=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3645/forum6
|storemode=property
|title=Developing an ontological model to support an asset management system
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3645/forum6.pdf
|volume=Vol-3645
|authors=Ide Hingstman,Mark Mulder,Hans Mulder
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/HingstmanMM23
}}
==Developing an ontological model to support an asset management system==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3645/forum6.pdf
Developing an ontological model to support an asset
management system
Ide Hingstman1 , Mark A. T. Mulder2 and Hans B. F. Mulder3
1
CPM Consultancy, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands
2
TEEC2, Hoevelaken, The Netherlands
3
Antwerp Management School, Antwerp, Belgium
Abstract
Physical assets hold an integral role both in society and for stakeholders, necessitating effective man-
agement systems like the ISO 55000 standards introduced by the ISO. Despite the increased focus on
implementing and sustaining these systems, they do not offer explicit guidance on design or implementa-
tion within an organisation. Empirical data and business case studies validate the benefits of employing
the Design and Engineering Methodology for Organisations (DEMO) in organisational contexts. Thus, a
DEMO-based asset management system, designed in line with ISO 55001 requirements, could potentially
offer a viable solution for standard implementation within organisations. The DEMO model not only aids
in the inception of an asset management system but also serves as a communication model within the
asset management organisation. Further, the VISI system, regarded as the de-facto open standard in the
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) sectors for communicating contractual agreements,
is rooted in DEMO. This makes VISI appear suitable as a communication mechanism for the ISO 55001
standard.
Keywords
DEMO, enterprise engineering, ISO 55000, asset management, asset management system, VISI, construc-
tion, AEC,
1. Introduction
This scientific paper reports on the additional value of DEMO in the implementation of an Asset
Management System (AMS). Physical assets have an indispensable role in our society and for
stakeholders. Assets like roads and bridges, utilities such as electricity, gas, water, buildings,
and machinery must perform safely , cost-effectively and add in some way value. In addition,
these assets represent a significant financial value for their owners and typically have a lifetime
of several decades, so effective asset management is essential. ISO [1] defines asset management
as a “Coordinated activity of an organisation to realise value from assets” and the constituted
value of asset management depends on organisational objectives, the nature and purpose of the
organisation, and the needs and expectations of its stakeholders.
Companion Proceedings of the 16th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modeling and the 13th
Enterprise Design and Engineering Working Conference, November 28 – December 1, 2023, Vienna, Austria
$ ide@cpmconsultancy.nl (I. Hingstman); markmulder@teec2.nl (M. A. T. Mulder); hans.mulder@ams.ac.be (H. B.
F. Mulder)
0009-0003-3808-6794 (I. Hingstman); 0000-0002-1846-0238 (M. A. T. Mulder); 0000-0002-3304-9711 (H. B. F.
Mulder)
© 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
Asset management is concerned with “balancing costs, opportunities, and risks against the
desired performance of assets to achieve the organisational objectives” [1]. Currently, two
significant aspects amplify the need for asset management [2] in the Netherlands. First, many
Dutch assets were built after 1945 and are approaching the end of their expected functional
lives and require more intensive maintenance and modernisation. Secondly, asset managers
increasingly face changes in the asset context, e.g. stakeholder needs such as higher electricity
demand or heavier vehicles. Facing these challenges, it is essential to conduct asset management
to add value towards stakeholders.
Organisations have become more focused on implementing and maintaining management
systems to ensure that organisations meet stakeholder expectations and needs and improve
organisational performance [3]. For example, the International Organisation for Standardisation
(ISO) developed several management systems (Asset, quality, environment, information security,
etc.) to improve organisational performance on the particular aspect.
However, the ISO 55000 series does not present enough information to design and implement
the system. The ISO has provided the ISO 55000 standards, a management system for asset
management which is adopted worldwide by a broad scale of organisations. The foundation
of the ISO 55000 standards is asset management based on internationally acknowledged and
approved practical experience and methods [4, 5] and apply to any industry and asset type [6].
