Abstract
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is a powerful instrument in the Asset Management (AM) of physical systems. It is a valuable tool that can be used to support rational decision making and provide transparency and accountability about various operational, tactical and strategic AM decisions and their expected consequences.
However, the application of LCC may not always be straightforward. In order to effectively use LCC in this context, it is important to further the understanding of the main challenges that practitioners face during the application of LCC in AM decision making.
This publication summarizes the main descriptions and assumptions found in the literature on LCC into five postulates. These postulates are subsequently compared with empirical findings from four practical case studies within a Dutch utility provider on the use of LCC in AM decision making. Whereas some empirical findings agreed with the postulates, other findings were at least partially in disagreement, indicating inconsistencies between the theory of LCC and the practice of AM.
The results suggest fundamental challenges in the use of LCC in AM, specifically regarding the objectives of using LCC and the scope of what is included in the assessment. Practitioners can use this article to avoid the pitfalls of using LCC in the context of AM and researchers can use the findings to guide further work on developing methods and tools that support AM.
However, the application of LCC may not always be straightforward. In order to effectively use LCC in this context, it is important to further the understanding of the main challenges that practitioners face during the application of LCC in AM decision making.
This publication summarizes the main descriptions and assumptions found in the literature on LCC into five postulates. These postulates are subsequently compared with empirical findings from four practical case studies within a Dutch utility provider on the use of LCC in AM decision making. Whereas some empirical findings agreed with the postulates, other findings were at least partially in disagreement, indicating inconsistencies between the theory of LCC and the practice of AM.
The results suggest fundamental challenges in the use of LCC in AM, specifically regarding the objectives of using LCC and the scope of what is included in the assessment. Practitioners can use this article to avoid the pitfalls of using LCC in the context of AM and researchers can use the findings to guide further work on developing methods and tools that support AM.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Publication status | Published - 23 Feb 2018 |
| Event | 20th International Working Seminar on Production Economics 2018 - Congress Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria Duration: 19 Feb 2018 → 23 Jun 2018 Conference number: 20 http://www.medifas.net/IGLS/Index.htm https://www.uibk.ac.at/smt/production-economics/ |
Conference
| Conference | 20th International Working Seminar on Production Economics 2018 |
|---|---|
| Country | Austria |
| City | Innsbruck |
| Period | 19/02/18 → 23/06/18 |
| Internet address |
Keywords
- Life Cycle Costing
- Asset Management
Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Life Cycle Costing in physical Asset Management: a multiple case study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Cite this
Haanstra, W., & Braaksma, A. J. J. (2018). Life Cycle Costing in physical Asset Management: a multiple case study. Paper presented at 20th International Working Seminar on Production Economics 2018, Innsbruck, Austria.