Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
vsdv
Citation preview
-r ~ ~tttt
~
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management
Joe E Amadi-Echendu
Abstract The essence of managing engineered physical assets that form our built environment is to provide benefits to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by rapidly changing business strategy economy ergonomics operational and techshynical integrity and regulatory compliance Innovative approaches to enhance and sustain the proftle ofvalues required from these assets demands a shift in thinking styles cognitive and mental processing modes and the attitudes of engineering professionals if they are to be effective in asset management occupations This pashyper describes the results of a 2005 survey of 190 practicing engineers to ascertain what thinking styles should determine behavioural preferences for managers of engineered physical assets The study confJI1llS other results from cognitive theory and psychology highlighting the top ten thinking styles as ranked by survey reshyspondents The paper provides a strategic view of engineering asset management (HAM) within the context of innovation with particular focus on behavioural alignshyment towards the modem era ofinnovation knowledge and learning economy
Keywords Asset Management Thinking Styles Behavioural Preferences Innoshyvation
1 Introduction
The main elements of our built environment are engineered physical assets which include for example airports seaports buildings manufacturing and process plants power stations road railway telecommunications and utility networks and
JE Amadi-Echendu Graduate School ofTechnology Management University ofPretoria Pretoria 0002 South Africa e-mailjoeamadi-echenduupacza
JE Amadi-Echendu K Rrnwn R wmtT I Ua+14
JE Amadi-Echendu348
systems oil gas and mining facilities From an accounting and fmancial manageshyment point-of-view these assets generally fall into four broad categories (i) plant and equipment (ii) buildings and infrastructure (iii) furniture and fittings and (iv) information technology Overall management of engineered physical assets covers (i) acquisition (ii) ownership (iii) contro~ and (iv) utilisation The essence of management is to ensure that the value profile defmed by all stakeholders is enshyhanced in a sustainable manner throughout the assets life The value that an asset can provide may represent a combination of economic social and environmental benefits depending on the preference and composition of the stakeholders Acquishysition ownership control and utilisation are high level management processes necessary to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by business strategy economy ergonomics operational and technical integrity and regulatory complishyance (Amadi-Echendu 2005)
From a systems viewpoint the life of an engineered physical asset may be deshyscribed in terms of the phases and stages (Amadi-Echendu 2003) illustrated in Figure 1 The two broad stages of capital development and business operations may be subdivided into four phases and further resolved into dominant activity periods Successful management of the asset depends on innovative and synergisshytic integration of a wide range of hard and soft skills through the life-cycle phases and stages These skills include for example fmancial accounting comshy
~ ~~ ~ ~ c
~
Figure 1 Life-cycle stages and phases ofan engineered physical asset
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 349
munications engineering and technology disciplines These necessary skills are vested in humans therefore it can be assumed that primordial human behavioural preferences or attitudes really determine asset management effectiveness
This paper examines the behavioural preferences of engineering professionals as physical asset managers within the context of innovation knowledge and learnshying economy In addition to managing the value profile defmed by stakeholders at the various levels of the asset hierarchy managers also have the responsibility to manage process innovation associated with as well as technological innovation embedded in engineered physical assets that form our built environment
2 Thinking Styles and Behavioural Preferences
With the advent of the innovation knowledge and learning economy era knowlshyedge has become the primary means ofproduction Knowledge creation diffusion and transformation are fundamental to innovative management practices With regard to engineered physical assets engineers and technical professionals are prime technical knowledge resources and they strongly influence the knowledge base skills as well as the motivation roles and responsibilities for the manageshyment of these assets Thus engineers and technical professionals form an important ethnic group of the innovation paradigm such that their behavioural preferences or attitudes are not only implicit but also vital in the processes involved in the management of engineered physical assets (Amadi-Echendu 2007)
From the point-of-view ofpsychology it is intuitive to assume that behavioural preferences are external manifestations of internal thinking styles of individuals or groups and the corollary is that thinking styles precede or determine attitudes and behavioural preferences Maccoby (1994) applied the context of cognitive develshyopment theory to discern four types of management thinking styles - analyser energiser synthesiser and humaniser He further argued that successful informashytion age organisations require managers with higher preference for synthesising and humanising thinking styles Using a more rigorous approach Herrmanns Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) (Herrmann 1996) articulates twenty thinkshying styles classifying them into four quadrants of the Whole Brain Model Herrmanns approach as summarised in Figure 2 shows a proforma of 200000 profiles ofthe mentality of200 representative occupations
The question that arises from Figure 2 is - what should be the profile for the manager of engineered physical assets What thinking styles should predominate so that appropriate behavioural preferences manifest into attitudes which when combined with knowledge and skills provide for innovative and effective manshyagement ofphysical assets The paradox is tension between conventional thinking styles of engineering professionals and the requirement for innovative behavioural preferences that encompass a much wider range of cognitive and mental processshying modes The innovation knowledge and learning economy era is characterised by continuous acquisition of new skills with the corresponding rapid conversion
JE Arnadi-Echendu350
