan..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope and Focus........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Format and Content of the Plan............................................................................................2
1.4 Ownership of the Plan.............................................................................................................2
2.0 English Heritage And Asset Management..............................................................................3
2.1 The Role of English Heritage and the Asset Implications................................................3
2.2 Asset Management Principles.................................................................................................4
2.3 Overview of the Portfolio.......................................................................................................5
2.4 Asset Management in the Organisational Structure.........................................................6
2.5 The Nature of Asset Maintenance........................................................................................7
3.0 The Planning Context & Strategic Direction........................................................................9
3.1 Investment Needs, Available Funding and Allocation Processes....................................9
3.2 Key Challenges in Asset Management...............................................................................11
3.3 The Strategic Direction for Asset Management.............................................................12
4.0 Looking Forward......................................................................................................................13
4.1 An Overall Action Plan.........................................................................................................13
4.2 The role of Asset Management...........................................................................................15
4.3 Performance Measurement.................................................................................................15
4.4 Prioritisation of Funding.......................................................................................................16
5.0 Prioritisation of Funding (Issues to Resolve).............................................................................19
Prioritisation Process Flow Diagrams.............................................................................................20



English Heritage Asset Management Plan
1

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Plan
This Asset Management Plan (AMP) sets a broad direction for asset management over the
medium term. It provides a framework for action to ensure that the important and unique
National Collection of Historic Properties for which English Heritage is responsible is
conserved and supported with the appropriate professional skills. The AMP is intended to
facilitate rational asset decision-making based on identified needs and available funding. It is a
practical tool which helps to define, implement and measure how English Heritage:-

 Makes its investment decisions
 Protects, maintains and improves its assets
 Ensures cost effectiveness in its property related services
 Promotes innovation and development in asset management
 Listens and responds to asset managers and visitors

The plan has a 4-year time span, but is updated annually to provide a ‘rolling plan’. The plan
sets the context and a programme of action for English Heritage over the medium term. It is
intended for a wide audience including:

 The National Property Steering Group (PSG) – as key decision makers on asset
management matters
 Territorial Property Steering Groups (TPSG) - to support decisions on investment
priorities in the portfolio
 The National Collections Group Maintenance Conservation Team &
Conservation Technical Teams - to support their day-to-day role as technical
advisers on the maintenance of the estate
 Executive Board - as the primary sponsoring body for PSG
 Department of Culture, Media & Sport – as the primary sponsoring body for
English Heritage
 The wider heritage sector – in order to promote ‘best practice’
 The public – as a statement of English Heritage asset management priorities


1.2 Scope and Focus
This is English Heritage’s first AMP and it is intended to be a document which will be

updated and revised in use. The scope of assets is limited to those within the guardianship of
English Heritage and excludes all administrative properties which English Heritage owns or
occupies. Also excluded are considerations around the acquisition or disposal of assets. The
focus of the AMP is therefore English Heritage’s asset management policy relating to the
maintenance of the National Collection of Historic Properties.




1.3 Format and Content of the Plan
The document is arranged in four sections, with appendices containing supporting material.
 Section one outlines th
e purpose of the Plan and its intended audience.
 Section two explains the role of English Heritage, its asset implications and
the broad principles that shape its management action.
 Section three identifies and defines the key asset management issues facing
English Heritage and articulates the broad strategic direction looking forward
in response to these issues.
 Section four provides an action plan and within this sets out a framework for
allocating scarce financial resources to secure best value in the protection of
heritage assets for which English Heritage is appointed guardian.

1.4 Ownership of the Plan
The Conservation Director, Bill Martin is the custodian of this plan and future development.
Comments and feedback should be directed to Julie Swann, Head of Estates Program
me
Development, 01793 414420 or by email to julie.swann@english-heritage.org.uk.
2


3

2.0
English Heritage and Asset Management


2.1 The Role of English Heritage and the Asset Implications
Heritage assets are an integral part of a community and its environment. They are als
o
tangible evidence of our historical and cultural traditions and origins. English Heritage has a
specific and unique role in respect of such assets by:-

 conserving them on behalf of the nation

 promoting access to them

 informing and educating the public about them

 establishing standards for others with a responsibility for heritage assets to follow


English Heritage thus has a role as custodian, educator, regulator and advisor on heritage
assets. The legal basis of this role was established in the National Heritage Act of 1983. It
has been amplified more recently through its strategy for the period 2011-2015 – English
Heritage Corporate Plan, which sets out that the role of English Heritage is to stimulate a
virtuous cycle of understanding, valuing, caring and enjoying heritage assets. The Corporate
Plan makes it clear that the over-riding priority is to safeguard for the future the National
Collection in its care through the creation and implementation of an Asset Management
Plan.