ISO 55001 is part of the ISO 55000 standards and specifies the requirements for asset management
systems within the context of an organisation. Many researchers have investigated the impact
of management system standards of ISO 9001 (quality management system) or ISO 14001
(environmental management system) on organisational performance. However, only a few
studies have been performed on the impact of ISO 55001 on organisational performance like
the broad study on the organisational performance before and after ISO 55001 certification
[4] where Alsyouf concluded that adopting ISO 55001 by organisations would result in better
performance of their assets, but the implementation process is vital. The implementation
process is about adopting the management system into daily practice in the organisation, and
thereafter consistently maintaining it [7]. Therefore, instead of solely pursuing certifications,
organisations should focus on the implementation process of a management system [8] to
benefit from (asset) management system standards.
The publication of ISO 55000 standards mention the need for organisations to have an effective
asset management system. However, it does not provide details regarding how such a system
should be designed or implemented within an organisation. Furthermore, organisations often
strive to improve their existing asset system because they do not have a structured methodology
to design and implement an asset management system from scratch [9]. However, the lack of
a prescription on how the organisation should fulfil these requirements makes them struggle
with implementing an asset management system [10]. In ISO 55000 standards, ISO 55002:2018
provides guidance for implementing an asset management system. However, because ISO 55002
only guides some of the shortcomings in understanding the implementation of asset management
systems based on ISO 55001 [9], it is not exhaustive or detailed in describing methodologies and
practices, therefore, it is hard for organisations to apply the given guidance [6]. Concluding,
ISO 55002 does not give organisations enough guidance to design and implement an AMS for
an organisation.
1.1. Existing asset management models based on ISO 55001
An AMS [1] defines business processes and information for employees to apply asset manage-
ment within an organisation [11, 12]. Therefore, organisations need an AM model that captures
the business and information aspects. Researchers proposed multiple asset management models
in the literature to help organisations design, implement, and maintain an asset management
system. However, a recent study [5] about existing asset management models from the last
ten years showed that only two models [5, 13] interpreted the ISO 55001 requirements as a
guideline and expressed the business processes of ISO 55001 but did not capture the information
employees use for asset management. Employees need to be able to locate the description of
the roles they have, as well as the information they need for the execution of their tasks in the
model. For example, BPMN and UML do not grasp the business or information perspective
at the same time; therefore, we choose to use the ontological method Design and Engineer-
ing Methodology for Organisations (DEMO), which can capture ISO’s necessary business and
information perspectives.
The DEMO [14] is a method for systematically developing an ontology model. The ontological
models of DEMO capture the business and information aspects [14]. Empirical evidence and
business cases show the applicability of DEMO [14, 15, 16]. Furthermore, a case study about
developing and implementing a management system showed that organisations benefit from
applying DEMO [17]. Therefore, we assume that an asset management system could be modelled
with DEMO based on ISO 55001 requirements. Thereby it might help organisations in the ease
of implementation and maintenance of an AMS based on ISO.
We started this paper with the introduction, which contains the state of the research problem
and addresses the research question and its relevance. In Section 2 the applied methods are
discussed. Then, we present the used notions in Section 3, followed by the early artefact in
Section 4. The results of the explorative focus group are in Section 5. The possible application
of the findings are touched upon in Section 6. Finally, this research ends with the conclusion,
limitations, discussion, and recommendations in Section 7.
2. Method
ISO 55001 is a worldwide adopted and accepted norm for asset management systems for
asset management, but organisations experience difficulty implementing and maintaining an
asset management system. A few AMS based on ISO 55001 in the literature exist to support
implementing and maintaining. However, none of those models are ontological models that
capture the business processes and information into a model specified by ISO 55001. We
have the asset AMS based on ISO 55001 as an independent variable, support implementation
and maintenance of an asset management system as a dependent variable, and DEMO as
the moderator, shown in Fig. 1. We hypothesise that the ontological model based on DEMO
positively supports implementing and maintaining an AMS based on ISO 55001.
We hypothesise that an ontological model base on DEMO positively supports implementing
and maintaining an AMS based on ISO 55001, as shown in Fig. 1. Following the conceptual
research model, we state the following research question: How could an ontological model based
on DEMO support implementing and maintaining an AMS based on ISO 55001?
Figure 1: Conceptual research model
The selected method for answering the research question is Design Science Research (DSR)
[18]. DSR is the scientific study and creation of artefacts as they are developed and used by the
environment to solve practical problems. We try to develop an ontological model for an AMS
based on ISO 55001.