PROFORMA PROFILES OF THE MENTALITV OF REPRESENTATIVE OCCUPATIONS
A UPPER LEFT
80hr ConceptualllUrh act-nUe Entr~r)rprobte~UC1 SynthiouQr0Stock eroll~e~h1 mat~nj~Antybullbull g Artt_UcR_ AQLogical Englnr
~ ~ Ch_ elnanc 0ffIc ~ COmiddotO-middot~i5 ~ CEO
~ MuUmiddotdOft1lnnt 40 CJoran_or~o
bullbullbullbullp --bullbull~ Q O6 Coun Io Boo ~ Mn~ ---- ~ ~
aaUftiif
O n ~ ~ _Wo Tlker Mubullbullcol
SplrituStmiddotYG bull SUPu- Emocong~middotmiddotI~~~C ~ Adm lfTI~~3~chOOI InpronR e
LOWER LEFT LOWER RIGHT
B C OHemnann rntemational Z()()()
Figure 1 HBDI thinking style profiles of representative occupations
and application of ideas and knowhow towards generating the value profile deshyfmed by multifarious stakeholders A major challenge therefore is that for the respective life-cycle phasesstages and organisational forms associated with the physical asset base a manager of engineered physical assets has to continuously and rapidly acquire new knowledge adapt to andor adopt effective cognitive processing modes within the vagaries ofthe innovation paradigm
3 Research
31 Survey
The presentation here is an attempt to identify the dominant thinking styles for EAM within the context of the innovation economy paradigm Whilst on a speakshying tour of Australia the author requested that attendees complete a one-page questionnaire at the start of the meeting The audience mostly consisted of practisshying engineers with primary responsibility for the maintenance of physical assets Considering that the engineering professional of the innovation generation is a
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 351
knowledge worker respondents were asked to rank the twenty thinking styles described in the HBDI on a five-point scale ranging from not important (score = 1) to extremely important (score = 5) All respondents completed the questionshynaire within five minutes The results are presented here in a manner consistent with the four-quadrant HBDI delineation of Whole Brain Model and dominant thinking styles For brevity the focus is on the summarised opinions expressed in the feedback bearing in mind that the data is non-probablistic that is the responshydents do not form a statistically representative sample of the entire population of engineering professionals
32 Results
A total of 190 respondents participated in the survey Table 1 shows the number of respondents who indicated a ranking for each of the twenty thinking styles Quesshytionnaire feedback in which a ranking was not indicated for more than fifteen thinking styles was regarded as incomplete and not included in the data set
The relative importance of thinking styles as indicated by the respondents is shown in Figure 3 in a manner consistent with the HBDI delineation according to the Whole Brain Model This picture shows that a discernible number of responshydents did not attach any importance to artistic (97 ) emotional (107) consershyvative (215 ) spiritual (33 ) and musical (46 ) thinking styles This could be interpreted to mean that as much as 46 of respondents suggest that musical thinking style should not influence the behavioural preference of the Engineering Asset Manager ofthe innovation dispensation
Table 1 Number of respondents indicating a ranking for thinking styles
HBO W hole Brain Model OeHneatlon of Thinking Styles
Q d U D Upper Right Cereb
HB)I Thinking Styles
352 Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 353
(iv) Interpersonal - Nearly 48 of respondents indicate that the ability to easily develop and maintain meaningful and pleasant relationships with many different kinds ofpeople is extremely important
(v) Holistic - About 47 of respondents indicate that the ability to perceive and understand the big picture without dwelling on individual elements is extremely important
(vi) Conceptualisng - 46 of respondents indicate that the ability to conceive thoughts and ideas to generalise abstract ideas from specific instances is extremely important
(vii) Planning - 45 of respondents indicate that the ability to formulate methshyods to achieve a desired end in advance of taking actions to implement is extremely important
(viii) Technical- 37 of respondents indicate that the ability to understand and apply engineering and scientific knowledge is extremely important
(ix) Organisational 35 of respondents indicate that the ability to arrange people concepts ideas etc into coherent relationships with each other is extremely important
(x) Imaginative - 31 of respondents indicate that the ability to form mental images of things not immediately available to the senses or never wholly perceived in reality ability to confront and deal with a problem in a new way is extremely important
Respondent Feedback Top Ten Extremely Important Thinking Styles
~g g q t~
fl II
Figure Respondents ranking oftop ten extremely important thinking styles
--IIIlilI _ --Right Cerebral Thinking Styles
~-ll~~= Artdt$ -shy -~nl~x~-=====-iiiIiIII ~middotl~-~~~~~I 20 ~ ~ JlO 1laquol
Figure 3 Respondent ranking ofthinking styles
JE Amadi-Echendu
ltgt NotImportant
~ Vaguely Important
bull Sltlmewhat Important
ltgt Important
bull Extremely Important
The top ten thinking styles ranked as extremely important by the respondents are shown in Figure 4 to include (i) Logical - Nearly 66 of respondents indicate that the ability to reason
deductively from what has gone before is extremely important (ii) Problem solving Again 65 of respondents indicate that the ability to
fmd solutions to difficult problems by reasoning is extremely important (iii) Analysing 54 of respondents indicate that the ability to break up ideas
into parts and examining them to see how they fit together is extremely imshyportant
JE Amadi-Echendu354
4 Summary
Six of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the left-brain quadrants hence validating the HBDI profonna profile of engineering and related occupations This is not surprising since all the respondents had an engineering background and technical orientation What is more interesting is the fact that four of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the right-brain quadshyrants with three in the upper right mental processing mode This result also supshyports the increased shift in emphasis towards behavioural preferences generally referred to as soft skills In comparing the respondent feedback with the HBDI profonna profiles of occupations shown earlier in Figure 2 the suggestion is that the profile for the Engineering Asset Manager should lie between that shown for technical chief executive office (CEO) and chemist The ramification is that rightshybrained mental processing modes should be combined with scientific knowledge and technical skills to effectively manage the various life-cycle phases stages and organisational activities associated with built environment assets