2.2 Asset Management Principles
English Heritage has a set of on-going asset management objectives approved by the
Property Steering Group. These objectives and the principles that support them provide the
primary drivers for shaping management action with respect to the portfolio and are
summarised below. In general terms English Heritage is not concerned with the acquisition
and disposal of assets, but rather as steward of the important National Collection of Historic
Properties to make the assets in their care accessible to the public
.





Overall Purpose
 To enhance the nation’s cultural heritage through the protection of its
historic assets

Supporting Objectives
 To ensure scarce financial resources are directed to preserve assets in the
most need
 To manage delivery of property services to demonstrate continuous
performance improvement
 To raise awareness of asset management and provide clear decision-making
over its management and use

Underlying Principles
 There should be explicit responsibility & leadership for asset management
 Asset management should be a systematic and embedded process
 Asset management should promote consistent national standards
 Decision-making needs to be supported by comprehensive and current data
 Whole life implications of capital investment need to be recognised
 Asset management should be supported by performance measurement


Ultimately the long term measures of success for English Heritage asset management policies
are to ensure a reducing maintenance backlog for its portfolio of assets, whilst increasing the
number of visitors to its sites and generating income from improved asset use.






4







2.3 Overview of the Portfolio
English Heritage is responsible for 423 historic properties of national importance, which are
distributed across England. Properties are classified into one of seven types according to
their physical characteristics.

Sites
East
London
North
South
East
West
Total
Bridge
2


1


4
7

Earthworks or Neolithic
remains
6


7

6
35
54

Extensive or substantial
remains
20

1

43

13
43
120

Minor remains
11

2

51

31
8
103

Minor roofed buildings
9

6

10

12
11
48

Monument or standing stone
3

1

2

1
10
17

Substantial roofed buildings
32

6

8

4
24
74

Total
83

16

122

67
135
423


Sites are sub-divided into one or more assets; with each asset being determined by having a
distinctive physical (location), historical or architectural aspect, which distinguishes it from
other assets on the same site. Assets are then sub-divided further into a number of
elements, which are the individual building or structural components that make up the asset.
Surveys to determine the condition and maintenance needs of sites are conducted at this
element level and totalled to quantify needs at an asset or site level.


Sites
Can be sites which charge for admission, which
are free and in some cases which are hidden
Assets
Elements
Element 1 (where)
Element 2 (what)
Sites can be broken down into one or more
as s et s eac h wi t h a di f f er ent uni que
characteristics
Assets are broken down further into a number
of elements
Physical Hierarchy of Historic Properties




5




2.4 Asset Management in the Organisational Structure
The National Collections Group (NCG) is responsible for the stewardship of English
Heritage's collections of buildings, artefacts and archives, for their presentation and
interpretation and for maximising their commercial potential. It has a number of challenges
to meet;
 to ensure that the collections are handed on to future generations in as good or
better condition than we found them;
 to position the organisation as the holder of major national collections; &
 to ensure that the commercial contribution made by the collections delivers the level
of growth which EH needs.

The Historic Properties Director has ‘ownership’ of the assets and manages the day-to-day
operation of the properties. The Conservation Director is responsible for technical advice
on asset maintenance and provides the professional advice on estates, maintenance and
conservation matters. The Curatorial Director is responsible for the presentation and
interpretation of the buildings and for the care and conservation of the collections. All three
Directors are jointly responsible for the overall asset strategy for English Heritage. Asset
management as a strategic discipline with a national perspective on the portfolio is a
relatively new area of activity. It has significant support from the Executive Board to ensure
effective decision-making over the allocation of scarce capital and revenue sources. The
Asset Management Team was initially established as a discrete, short-term project in 2007,
with a remit to develop a centralised asset database and to undertake condition surveys of
all asset defects so that there was current, comprehensive and robust data on the
maintenance needs of the portfolio. The Asset Management Team reports to the
Conservation Director.

The existing scope of the asset management function as set out in the business case, which
proposed its establishment, covers:-.

 Developing and maintaining effective knowledge of the condition of the National
Collection of Historic Properties
 Identifying and costing the ‘backlog’ of required maintenance for the collection
 Facilitating intelligent and integrated future planning for its care and maintenance.
 Promoting a consistent approach to the management of the collection
 Developing a systematic and consistent process of the prioritisation of work
across the territories.
 Identifying future funding requirements and the risks of inadequate funding
accurately
 Producing an asset management plan
 Establishing a centralised asset IT system and ensuring compatibility with existing
asset related information systems.