To support our DSR, a methodological framework is used [19]. This model consists of the
following elements: explicate the problem, define requirements, design and develop the artefact,
demonstrate the artefact, and evaluate the artefact. We focus on one or two activities and
discuss others lightly [19]. As the research objective is to develop an ontological model for an
AMS based on ISO 55001, a development and evaluation focus DSR is evident [19]. Feedback for
improvement of the artefact’s design [20, 18, 21] is an essential component of DSR. We apply
two strategies and methods for the iteration of the artefact, being the early design cycles [22]
with document analysis and then later cycles of design refinement with an Exploratory Focus
Group (EFG).
We have conducted the literature study based on a list of the most relevant available literature
and research in asset management systems, models, and frameworks. We assessed literature
that focused on asset management systems, models, or frameworks available for free, published
in a respected journal, e.g. peer-reviewed, in English or Dutch based on the search terms ISO
55001, Asset management system and DEMO. We made four exceptions to the exclusion criteria
of being freely available by purchasing the book or norm.
1. ISO 55000:2014 Asset management – Overview, principles, and terminology [1].
2. ISO 55001:2014 Asset management – Management Systems – Requirements [23].
3. ISO 55002:2018 Guidelines for the application of ISO 55000 [24].
4. Enterprise Ontology [14].
This research uses a specific document analysis method, Performa, Informa, and Forma (PIF)
analysis which is part of the Organisation Essence Revealing (OER) method of the DEMO
methodology [14]. Using this, we analysed the content of ISO 55001, chapter four, “Context of
the organisation”, and chapter five, “Leadership”[23]. If clarification was needed, we consulted
the ISO 55000 standard, ISO 55002 standard, field experts, or the members of the ISO committee.
For the explorative focus group EFG we used the question “Could the ontological model
support an organisation with the implementation and maintenance process of ISO 55001, and
how?” and “Is ISO 55001 well interpreted into an organisational cooperation model?”. Therefore,
we invited participants from areas of expertise: ISO 55000 experts and DEMO. The ISO 55000
experts are members of the ISO 55000 standards committee, and DEMO experts are DEMO
certified or lecturers. It is essential to identify the moderator of the EFG [22]. An experienced
independent moderator is invited whom understand the technical nature of this research to
avoid bias. The researcher participated in the focus group as an observer, took notes, and
provided an explanation if needed. As pre-read, we provided the EFG with pre-read material a
week ahead. Then, at the start of the EFG, the researcher briefly explained DEMO. The question
sequence consisted of the following three elements: 1. Open questions. 2. Statements. 3.
Developed artefact. The three elements consisted of the following aspects: feedback, discussion
and evaluation. We collected data in the first two elements on whether an ontological model
could help organisations implement and maintain an asset management system based on ISO
55001. Then, in part three, we evaluated the developed artefact with the C4E criteria [14] and
ease of implementation and maintenance for whether it could support an organisation. The
artefact is evaluated by showing the participants the PIF analyses and the factual translation
into the artefact for transparency done by the researcher. For the validation, we use the 5-point
Likert agreement scale for scoring statements (2) and artefacts (3).
3. Notions
3.1. The ISO 55000 standards
The ISO 55000 standards are a set of international standards for asset management and asset
management systems, including the three relevant parts ISO 55000:2014 Asset management –
Overview, principles, and terminology, Providing an overview of asset management and the
standard terms and definitions. ISO 55001:2014 Asset management – Management Systems –
Requirements, Providing the requirements for an integrated, effective management system
for asset management. ISO 55002:2018 Guidelines for the application of ISO 55000, Providing a
guidance for the implementation of such a management system. These ISO 55000 standards
are part of the High-Level Structure (HLS) family, which encompass all management system
standards like e.g. ISO 9001 (quality), ISO 14001 (environmental), and ISO 27001 (information
security). Being part of the HLS means the terminology, chapter structure, elements, and core
requirements are identical.
An “asset” is defined as an “Item, thing or entity that has potential or actual value to an
organisation”. Because the ISO 55000 standards are part of the HLS family, we use the definition
of “management” in the ISO 9000 standards where “management” is defined as “Coordinated
activities to direct and control an organisation” [25]. The definition for “asset management”
is [1] “Coordinated activity of an organisation to realise value from assets”. A “management
system” is defined [1] as “Set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organisation to
establish policies and objectives and processes to achieve those objectives”. Now, the ISO 55000
standard combines the definitions “asset” and “management system”, and the definition for
“asset management system” is [1] “Management system for asset management whose function is
to establish the asset management policy and asset management objectives”. The organisation
uses an AMS to direct, coordinate and control asset management activities.