The essence of managing physical assets that fonn our built environment is to provide benefits to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by rapidly changshying financial social and environmental compliance requirements Innovative apshyproaches to enhance and sustain the profile of values required from these assets demands a shift in the behavioural preferences or attitudes of engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations This implies that engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations need to adapt to new thinking styles and adopt effective cognitive and mental processing modes Whilst assuming that thinking styles manifest in attitudes this paper has described the results of a 2005 survey of 190 practicing engineers to ascertain what thinking styles should detershymine behavioural preferences of engineering-oriented managers of built environshyment assets of the innovation generation The study confinns other results from cognitive theory and psychology highlighting the top ten thinking styles as ranked by survey respondents It is remarkable and worth emphasizing that interpersonal holistic imaginative and conceptual thinking all rank very highly in the attitude required ofengineering professionals in asset management situations
Although the sample size presents a limitation in tenns of generalisation howshyever the study has implications for education research training and leadership development of an appropriate cadre of innovative managers of engineered physishycal assets Whilst the study points towards a strategic view of EAM within the context of human dimensions however the question still remains as to how to adapt and align traditional behavioural preferences towards the new mental procshyessing modes and attitudes demanded by the era of innovation knowledge and learning economy The human dimensions ramifications even extend to issues of organisational development that is mindful of the need for synergistic integration of multidisciplinary knowledge domains and skills for example what forms of new organisational structures will be most appropriate for effective management of engineered physical assets of the future
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 355
Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge sponsorship received from University of Pretoria ESKOM South Africa and Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia for the MESA 2005 Eminent Speaker Tour during which the survey was conducted
References
Amadi-Echendu J E (2005) Physical asset management requires a paradigm shift from mainteshynance MESA Tour 2005 and ICOMS 2005 Keynote address Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Newcastle Perth Sydney Wollongong and Hobart 30 May - lO June 2005
Amadi-Echendu J E (2003) Developing operational capability during major capital projects Proceedings ofIntemational Conference on Maintenance and Asset Management (ICAMM) Pretoria South Africa Oct 2003
Amadi-Echendu J E (2007) Thinking styles of technical knowledge workers in the systems of innovation paradigm TechnolOgical Forecasting amp Social Change 74 (2007) 1204-1214
Maccoby M (1994) From Analyzer to Humanizer Raising the Level of Management Thinking Research Technology Management VoL 37 No5 57-59
Herrmann N (1996) The Whole Brain Business Book McGraw-Hill ISBN 0070284628
JE Amadi-Echendu348
systems oil gas and mining facilities From an accounting and fmancial manageshyment point-of-view these assets generally fall into four broad categories (i) plant and equipment (ii) buildings and infrastructure (iii) furniture and fittings and (iv) information technology Overall management of engineered physical assets covers (i) acquisition (ii) ownership (iii) contro~ and (iv) utilisation The essence of management is to ensure that the value profile defmed by all stakeholders is enshyhanced in a sustainable manner throughout the assets life The value that an asset can provide may represent a combination of economic social and environmental benefits depending on the preference and composition of the stakeholders Acquishysition ownership control and utilisation are high level management processes necessary to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by business strategy economy ergonomics operational and technical integrity and regulatory complishyance (Amadi-Echendu 2005)
From a systems viewpoint the life of an engineered physical asset may be deshyscribed in terms of the phases and stages (Amadi-Echendu 2003) illustrated in Figure 1 The two broad stages of capital development and business operations may be subdivided into four phases and further resolved into dominant activity periods Successful management of the asset depends on innovative and synergisshytic integration of a wide range of hard and soft skills through the life-cycle phases and stages These skills include for example fmancial accounting comshy
~ ~~ ~ ~ c
~
Figure 1 Life-cycle stages and phases ofan engineered physical asset
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 349
munications engineering and technology disciplines These necessary skills are vested in humans therefore it can be assumed that primordial human behavioural preferences or attitudes really determine asset management effectiveness
This paper examines the behavioural preferences of engineering professionals as physical asset managers within the context of innovation knowledge and learnshying economy In addition to managing the value profile defmed by stakeholders at the various levels of the asset hierarchy managers also have the responsibility to manage process innovation associated with as well as technological innovation embedded in engineered physical assets that form our built environment
2 Thinking Styles and Behavioural Preferences
With the advent of the innovation knowledge and learning economy era knowlshyedge has become the primary means ofproduction Knowledge creation diffusion and transformation are fundamental to innovative management practices With regard to engineered physical assets engineers and technical professionals are prime technical knowledge resources and they strongly influence the knowledge base skills as well as the motivation roles and responsibilities for the manageshyment of these assets Thus engineers and technical professionals form an important ethnic group of the innovation paradigm such that their behavioural preferences or attitudes are not only implicit but also vital in the processes involved in the management of engineered physical assets (Amadi-Echendu 2007)