The scope and nature of the asset management function has evolved during its project life
and the need for an on-going asset management function has been recognised. A definition
for the asset role is presented later in this Asset Management Plan.



6





Organisational Structure

Commercial Director
Head Properties Director
(North)
Head Properties Director
(East & London)
Head Properties Director
(West)
Head Properties Director
(South East)
Head of Education and
Interpretation
Head Collections Curator
Head of Archives
Head of Interpretation
Stonehenge to 2013
Head Historic
Properties Curator
Head of Conservation
National Head of Projects
National Head of
Conservation
Maintenance
Head of Gardens
& Landscape
Head of Building
Conservation &
Research
Head of Conservation
Architecture
Chief QS/Head
of Contracts
Head of Building
Services Engineering and
Safety Team
Head of Civil & Structural
Engineer
Head of Estates
Programme
Development
Department of
Culture, Media &
Sport (DCMS)
Chief Executive
English Heritage
Board
Director of National
Collections
Director of national
Advice and
Information
Director of Heritage
Protection and
Planning
Director of
Resources
Curatorial Director
Marketing Director
Development
Director
Historic Properties
Director
Conservation
Director


2.5 The Nature of Asset Maintenance
Maintenance involves repair (planned and unplanned) and routine servicing of assets and any
associated plant. It is in
tended to be a risk management process, in that assets should be
maintained to a standard that will contain, to an appropriate level, the risks associated with:-

 Major damage to, or loss of an asset
 Security of both the asset and the users
 Health and safety of the users
 Preservation of the asset’s historic significance
 Image and reputation of English Heritage (as custodian of assets)

It is recognised that maintenance represents a significant proportion of the total costs of
owning and operating an asset over its lifetime (perhaps twice initial capital costs); therefore
it is important that an effective maintenance policy is developed and implemented to ensure
the above risks are properly managed and value for money is achieved. This policy must be
underpinned by acceptance of two basic characteristics of a maintenance strategy:-

 Simple predictive models cannot accurately estimate true funding requirements of a
maintenance programme. Historical expenditure information and asset condition data
is required to determine an asset portfolio’s future maintenance needs.


7


 Whilst some maintenance activities can be deferred for a time without having an
immediately noticeable effect on asset use, decisions on deferring maintenance
activities cannot be made arbitrarily or postponed indefinitely. Responsible asset
management demands that future liabilities be identified and appropriately managed.

Annual recurrent maintenance need is typically made up of two distinct activities. These are
reactive and preventative (or planned) maintenance.

 Reactive Maintenance involves repair of broken components which cannot be
deferred, and therefore work needs to be carried out ‘on demand’ to protect the
asset. The level of repairs varies from one year to the next and tends to be
influenced by factors such as adverse weather conditions

 Preventative Maintenance is work carried out on a planned basis to reduce the risk of
excessive breakdown incidents, to preserve the asset and prolong its life. It can be
further sub-divided

 Cyclical (routine) maintenance – the regular inspection, testing and servicing
of fixed plant and equipment

 Planned (restorative) maintenance – the planned repair or replacement of
deteriorated components, elements or systems.

The relationship between the relative levels of expenditure on reactive and preventative
maintenance can give a good indication of the effectiveness of an organisation’s overall
maintenance strategy. Annual expenditure predominantly on planned maintenance with a
stable or reducing backlog trend is indicative of a well maintained portfolio, whereas a high
proportion of spend on reactive maintenance would suggest a crisis or poor value situation
typified by inadequate budget and a poor maintenance strategy.

The National Collection of Historic Properties in the care of English Heritage is atypical of
most organisations and by its very nature this orthodoxy of a balance between preventative
and reactive maintenance may not always be applicable. English Heritage has funding
allocations that reflect this basic split in maintenance. Minor PMP (property maintenance
projects), below £50k in value and large property conservation projects, over £50k in value
support both preventative and reactive maintenance needs with PIP (property improvement
projects) supporting new capital projects. In general terms, preventative cyclical maintenance
has ‘first call’ on the available funds.














8



3.0 The Planning Context and Strategic Direction

3.1 Investment Needs, Available Funding and Allocation Processes
The condition survey programme 2007-10 has enabled the organisation to understand the

investment needs of the estate. The investment need to bring the estate to the required
benchmark condition is circa £54 million. The breakdown is illustrated in the table by
Territory.

