Asset Management Terminology: Why Definitions Matter in Professional Practice

Include Definitions in Asset Management Training and Frameworks

or… Define it? Definitely!

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation where you and your colleague are using the same words but then discovered you were talking about different things? In the world of Asset Management, this happens more often than you might think.

When Words Matter: Asset Management vs. Managing Assets

A few years ago, I was introduced to an article from the ISO Technical Committee 251 comparing "Asset Management" to "Managing Assets."  My first reaction? "Aren't these just the same thing with the words flipped around?"  If you are more skilled in language than me you would likely intuit exactly where the authors were going, but in any case, when you read the document, it is very clearly spelt out.

As it turns out, these seemingly similar phrases represent fundamentally different approaches.

According to the authors, managing assets is something humans have been doing since our ancestors first sharpened spears. In organisations today, that often:

• Focuses on individual assets over short timeframes

• Operates in siloed processes

• Relies on contractual relationships driven primarily by terms and conditions

In contrast, Asset Management represents a comprehensive management system approach that:

• Emphasizes lifecycle value of assets to the organization and its stakeholders

• Integrates and aligns processes across departments

• Develops contractual relationships that generate long-term value for all parties

This distinction isn't just semantic—it represents a profound evolution in how organizations approach their critical assets.

Change Management vs. Management of Change: Same Difference?

This terminology challenge surfaced again during a recent industry conference. A fellow Asset Management professional insisted there was a significant difference between "Change Management" and "Management of Change." Unfortunately, we were under some time pressure to go separate ways, so we didn’t time to fully explore it together.  I was left with the feeling that I was supposed to fully understand this person’s perspective based on the terminology alone. 

For context, in my previous organization, we used these two terms interchangeably to cover all aspects of managing changes, technical, process, and organizational.

The updates to the GFMAM Landscape issued in 2024 are helpful here.  In this document:

• Management of Change is defined as the systematic approach to changes to processes and assets.

• Organizational Change Management refers to the structured approach to the people side of change.

The similarities and differences become readily apparent in the light of these 2 definitions.

The "Planned Maintenance" Conundrum

My favourite example to use in Asset Management training sessions relates to "Planned Maintenance."   I have heard this seemingly straightforward term used to refer to maintenance tasks that are:

• Included in the current Asset Management Plan (budgeted)

• Loaded into the CMMS to trigger based on elapsed time or run time (preventive)

• Included on the approved schedule for the week (scheduled)

• Fully documented in a job-plan which details the required steps, resources, procedures, etc.

I once witnessed the challenges that ensued when this term was misunderstood across an organization. Leaders interpreted "maximize planned maintenance" to mean increasing preventive/program work while limiting corrective maintenance on schedules. Meanwhile, field teams knew corrective work needed attention, so they began ignoring the official schedules altogether.

The result? A process that should have added value became "broken," creating significant waste. It took extensive Organizational Change Management efforts to get the scheduling process back on track!

Building a Common Language Through Asset Management Training

This is precisely why comprehensive Asset Management training is so crucial for organizations. When teams share a common understanding of terminology, they can:

• Communicate more effectively across departments

• Implement best practices consistently

• Avoid costly misunderstandings and rework

• Align their efforts with organizational goals

Effective Asset Management training should include not just technical concepts but also focus on establishing shared definitions that everyone understands.

The Bottom Line for Asset Management Professionals

The moral of these stories? Never assume that your definition of a term is universally understood. For effective Asset Management, terminology should be clearly defined within your organization and communicated widely. Your Asset Management Framework is an excellent place to document these definitions.

So when it comes to Asset Management terminology, should you define it?

Definitely!

Looking to strengthen your organization's Asset Management practices? Our Asset Management training programs can help your team develop a common language and approach.  Contact us today to learn more about how we can support your Asset Management journey.