From the point-of-view ofpsychology it is intuitive to assume that behavioural preferences are external manifestations of internal thinking styles of individuals or groups and the corollary is that thinking styles precede or determine attitudes and behavioural preferences Maccoby (1994) applied the context of cognitive develshyopment theory to discern four types of management thinking styles - analyser energiser synthesiser and humaniser He further argued that successful informashytion age organisations require managers with higher preference for synthesising and humanising thinking styles Using a more rigorous approach Herrmanns Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) (Herrmann 1996) articulates twenty thinkshying styles classifying them into four quadrants of the Whole Brain Model Herrmanns approach as summarised in Figure 2 shows a proforma of 200000 profiles ofthe mentality of200 representative occupations
The question that arises from Figure 2 is - what should be the profile for the manager of engineered physical assets What thinking styles should predominate so that appropriate behavioural preferences manifest into attitudes which when combined with knowledge and skills provide for innovative and effective manshyagement ofphysical assets The paradox is tension between conventional thinking styles of engineering professionals and the requirement for innovative behavioural preferences that encompass a much wider range of cognitive and mental processshying modes The innovation knowledge and learning economy era is characterised by continuous acquisition of new skills with the corresponding rapid conversion
JE Arnadi-Echendu350
PROFORMA PROFILES OF THE MENTALITV OF REPRESENTATIVE OCCUPATIONS
A UPPER LEFT
80hr ConceptualllUrh act-nUe Entr~r)rprobte~UC1 SynthiouQr0Stock eroll~e~h1 mat~nj~Antybullbull g Artt_UcR_ AQLogical Englnr
~ ~ Ch_ elnanc 0ffIc ~ COmiddotO-middot~i5 ~ CEO
~ MuUmiddotdOft1lnnt 40 CJoran_or~o
bullbullbullbullp --bullbull~ Q O6 Coun Io Boo ~ Mn~ ---- ~ ~
aaUftiif
O n ~ ~ _Wo Tlker Mubullbullcol
SplrituStmiddotYG bull SUPu- Emocong~middotmiddotI~~~C ~ Adm lfTI~~3~chOOI InpronR e
LOWER LEFT LOWER RIGHT
B C OHemnann rntemational Z()()()
Figure 1 HBDI thinking style profiles of representative occupations
and application of ideas and knowhow towards generating the value profile deshyfmed by multifarious stakeholders A major challenge therefore is that for the respective life-cycle phasesstages and organisational forms associated with the physical asset base a manager of engineered physical assets has to continuously and rapidly acquire new knowledge adapt to andor adopt effective cognitive processing modes within the vagaries ofthe innovation paradigm
3 Research
31 Survey
The presentation here is an attempt to identify the dominant thinking styles for EAM within the context of the innovation economy paradigm Whilst on a speakshying tour of Australia the author requested that attendees complete a one-page questionnaire at the start of the meeting The audience mostly consisted of practisshying engineers with primary responsibility for the maintenance of physical assets Considering that the engineering professional of the innovation generation is a
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 351
knowledge worker respondents were asked to rank the twenty thinking styles described in the HBDI on a five-point scale ranging from not important (score = 1) to extremely important (score = 5) All respondents completed the questionshynaire within five minutes The results are presented here in a manner consistent with the four-quadrant HBDI delineation of Whole Brain Model and dominant thinking styles For brevity the focus is on the summarised opinions expressed in the feedback bearing in mind that the data is non-probablistic that is the responshydents do not form a statistically representative sample of the entire population of engineering professionals
32 Results
A total of 190 respondents participated in the survey Table 1 shows the number of respondents who indicated a ranking for each of the twenty thinking styles Quesshytionnaire feedback in which a ranking was not indicated for more than fifteen thinking styles was regarded as incomplete and not included in the data set
The relative importance of thinking styles as indicated by the respondents is shown in Figure 3 in a manner consistent with the HBDI delineation according to the Whole Brain Model This picture shows that a discernible number of responshydents did not attach any importance to artistic (97 ) emotional (107) consershyvative (215 ) spiritual (33 ) and musical (46 ) thinking styles This could be interpreted to mean that as much as 46 of respondents suggest that musical thinking style should not influence the behavioural preference of the Engineering Asset Manager ofthe innovation dispensation
Table 1 Number of respondents indicating a ranking for thinking styles
HBO W hole Brain Model OeHneatlon of Thinking Styles
Q d U D Upper Right Cereb
HB)I Thinking Styles
352 Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 353
(iv) Interpersonal - Nearly 48 of respondents indicate that the ability to easily develop and maintain meaningful and pleasant relationships with many different kinds ofpeople is extremely important
(v) Holistic - About 47 of respondents indicate that the ability to perceive and understand the big picture without dwelling on individual elements is extremely important
(vi) Conceptualisng - 46 of respondents indicate that the ability to conceive thoughts and ideas to generalise abstract ideas from specific instances is extremely important
(vii) Planning - 45 of respondents indicate that the ability to formulate methshyods to achieve a desired end in advance of taking actions to implement is extremely important
(viii) Technical- 37 of respondents indicate that the ability to understand and apply engineering and scientific knowledge is extremely important
(ix) Organisational 35 of respondents indicate that the ability to arrange people concepts ideas etc into coherent relationships with each other is extremely important
(x) Imaginative - 31 of respondents indicate that the ability to form mental images of things not immediately available to the senses or never wholly perceived in reality ability to confront and deal with a problem in a new way is extremely important
Respondent Feedback Top Ten Extremely Important Thinking Styles
~g g q t~
fl II
Figure Respondents ranking oftop ten extremely important thinking styles
--IIIlilI _ --Right Cerebral Thinking Styles
~-ll~~= Artdt$ -shy -~nl~x~-=====-iiiIiIII ~middotl~-~~~~~I 20 ~ ~ JlO 1laquol