WEST SOUTH EAST NORTH Estate Total
0 Monetary

Value
£1,720,868.08 £2,205,614.48 £428,122.08 £5,830,414.33
1 Monetary

Value
£4,782,338.73 £8,356,807.65 £2,244,028.16 £21,009,869.53
2 Monetary

Value
£5,445,975.65 £11,388,064.03 £3,340,860.96 £27,342,037.20
Monetary

Value
£11,949,182.47 £21,950,486.16 £6,013,011.20 £54,182,321.06Territory Total
£6,041,416.52 £8,228,224.70
AMP Priority Defect Within two years
£2,868,124.23 £4,299,012.32
AMP Priority Defect Immediate / essential
within months
£2,261,258.39 £3,365,436.58
AMP Priority Defect Urgent
£912,033.90 £563,775.80
Territory Defect Cost Estimate by Priority
Territory ( Total Monetary Value )
Priority
LONDON EAST

This backlog estimate can be compared with the current level of maintenance spend which is
in the order of £16 million per annum. Of this £4.5 million per annum has funded a
programme of major conservation projects. With little prospect of any significant increase it
falls short of the £10.5 million per annum estimated required to prevent further
deterioration in the estate. The funding is broken down into three major streams of activity.
These are;

 Cyclical and Response Maintenance including Minor Conservation Maintenance
Projects (PMP) for smaller planned works of usually less than £50,000

 Major Property Conservation Projects (PCP) for larger planned works involving
the repairing of fabric of assets and usually greater than £50,000

 Property Improvement Projects (PIP) for lager capital schemes involving new
development such as visitor facilities. PIP tends to be for major capital projects.

2010/11 Overall Spend on Assets in £000s

North
South
East
West
Total
Revenue





PMP
£2452
£4427

£2122

£2780
£11781

PCP
£828
£1822

£950

£821
£4421

Total
£3280
£6249

£3072

£3601
£16202







Capital





PCP
£127
£0

£0

£0
£127

Total
£127
£0

£0

£0
£127



9


Following the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) it was accepted that potential
increased resources to tackle the £54m backlog of works required to bring the portfolio up
to benchmark standard would not be available. The conservation maintenance budget
available to address all cyclical maintenance, response maintenance and planned conservation
maintenance as well as grounds maintenance needs has remained at £16m per annum for the
last 4 years. There is not anticipated to be any significant increases looking ahead. Indeed
the overall resource context for public funding is likely to be very constrained for the
medium term and the risk is of less rather than more money in the future.


2007/08
Spent
2008/09
Spent
2009/10
Spent
2010/11
Spent
Revenue




PMP
£11,150
£12,394

£11,428

£11,781
PCP
£3,901
£3,874

£4,118

£4,421
Total
£15,021
£16,268

£15,546

£16,202


During the spending period 2007/8 to 2011/11 processes for allocating this funding have
tended to work on an historical basis with funding allocated within territories based on the
legacy of previous years’ budgets, informed by local knowledge of priorities. The allocation
of funding has occurred within the Territorial Property Steering Groups (TPSGs) and then
subsequently confirmed at the Property Steering Group (PSG). This position has changed
with the condition surveys undertaken as part of the AMP project providing an improving
base of knowledge about investment need and priorities at an individual asset level. Cross-
territorial prioritisation of funding has been identified as a future requirement and this AMP
presents a framework for allocating resources on such a basis.

Allocation for the Next Spending Period 2011/12 to 2014/15

2011/12 Overall Planned Spend on Assets in £000s

North
South
East/London

West
Total
Revenue





Cyclical & Response
Maintenance
1,958

2,651

2,654

2,363
9,626

Other Planned Maintenance
244

522

763

504
2,033

Minor Planned Projects
410

360

820

410
2,000

Major Planned Projects
350

391

1,200

145
2,086

Total
2,962

3,924

5,437

3,422
15,745

Capital
110

0

75

0
185




Revenue
2010/11
Spent
2011/12
Allocated
2012/13
Estimated
2013/14
Estimated
2014/15
Estimated
Cyclical, Response &
Planned Maintenance
11,781

