PAS 55 comes in two parts, PAS 55-1 (the specification of requirements) and PAS 55-2 (guidelines for its application) and is accompanied by a companion document, "Competency Requirements for the management of physical assets and infrastructure". It was published in April 2004 and its first revision was published in Nov 2008.  The revision reflects inputs of feedback from around the asset management world so to speak.

These documents are the first of their kind and reflect a great deal of work by leading asset management professionals.  In the UK compliance to PAS 55 has become mandatory in some utilities.  In the Netherlands a utility has taken the initiative to be certified as compliant by an independent third party auditor.  Several utilities in the US and Canada are examining it closely and even participating in reviews of the specification. 

PAS 55 is rapidly gaining interest and an international following.  Part of its popularity is due to the total void it has now filled.  At last there is a specification of requirements for what it takes to be responsible asset managers.  It's impossible to say what its impact will be at this time, but it is possible to muse on its potential.  We've experienced a number of disasters, some man-made and some natural but "man-enhanced".  Take for example the flooding and damage done to New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit.  The woefully inadequate system of levees could not withstand nature's onslaught.  Compare those levees - little more than vertical concrete walls with the dikes that protect the Netherlands or the flood control used in London on the Thames River.  We've seen bridges collapsing - sometimes with loss of life.  It happened in Montreal, in St. Paul / Minneapolis - where next?  In all these cases, some aspect of Asset Management had been neglected.

Finger pointing to assign blame is useless.  Tell the deceased and their families who's responsible - see if they really care.  We can learn.  Learn what was missing.  Was design unfit for purpose in some cases?  Probably.  Was maintenance unfit for purpose in some cases?  Probably.  Was the saving of capital costs or operating expenses part of the decision to under-design and / or under-maintain?  Probably.  Did short term thinking prevail when dealing with an asset that is intended to provide long term service?  Probably.

PAS 55 describes what it takes to avoid these sorts of issues.  These problems are systemic in most organizations.  We have the technological capabilities but we lack the organizational fortitude to do the right thing.  We fail in our duties to society as a whole.  And members of that society pay the price - sometimes with their lives.  We get what we pay for.  As W Edwards Deming said, "your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are getting".  We've designed inadequacy for long term purpose into our very ways of doing things.  We know better, but we haven't used that knowledge.  We've proceeded as if we've been unconscious of the consequences of our choices.

PAS 55 raises that level of consciousness.  We at CAM whole-heartily support it and are bringing it to our clients.  It will require changes in the way things are done, not necessarily what is done, but how those activities interact with each other.  As I mentioned above, the problems are systemic.  The solutions to those problems must address the "system" of business, not just the activities. Silo thinking and acting is a big part of the problem.  PAS 55 addresses that well.