Figure 3 Respondent ranking ofthinking styles
JE Amadi-Echendu
ltgt NotImportant
~ Vaguely Important
bull Sltlmewhat Important
ltgt Important
bull Extremely Important
The top ten thinking styles ranked as extremely important by the respondents are shown in Figure 4 to include (i) Logical - Nearly 66 of respondents indicate that the ability to reason
deductively from what has gone before is extremely important (ii) Problem solving Again 65 of respondents indicate that the ability to
fmd solutions to difficult problems by reasoning is extremely important (iii) Analysing 54 of respondents indicate that the ability to break up ideas
into parts and examining them to see how they fit together is extremely imshyportant
JE Amadi-Echendu354
4 Summary
Six of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the left-brain quadrants hence validating the HBDI profonna profile of engineering and related occupations This is not surprising since all the respondents had an engineering background and technical orientation What is more interesting is the fact that four of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the right-brain quadshyrants with three in the upper right mental processing mode This result also supshyports the increased shift in emphasis towards behavioural preferences generally referred to as soft skills In comparing the respondent feedback with the HBDI profonna profiles of occupations shown earlier in Figure 2 the suggestion is that the profile for the Engineering Asset Manager should lie between that shown for technical chief executive office (CEO) and chemist The ramification is that rightshybrained mental processing modes should be combined with scientific knowledge and technical skills to effectively manage the various life-cycle phases stages and organisational activities associated with built environment assets
The essence of managing physical assets that fonn our built environment is to provide benefits to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by rapidly changshying financial social and environmental compliance requirements Innovative apshyproaches to enhance and sustain the profile of values required from these assets demands a shift in the behavioural preferences or attitudes of engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations This implies that engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations need to adapt to new thinking styles and adopt effective cognitive and mental processing modes Whilst assuming that thinking styles manifest in attitudes this paper has described the results of a 2005 survey of 190 practicing engineers to ascertain what thinking styles should detershymine behavioural preferences of engineering-oriented managers of built environshyment assets of the innovation generation The study confinns other results from cognitive theory and psychology highlighting the top ten thinking styles as ranked by survey respondents It is remarkable and worth emphasizing that interpersonal holistic imaginative and conceptual thinking all rank very highly in the attitude required ofengineering professionals in asset management situations
Although the sample size presents a limitation in tenns of generalisation howshyever the study has implications for education research training and leadership development of an appropriate cadre of innovative managers of engineered physishycal assets Whilst the study points towards a strategic view of EAM within the context of human dimensions however the question still remains as to how to adapt and align traditional behavioural preferences towards the new mental procshyessing modes and attitudes demanded by the era of innovation knowledge and learning economy The human dimensions ramifications even extend to issues of organisational development that is mindful of the need for synergistic integration of multidisciplinary knowledge domains and skills for example what forms of new organisational structures will be most appropriate for effective management of engineered physical assets of the future
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 355
Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge sponsorship received from University of Pretoria ESKOM South Africa and Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia for the MESA 2005 Eminent Speaker Tour during which the survey was conducted
References
Amadi-Echendu J E (2005) Physical asset management requires a paradigm shift from mainteshynance MESA Tour 2005 and ICOMS 2005 Keynote address Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Newcastle Perth Sydney Wollongong and Hobart 30 May - lO June 2005
Amadi-Echendu J E (2003) Developing operational capability during major capital projects Proceedings ofIntemational Conference on Maintenance and Asset Management (ICAMM) Pretoria South Africa Oct 2003
Amadi-Echendu J E (2007) Thinking styles of technical knowledge workers in the systems of innovation paradigm TechnolOgical Forecasting amp Social Change 74 (2007) 1204-1214
Maccoby M (1994) From Analyzer to Humanizer Raising the Level of Management Thinking Research Technology Management VoL 37 No5 57-59
Herrmann N (1996) The Whole Brain Business Book McGraw-Hill ISBN 0070284628
JE Arnadi-Echendu350
PROFORMA PROFILES OF THE MENTALITV OF REPRESENTATIVE OCCUPATIONS
A UPPER LEFT
80hr ConceptualllUrh act-nUe Entr~r)rprobte~UC1 SynthiouQr0Stock eroll~e~h1 mat~nj~Antybullbull g Artt_UcR_ AQLogical Englnr
~ ~ Ch_ elnanc 0ffIc ~ COmiddotO-middot~i5 ~ CEO
~ MuUmiddotdOft1lnnt 40 CJoran_or~o
bullbullbullbullp --bullbull~ Q O6 Coun Io Boo ~ Mn~ ---- ~ ~
aaUftiif
O n ~ ~ _Wo Tlker Mubullbullcol
SplrituStmiddotYG bull SUPu- Emocong~middotmiddotI~~~C ~ Adm lfTI~~3~chOOI InpronR e
LOWER LEFT LOWER RIGHT
B C OHemnann rntemational Z()()()
Figure 1 HBDI thinking style profiles of representative occupations
and application of ideas and knowhow towards generating the value profile deshyfmed by multifarious stakeholders A major challenge therefore is that for the respective life-cycle phasesstages and organisational forms associated with the physical asset base a manager of engineered physical assets has to continuously and rapidly acquire new knowledge adapt to andor adopt effective cognitive processing modes within the vagaries ofthe innovation paradigm
3 Research
31 Survey
The presentation here is an attempt to identify the dominant thinking styles for EAM within the context of the innovation economy paradigm Whilst on a speakshying tour of Australia the author requested that attendees complete a one-page questionnaire at the start of the meeting The audience mostly consisted of practisshying engineers with primary responsibility for the maintenance of physical assets Considering that the engineering professional of the innovation generation is a