11,656

11,365

11,074
10,491

All other Planned
Maintenance Projects
4,421

4,505

4,796

5,087
5,670

Total
16,202

16,161

16,161

16,161
16,161


10


The ongoing shortfall of funding against identified need for conservation maintenance on our
estate has prompted PSG to refine the approach to allocation. In order to maximise the
effectiveness of the total revenue spend of £16m, PSG has agreed to support one substantial,
high impact project, to demonstrate fully the advantages of packaged procurement and
delivery at the same time as exemplar standards in conservation and presentation, rather
than a series of medium-sized conservation projects across the estate. For Financial Years
2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 this project is at Kenwood House.
Such large projects will be supplemented by a restricted number of medium-sized ones
across the estate as funding allows, but the bulk of the non-cycl
ical conservation
maintenance will be met from the allocations to minor planned works, projects under £50k,
as is the case now. There will be an increasingly rigorous prioritisation at local level
employing the prioritisation process detailed in the Asset Management Plan.
In order to be able to invest more in the conservation repairs project programme an
objective has been set by PSG to reduce the spend on cyclical budgets by 10% in real terms
over the funding period. For the financial year 2011/12 the cyclical spend for maintenance is
£7.6 million. The response budget will be capped at 20% of the total cyclical budget. As an
example, we will explore how areas such as the Grounds Maintenance budget can be
reduced, initially by piloting a new, reduced mowing regime in the North Territory and
establishing a range of trials across the estate exploring the potential for increased grazing
on our grounds
.


3.2 Key Challenges in Asset Management
English Heritage is a mature organisation with a
broad range of experience in protecting
heritage assets. Its processes and standards have evolved over a number of years and are
also well understood. However the organisation has been subject to change in recent years
which has required it to adopt a more business-like and systematic approach and move from
one which has traditionally been immersed in ‘conservation’. As this process of change
continues there are a number of challenges facing English Heritage with respect to its asset
management policy and practice. These are:-

 Promoting national consistency whilst retaining territorial discretion – English
Heritage has a strong regional identity and traditions. Much of the local knowledge
of individual sites is held by staff at a territorial level and is often deep-rooted. This
enthusiasm for, and local knowledge of its asset base is a key strength of the
organisation, but it may also result in sub-optimal decisions on procurement and
allocation of resources. This deficiency may be addressed by an adoption of an
explicit framework of national standards and procedures within which local
discretion can be exercised.

 Maximising the value of every pound spent – the English Heritage Strategy
emphasises the need to use financial resources wisely in order to secure the
maximum value from spend. This has significant asset management implications
around the targeting of spend and the method of spend. The implication of this is
the adoption of a national approach to the procurement of asset related work and
the packaging up of works from individual projects to programmes of works.


11


 Embedding systems and processes – The organisation is undergoing a process of
change which in broad terms is promoting a more ‘business-like’ and corporate
approach, which is in contrast to the more traditional, conservation-led regional
culture from which it has originated. In terms of asset management there is a need
to promote a systematic and systemic approach; to emphasise national consistency
and standards and to provide robust support to the decision-making processes
around investment.

 Ensuring balance between technical and conservation approaches – The cultural
change implied above may mean that there is a requirement to ensure an
appropriate balance of differing perspectives of asset management. The promotion
of consistency and standards across territories needs to be done in such a way
that local knowledge of assets and the varying perspectives of assets is retained
and set within a national framework.

 The future role of asset management – There is a need to recognise and define
the nature of asset management and its role within English Heritage looking ahead
so that the benefits from the short-term AMP 2006-10 project are not lost.


3.3 The Strategic Direction for Asset Management
In order to respond to the challenges identif
ied above there is a need to promote a national
approach to the stewardship of the estate whilst retaining local knowledge and discretion.
This requires a prioritisation process with agreed criteria which provides the basis on a
national level to determine the allocation of resources, but with the ability for this to be
moderated to reflect local, conservation, operational and commercial factors. It also requires
clarity around the exact nature and role of asset management as an activity within English
Heritage.

A broad framework for action to underpin this strategic direction for asset management is
presented in the following section, which identifies some of the more immediate actions that
can be adopted by English Heritage to develop asset management further.



12



4.0 Looking Forward

4.1 An Overall Action Plan
Looking forw
ard there are a number of actions required to respond to the key challenges
identified in Section 3. An overall action plan is presented below. The resource implications
and timing of these actions are not identified, but a brief narrative of the rationale and broad
focus of each action is given.

1. Refine the prioritisation process. This AMP has articulated a revised prioritisation
process and pointed to the need to review some of the concepts and existing
arrangements. The model presented below has been endorsed by the AMP
Implementation Board and helped ‘sense-check’ the Maintenance Programmes
developed for 2011/12 – 2013/14. The outline will need to be reviewed, amended
and refined as the 4 year programme for 2011- 15 is developed.