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 351
knowledge worker respondents were asked to rank the twenty thinking styles described in the HBDI on a five-point scale ranging from not important (score = 1) to extremely important (score = 5) All respondents completed the questionshynaire within five minutes The results are presented here in a manner consistent with the four-quadrant HBDI delineation of Whole Brain Model and dominant thinking styles For brevity the focus is on the summarised opinions expressed in the feedback bearing in mind that the data is non-probablistic that is the responshydents do not form a statistically representative sample of the entire population of engineering professionals
32 Results
A total of 190 respondents participated in the survey Table 1 shows the number of respondents who indicated a ranking for each of the twenty thinking styles Quesshytionnaire feedback in which a ranking was not indicated for more than fifteen thinking styles was regarded as incomplete and not included in the data set
The relative importance of thinking styles as indicated by the respondents is shown in Figure 3 in a manner consistent with the HBDI delineation according to the Whole Brain Model This picture shows that a discernible number of responshydents did not attach any importance to artistic (97 ) emotional (107) consershyvative (215 ) spiritual (33 ) and musical (46 ) thinking styles This could be interpreted to mean that as much as 46 of respondents suggest that musical thinking style should not influence the behavioural preference of the Engineering Asset Manager ofthe innovation dispensation
Table 1 Number of respondents indicating a ranking for thinking styles
HBO W hole Brain Model OeHneatlon of Thinking Styles
Q d U D Upper Right Cereb
HB)I Thinking Styles
352 Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 353
(iv) Interpersonal - Nearly 48 of respondents indicate that the ability to easily develop and maintain meaningful and pleasant relationships with many different kinds ofpeople is extremely important
(v) Holistic - About 47 of respondents indicate that the ability to perceive and understand the big picture without dwelling on individual elements is extremely important
(vi) Conceptualisng - 46 of respondents indicate that the ability to conceive thoughts and ideas to generalise abstract ideas from specific instances is extremely important
(vii) Planning - 45 of respondents indicate that the ability to formulate methshyods to achieve a desired end in advance of taking actions to implement is extremely important
(viii) Technical- 37 of respondents indicate that the ability to understand and apply engineering and scientific knowledge is extremely important
(ix) Organisational 35 of respondents indicate that the ability to arrange people concepts ideas etc into coherent relationships with each other is extremely important
(x) Imaginative - 31 of respondents indicate that the ability to form mental images of things not immediately available to the senses or never wholly perceived in reality ability to confront and deal with a problem in a new way is extremely important
Respondent Feedback Top Ten Extremely Important Thinking Styles
~g g q t~
fl II
Figure Respondents ranking oftop ten extremely important thinking styles
--IIIlilI _ --Right Cerebral Thinking Styles
~-ll~~= Artdt$ -shy -~nl~x~-=====-iiiIiIII ~middotl~-~~~~~I 20 ~ ~ JlO 1laquol
Figure 3 Respondent ranking ofthinking styles
JE Amadi-Echendu
ltgt NotImportant
~ Vaguely Important
bull Sltlmewhat Important
ltgt Important
bull Extremely Important
The top ten thinking styles ranked as extremely important by the respondents are shown in Figure 4 to include (i) Logical - Nearly 66 of respondents indicate that the ability to reason
deductively from what has gone before is extremely important (ii) Problem solving Again 65 of respondents indicate that the ability to
fmd solutions to difficult problems by reasoning is extremely important (iii) Analysing 54 of respondents indicate that the ability to break up ideas
into parts and examining them to see how they fit together is extremely imshyportant
JE Amadi-Echendu354
4 Summary
Six of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the left-brain quadrants hence validating the HBDI profonna profile of engineering and related occupations This is not surprising since all the respondents had an engineering background and technical orientation What is more interesting is the fact that four of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the right-brain quadshyrants with three in the upper right mental processing mode This result also supshyports the increased shift in emphasis towards behavioural preferences generally referred to as soft skills In comparing the respondent feedback with the HBDI profonna profiles of occupations shown earlier in Figure 2 the suggestion is that the profile for the Engineering Asset Manager should lie between that shown for technical chief executive office (CEO) and chemist The ramification is that rightshybrained mental processing modes should be combined with scientific knowledge and technical skills to effectively manage the various life-cycle phases stages and organisational activities associated with built environment assets
The essence of managing physical assets that fonn our built environment is to provide benefits to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by rapidly changshying financial social and environmental compliance requirements Innovative apshyproaches to enhance and sustain the profile of values required from these assets demands a shift in the behavioural preferences or attitudes of engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations This implies that engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations need to adapt to new thinking styles and adopt effective cognitive and mental processing modes Whilst assuming that thinking styles manifest in attitudes this paper has described the results of a 2005 survey of 190 practicing engineers to ascertain what thinking styles should detershymine behavioural preferences of engineering-oriented managers of built environshyment assets of the innovation generation The study confinns other results from cognitive theory and psychology highlighting the top ten thinking styles as ranked by survey respondents It is remarkable and worth emphasizing that interpersonal holistic imaginative and conceptual thinking all rank very highly in the attitude required ofengineering professionals in asset management situations
Although the sample size presents a limitation in tenns of generalisation howshyever the study has implications for education research training and leadership development of an appropriate cadre of innovative managers of engineered physishycal assets Whilst the study points towards a strategic view of EAM within the context of human dimensions however the question still remains as to how to adapt and align traditional behavioural preferences towards the new mental procshyessing modes and attitudes demanded by the era of innovation knowledge and learning economy The human dimensions ramifications even extend to issues of organisational development that is mindful of the need for synergistic integration of multidisciplinary knowledge domains and skills for example what forms of new organisational structures will be most appropriate for effective management of engineered physical assets of the future
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 355
Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge sponsorship received from University of Pretoria ESKOM South Africa and Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia for the MESA 2005 Eminent Speaker Tour during which the survey was conducted
References
Amadi-Echendu J E (2005) Physical asset management requires a paradigm shift from mainteshynance MESA Tour 2005 and ICOMS 2005 Keynote address Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Newcastle Perth Sydney Wollongong and Hobart 30 May - lO June 2005
Amadi-Echendu J E (2003) Developing operational capability during major capital projects Proceedings ofIntemational Conference on Maintenance and Asset Management (ICAMM) Pretoria South Africa Oct 2003
Amadi-Echendu J E (2007) Thinking styles of technical knowledge workers in the systems of innovation paradigm TechnolOgical Forecasting amp Social Change 74 (2007) 1204-1214
Maccoby M (1994) From Analyzer to Humanizer Raising the Level of Management Thinking Research Technology Management VoL 37 No5 57-59
Herrmann N (1996) The Whole Brain Business Book McGraw-Hill ISBN 0070284628
352 Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 353
(iv) Interpersonal - Nearly 48 of respondents indicate that the ability to easily develop and maintain meaningful and pleasant relationships with many different kinds ofpeople is extremely important
(v) Holistic - About 47 of respondents indicate that the ability to perceive and understand the big picture without dwelling on individual elements is extremely important
(vi) Conceptualisng - 46 of respondents indicate that the ability to conceive thoughts and ideas to generalise abstract ideas from specific instances is extremely important
(vii) Planning - 45 of respondents indicate that the ability to formulate methshyods to achieve a desired end in advance of taking actions to implement is extremely important
(viii) Technical- 37 of respondents indicate that the ability to understand and apply engineering and scientific knowledge is extremely important
(ix) Organisational 35 of respondents indicate that the ability to arrange people concepts ideas etc into coherent relationships with each other is extremely important
(x) Imaginative - 31 of respondents indicate that the ability to form mental images of things not immediately available to the senses or never wholly perceived in reality ability to confront and deal with a problem in a new way is extremely important
Respondent Feedback Top Ten Extremely Important Thinking Styles
~g g q t~
fl II
Figure Respondents ranking oftop ten extremely important thinking styles
--IIIlilI _ --Right Cerebral Thinking Styles
~-ll~~= Artdt$ -shy -~nl~x~-=====-iiiIiIII ~middotl~-~~~~~I 20 ~ ~ JlO 1laquol
Figure 3 Respondent ranking ofthinking styles
JE Amadi-Echendu
ltgt NotImportant
~ Vaguely Important
bull Sltlmewhat Important
ltgt Important
bull Extremely Important
The top ten thinking styles ranked as extremely important by the respondents are shown in Figure 4 to include (i) Logical - Nearly 66 of respondents indicate that the ability to reason
deductively from what has gone before is extremely important (ii) Problem solving Again 65 of respondents indicate that the ability to
fmd solutions to difficult problems by reasoning is extremely important (iii) Analysing 54 of respondents indicate that the ability to break up ideas
into parts and examining them to see how they fit together is extremely imshyportant
JE Amadi-Echendu354
4 Summary
Six of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the left-brain quadrants hence validating the HBDI profonna profile of engineering and related occupations This is not surprising since all the respondents had an engineering background and technical orientation What is more interesting is the fact that four of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the right-brain quadshyrants with three in the upper right mental processing mode This result also supshyports the increased shift in emphasis towards behavioural preferences generally referred to as soft skills In comparing the respondent feedback with the HBDI profonna profiles of occupations shown earlier in Figure 2 the suggestion is that the profile for the Engineering Asset Manager should lie between that shown for technical chief executive office (CEO) and chemist The ramification is that rightshybrained mental processing modes should be combined with scientific knowledge and technical skills to effectively manage the various life-cycle phases stages and organisational activities associated with built environment assets
The essence of managing physical assets that fonn our built environment is to provide benefits to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by rapidly changshying financial social and environmental compliance requirements Innovative apshyproaches to enhance and sustain the profile of values required from these assets demands a shift in the behavioural preferences or attitudes of engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations This implies that engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations need to adapt to new thinking styles and adopt effective cognitive and mental processing modes Whilst assuming that thinking styles manifest in attitudes this paper has described the results of a 2005 survey of 190 practicing engineers to ascertain what thinking styles should detershymine behavioural preferences of engineering-oriented managers of built environshyment assets of the innovation generation The study confinns other results from cognitive theory and psychology highlighting the top ten thinking styles as ranked by survey respondents It is remarkable and worth emphasizing that interpersonal holistic imaginative and conceptual thinking all rank very highly in the attitude required ofengineering professionals in asset management situations