2. Develop a data management strategy which provides a long term ‘blue print’ for data
needs for asset management. This needs to provide a ‘road map’ of the data needs to
underpin asset management (over and above the existing focus on condition data); to
identify data standards, collection frequency and ownership, as well as organisational
issues such as who is responsible for data collection, update and analysis. The
strategy needs to embrace some of the more disparate elements of data which can
contribute to asset management (such as plans and photos) and illustrate how these
can be organised to support asset management.

3. Review procurement arrangements in order to secure improved value for money
from asset-related work. This will be vital in order to meet the 10% saving on spend
on cyclical maintenance over the spending period. The predominant pattern of
procurement is one based on territorial procurement with at least small value works
procured at a local level. There is a need to review existing procurement
arrangements to promote an appropriate balance between national and territorial
procurement and this is likely to result in a procurement strategy for maintenance
activities.

4. Review Help Desk arrangements, which are predominantly locally based. The ‘Help
Desk’ arrangements are an illustration of the national versus territorial dilemma.
Whilst providing a local and responsive service to reactive maintenance needs, the
current arrangements include an element of duplication and inefficiency of resources
with five separate systems requiring local effort to maintain and use. It may be that a
more robust and equally effective system can be provided at a national level for
recording maintenance needs, which can then be delivered locally.

5. Defining the role of asset management – the asset management function was initially
established on a short term, project basis. The role of asset management on an on-
going basis needs to be defined and agreed. Some embryonic thoughts on the role
are presented below. These need to be amplified and agreed through PSG and
subsequently widely disseminated across the organisation.


13


6. Develop a performance management framework – an audit of English Heritage
against best practice in asset management identified performance measurement as a
potential area of weakness. It is therefore appropriate to develop a basic set of
performance indicators for the portfolio which can be used to track the long term
effectiveness of asset management against which the organisation can set
improvement targets. Some initial thoughts on a possible framework for this are
presented below.

7. Promoting cross-territorial flexibility – the broad direction of change in the allocation
of funding suggests that money is directed to where there is greatest need rather
than simple allocation on a territorial or ‘legacy’ basis. This may have implications for
staff flexibility and implies the need for ‘scarce technical skills to follow funding
allocations’. It may be appropriate to consider an initial programme of short term
staff exchanges or secondments to explore this wider issue of flexible resources as
part of a wider audit of organisational skills and capacity.

8. Review of training needs – with the changing nature of the organisation allied with
the promotion of asset management disciplines and the move towards a more
national rather than territorial approach to asset maintenance it may be an
appropriate time to undertake a skills audit and to identify training needs. There may
be a mix of general needs; such as raising awareness of whole life cycle costings;
business case development and project management; along with specific needs in
asset management.

9. Planned asset replacement programme – the module of the AMP IT system to record
information about plant and equipment, including replacement forecasts has been
populated in the AMP IT project Phase II. Further development will help with the
programming of such works over the medium to long term and thus ensure more
effective use of resources.

10. Develop an asset strategy for non-heritage assets – this asset management plan has
focussed only on the historic properties in the care of English Heritage. There are a
range of other assets which the organisation uses such as offices which may also be
subject to review. These have significant value, incur running costs and there may the
potential to release capital or reduce running costs through more effective space
utilisation. It is recommended that an asset strategy which considers these is
developed.


14



4.2 The Role of Asset Management
The existing asset management acti
vity was established on a time-limited, project basis to
manage the implementation of the new K2 information database and coordinate the
collection of condition survey data. Although initially conceived as a short term project
English Heritage has recognised the need for asset management as an on-ongoing, strategic
activity which has a role after the completion of the initial project brief. The nature of asset
management can differ significantly within different organisations and careful thought is
required to scope, define and position its role in English Heritage looking forward. The table
below outlines the possible scope of asset management as an on-going activity.

Role
Outline of Activities
Policy
 Development of AMP (reflecting national priorities)
 Development of long term strategic vision for assets
 Policy development on a range of issues (e.g. sustainability)
Information
 Development of an information management strategy
 Coordination of condition survey process
 Establishment of appropriate data standards
 Custodian of K2 database (although data collection and entry
may be undertaken on a territorial basis)
 Data analysis (to identify trends and emerging asset protection
issues)
 Development and monitoring of key asset management
performance measures
Standards
 Promotion of appropriate national standards
PSG Support
 Support to PSG as the senior decision-making group on asset
matters
 Provide ‘challenge’ to priority setting and resource allocation
process


4.3 Performance Measurement
Whilst much of the base data required for tracking the performance of individual p
roperties
and the portfolio as a whole is available, this has not been a specific focus of the Asset
Management Team. Performance measurement and the development of property
performance indicators is however recognised as an area requiring further action over the
short to medium term.