Although the sample size presents a limitation in tenns of generalisation howshyever the study has implications for education research training and leadership development of an appropriate cadre of innovative managers of engineered physishycal assets Whilst the study points towards a strategic view of EAM within the context of human dimensions however the question still remains as to how to adapt and align traditional behavioural preferences towards the new mental procshyessing modes and attitudes demanded by the era of innovation knowledge and learning economy The human dimensions ramifications even extend to issues of organisational development that is mindful of the need for synergistic integration of multidisciplinary knowledge domains and skills for example what forms of new organisational structures will be most appropriate for effective management of engineered physical assets of the future
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 355
Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge sponsorship received from University of Pretoria ESKOM South Africa and Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia for the MESA 2005 Eminent Speaker Tour during which the survey was conducted
References
Amadi-Echendu J E (2005) Physical asset management requires a paradigm shift from mainteshynance MESA Tour 2005 and ICOMS 2005 Keynote address Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Newcastle Perth Sydney Wollongong and Hobart 30 May - lO June 2005
Amadi-Echendu J E (2003) Developing operational capability during major capital projects Proceedings ofIntemational Conference on Maintenance and Asset Management (ICAMM) Pretoria South Africa Oct 2003
Amadi-Echendu J E (2007) Thinking styles of technical knowledge workers in the systems of innovation paradigm TechnolOgical Forecasting amp Social Change 74 (2007) 1204-1214
Maccoby M (1994) From Analyzer to Humanizer Raising the Level of Management Thinking Research Technology Management VoL 37 No5 57-59
Herrmann N (1996) The Whole Brain Business Book McGraw-Hill ISBN 0070284628
JE Amadi-Echendu354
4 Summary
Six of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the left-brain quadrants hence validating the HBDI profonna profile of engineering and related occupations This is not surprising since all the respondents had an engineering background and technical orientation What is more interesting is the fact that four of the top ten extremely important thinking styles belong to the right-brain quadshyrants with three in the upper right mental processing mode This result also supshyports the increased shift in emphasis towards behavioural preferences generally referred to as soft skills In comparing the respondent feedback with the HBDI profonna profiles of occupations shown earlier in Figure 2 the suggestion is that the profile for the Engineering Asset Manager should lie between that shown for technical chief executive office (CEO) and chemist The ramification is that rightshybrained mental processing modes should be combined with scientific knowledge and technical skills to effectively manage the various life-cycle phases stages and organisational activities associated with built environment assets
The essence of managing physical assets that fonn our built environment is to provide benefits to satisfy the continuum of constraints imposed by rapidly changshying financial social and environmental compliance requirements Innovative apshyproaches to enhance and sustain the profile of values required from these assets demands a shift in the behavioural preferences or attitudes of engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations This implies that engineering professhysionals in asset management occupations need to adapt to new thinking styles and adopt effective cognitive and mental processing modes Whilst assuming that thinking styles manifest in attitudes this paper has described the results of a 2005 survey of 190 practicing engineers to ascertain what thinking styles should detershymine behavioural preferences of engineering-oriented managers of built environshyment assets of the innovation generation The study confinns other results from cognitive theory and psychology highlighting the top ten thinking styles as ranked by survey respondents It is remarkable and worth emphasizing that interpersonal holistic imaginative and conceptual thinking all rank very highly in the attitude required ofengineering professionals in asset management situations
Although the sample size presents a limitation in tenns of generalisation howshyever the study has implications for education research training and leadership development of an appropriate cadre of innovative managers of engineered physishycal assets Whilst the study points towards a strategic view of EAM within the context of human dimensions however the question still remains as to how to adapt and align traditional behavioural preferences towards the new mental procshyessing modes and attitudes demanded by the era of innovation knowledge and learning economy The human dimensions ramifications even extend to issues of organisational development that is mindful of the need for synergistic integration of multidisciplinary knowledge domains and skills for example what forms of new organisational structures will be most appropriate for effective management of engineered physical assets of the future
Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management 355
Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge sponsorship received from University of Pretoria ESKOM South Africa and Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia for the MESA 2005 Eminent Speaker Tour during which the survey was conducted
References
Amadi-Echendu J E (2005) Physical asset management requires a paradigm shift from mainteshynance MESA Tour 2005 and ICOMS 2005 Keynote address Adelaide Brisbane Melbourne Newcastle Perth Sydney Wollongong and Hobart 30 May - lO June 2005
Amadi-Echendu J E (2003) Developing operational capability during major capital projects Proceedings ofIntemational Conference on Maintenance and Asset Management (ICAMM) Pretoria South Africa Oct 2003
Amadi-Echendu J E (2007) Thinking styles of technical knowledge workers in the systems of innovation paradigm TechnolOgical Forecasting amp Social Change 74 (2007) 1204-1214
Maccoby M (1994) From Analyzer to Humanizer Raising the Level of Management Thinking Research Technology Management VoL 37 No5 57-59
Herrmann N (1996) The Whole Brain Business Book McGraw-Hill ISBN 0070284628