A simple framework is recommended for use in order to provide a ‘scorecard’ approach to
measuring asset management performance. This based on a small number of property
performance indicators (PPIs) which are chosen to provide a rounded view of the portfolio.
The intention should be to track these over time and establish long term targets against
which to monitor progress. The framework will need to be developed and refined in use.
Targets should be set by PSG and monitored annually through the AMP.

Some initial suggestions for asset management indicators are presented in the table below.
These have been chosen to reflect the key measures for the success of asset management
identified in Section 2.2 (page 3) and the likely availability of data. The indicators presented

15


are ‘high level‘ indicators for the portfolio as a whole rather than individual sites or assets,
although it is recommended that some thought is also given to indicators that may be
applicable at an individual asset level.



Theme
Recommended Indicator(s)
Condition
 Maintenance backlog (U0+U1+U2) as % of annual maintenance spend

Or

 Maintenance backlog (U0+U1+U2) as % of net annual revenue budget
Cost
 Reduce % spend on unplanned response maintenance compared to
planned maintenance to 20%.


Income
 Income from portfolio as a percentage of portfolio running costs


Outreach
 Total number of paying visitors




4.4 Prioritisation of Funding
There are many demands on the existing funds available for maintenance and enhancement
of English Heritage’s assets. Following the CSR it was accepted that potential increased
resources to tackle th
e £54m backlog of works required to bring the portfolio up to
benchmark standard would not be available. A key aim of the English Heritage Asset
Management Plan is to define the process and criteria for prioritising work and allocating
funds to ensure that scarce resources are appropriately directed to secure maximum value
for money.

The broad framework for this decision-making process is illustrated schematically on the
diagrams at the end of this document and the key elements of the process are described
below. This process has been reviewed and endorsed by PSG and it will continue to be
refined as we move forward.

Prioritisation of Funding (Roles & Responsibilities)

There are three main ‘agents’ in the prioritisation process. These are Property Steering
Group (PSG), Territory Property Steering Group (TPSG) and the Asset Management
function.

PSG is the final decision maker on the work programme. This group needs to be satisfied
that the recommended programme of work is robust, reflects investment needs
appropriately and secures value for money. Its role is to ‘approve’ the work programme and
to oversee its implementation. TPSG provides input to the prioritisation process at a local
territorial level ensuring appropriate technical and curatorial perspectives are embraced in
development of the programme. They have a role in moderating the initial draft work
programme generated from the K2 database into a more robust programme of work with
consideration of issues relating to historical significance, presentation and value for money.


16


The Asset Management function has an important role (on behalf of PSG) to co-ordinate the
overall process of developing an agreed work programme with funding allocations
supporting investment needs. This role can be characterised as one of leadership, co-
ordination and control over the process coupled with ‘national, external challenge’.

Prioritisation of Funding (The Process in Outline)

Initial Funding Allocations – broad funding allocations into the principal funding streams,
maintenance, including minor planned works (PMP), major planned conservation works, and
Property Improvement Programme (PIP) ensuring funding availability are identified at the
outset of the financial year and from normal financial planning processes within English
Heritage. It is recognised that some funding for minor planned and cyclical maintenance is
effectively ring-fenced and therefore not subject to the prioritisation process. Similarly new
capital projects under PIP would not be subject to this prioritisation process, although the
on-going maintenance issues associated with such projects does need to be identified and
considered as part of longer term value for money consideration.

Draft Work Programme – With the improving knowledge of the condition of the asset base
through the AMP project and with the use of the K2 database it is possible to create an
initial prioritisation listing of work based on analysing the ‘urgency’ of work from the defects
survey. At the current time the condition survey process is undertaken on defective
elements only; but over time condition surveys will be extended to cover all elements. This
provides a building condition / technical perspective at element level.

Moderation of Initial Work Programme – From the initial draft work programme there is a
process of moderation. This is done on a territorial basis through the TPSG’s to reflect local
knowledge, the conservation perspective and the commercial or visitor perspective. It is
recommended that a ‘challenge’ process co-exists alongside this moderation process. This
can be provided through the Asset Management function which, with the benefit of the
knowledge base, can provide a ‘national challenge’ to the local, territorial perspective so that
what emerges is a robust programme of work.

Securing Value for Money - As the initial programme of work is developed, there is a
process of ‘packaging’ of work to ensure best value for money is secured. This may distort
rational individual project prioritisation for practical value-for-money considerations. This
process is reliant on local technical knowledge, but needs to be subject to an external
‘challenge’ to ensure consistency of approach on a cross-territorial basis and to ensure wider
national considerations are identified.

Ratification into Provisional Work Programme – The initial work programme will then be
reviewed by PSG and an ‘approved’ draft programme created. This provides the stock of
work which, subject to appropriate detail pre-project work, will be implemented.





17






Prioritisation of Funding (Indicative Timescales)

It is intended that the work programme is planned over a 4 year period with detailed plans
for the next financial year approved by PSG giving a seamless transition from year to year.
However, in broad terms it can be broken down into two overlapping stages. These are:-

1 Review and refinement of a work programme on a territorial basis using the
condition data from the AMP IT database (K2). This is a locally-based process
undertaken through TPSGs with support and moderation by the asset management
function. Firm detailed plans for work proposed for the next financial period will be
reviewed and approved by TPSG during the autumn of each year.

2 Refinement of the territorial derived work programmes into an agreed national
programme reflecting available funding and a robust challenge to identified priorities
against investment needs. This work is more nationally focussed through PSG leading
to an agreed programme of work, which is then implemented through the
subsequent financial year (subject to business case approval and monitoring of
delivery).

18



5.0 Prioritisation of Funding (Issues to Resolve)
This outline for a prioritisation process implies a number of issues which needed to be
considered and resolved. These were:-

1 Reviewing and explicitly defining the concept of ‘urgency’. At the time of survey it is
a surveyor’s composite view of the need for remedial work and its relative
importance. Urgency is now defined to embrace the notion of the ‘risk of failure’ and
the ‘impact of failure’, which will provide a deeper grain to the initial prioritisation of
work.

2 The surveys highlighted a large backlog of work with urgency ratings 0, 1 and 2. The
total backlog is over £50 million and is far in excess of the funding available. A
review of the elements has taken place with some elements being identified as having
a higher priority than others. Priority elements have been given weightings in K2 so
that they are easily identified and can be used to search for priority work. The full
element lists with priority weightings is available on the SharePoint site
.

3 The Minimum Standard of Repair (MSR) ratings were made available to the surveyors
to inform and identify urgency of work in terms of expected presentation. It was
identified that these would be of value in helping to identify priority work. The MSR
ratings have now been captured in K2 at building level. They are not used to weight
the priority of work, but are there to indicate possible importance of a building to aid
the prioritisation process. MSR rating details are at the end of this document.



19


Prioritisation Process Flow Diagrams

Pre-allocated funding to cyclical & response mainten
ance
Property Improvements Projects & Annual Site Presentation Projects
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Moderation Priority Criteria
URGENCY
HISTORIC
SIGNIFICANCE
PRESENTATION
(MSR)
HISTORIC
SIGNIFICANCE
PRESENTATION
(MSR)
VALUE FOR
MONEY
PIP
Prioritisation and moderation within territories through TPSG
Asset management ‘challenge’ to prioritisation and moderation process informed by condition data
FUNDING AVAILABILITY & ALLOCATIONS
Revenue Capital
Planned Maintenance
Conservation & historic perspective
Curators input through ‘Statement of Significance’
Visitor perspective
Commercial significance + brand & reputation considerations
Value for Money
Review of priorities to ensure opportunities for savings through
‘packaging’ of work & procurement
Building condition & technical perspective
(Defect Surveys)
Asset List & Other Work Bank
Urgency = Assessment of Risk of Failure vs Impact of Failure
Asset
Site
Programmes
Element
PSG
Provisional
work
programme
National
Priorities
AMP
Agreed work
Programme
Approval to plan
Business case
Approval to spend
Monitoring



20



21




URGENCY Ratings
0 Urgent
1 Immediate/essential – within months or a year at most
2 Necessary within two years
3 Necessary within the quadrennial cycle
4 Necessary during the subsequent quadrennial cycle
5 Necessary within the AMP cycle (9 – 20 years)




PRESENTATION (MSR)
1 Maintenance, conservation and repair in excellent order at all times
2 Fully maintained, conserved and repaired at all times
3 Maintained, conserved and repaired to prevent deterioration and to a
level sufficient to protect against risk of legal claims




If you require an alternative accessible version of this document (for
instance in audio, Braille or large print) please contact our Customer
Services Department:
Telephone: 0870 333 1181
Fax: 01793 414926
Textphone: 0800 015 0516
E-mail: customers@english-heritage.org.uk