Figure 2: Asset management in the organisation [1]
To develop an AMS for asset management, we should know the relationship between asset
management and AMS. According to ISO 55000 standards, an AMS is a subset of asset man-
agement [1]. Fig. 2 displays that the asset management system lies within the concept of asset
management. Therefore, not every asset management activity can or should be implemented or
captured in an AMS. For instance, the aspects of motivation, culture, and leadership consider-
ably influence the achievements of asset management objects but may be managed outside the
AMS by the organisation.
3.2. Design and Engineering Methodology for Organisations (DEMO)
The following sections describe the systematic approach of the DEMO for developing an onto-
logical model for an AMS based on ISO 55001 in this research. We defined an asset management
system with the following note: The elements of the system include the organisation structure,
such as roles, responsibilities, planning, and operation. In this chapter will discuss how DEMO
captures and expresses roles, responsibilities, and information in an ontological model. The
DEMO methodology has a theoretical foundation (way of thinking) based on seven theories of
which we mainly use the theory around the construction model [14]).
This (PSI) theory is about the operational perspective of an organisation seen as a social
system where subjects are actors who mutually engage into commitments. The theory is the
foundation of Enterprise Ontology (EO) and DEMO [26] and deals with roles, responsibilities,
interactions, and information. It concerns the operational essence of the organisation [14],
where it addresses the atomic building blocks, i.e. coordination and production acts and facts,
and separates this communication between subjects into coordination and production worlds.
Additionally it describes the communication interaction patterns, e.g. Transaction Kind (TK),
and productions, e.g. Product Kind (PK), between subjects in an organisation context as initiator
and executor actor roles.
DEMO visualises the ontological model in four aspect models, each with a different perspec-
tive, i.e. Cooperation Model (CM), Process Model (PM), Fact Model (FM), and Action Model
(AM). The cooperation model (CM) is about the coordination between its Actor Roles (ARs)
and captures the coordination structures between them. The CM shows the combination of the
(Multi) Transactions Kinds ((M)TKs), Product Kinds (PKs), and (Composite) Actor roles ((C)ARs)
and their interaction structure. This paragraph discusses diagrams, tables, representations, and
interaction structures used.
The goal of the method part of DEMO, OER, is to seek and find the essence of an organisation
and is also called the Performa, Informa, and Forma (PIF) analysis. The method guides the
analyser to transform a documental description into an ontological model in four steps. The first
step aims to remove irrelevant details and abstract completely from realisation and implemen-
tation and reveals the transactions and actors. In the second step, the relevant TKs, PKs, and
executing ARs can be found based on the distinguishing PIF results. The distinguishing concepts
are visualised with colors, e.g. performa in red, informa in green, and forma in blue. In the
third step, the essential models can be composed after identifying TKs and ARs, all the relevant
TKs, PKs, and executing ARs. Here we can develop the CM aspect model and the Transaction
Production Table (TPT). The last step of the OER method is done by the organisation in the
form of validating the aspect models.
This research aims to develop an ontological DEMO model for an AMS based on ISO 55001
requirements. An AMS mainly concerns roles, responsibilities, and information. Translating
this into DEMO terms, roles and responsibilities can be placed into the coordination world and
information into the production world. Therefore, this research’s logical first aspect model is
the CM.
4. Early artefact
For the PIF analysis, we analysed the content of ISO 55001 chapter four, “Context of the
organisation”, and chapter five, “Leadership” [23]. During the analysis, we noticed that some of
the revealed TKs contain time elements such as: periodically reviewed, updated, and continual
improvement. We produced the TPT (Table 1) based on the results of the PIF analyses.
Multi Transaction Kind (MTK) are not part of a TPT [27]. Therefore, Table 2 shows the eleven
MTKs we found during the PIF analyses including source chapters of the MTKs. While we first
produced the TPT based on only chapter four, the researcher found no TK, only eight MTKs,
which means chapter four only reveals the context of an AMS. However, TKs are necessary to
develop an ontological AMS. Therefore, we added chapter five of ISO 55001 to the scope of the
research, where we found eight TKs, PK and AR, and three other MTKs.
Based on the TPT, we modelled the Organisation Construction Diagram (OCD) (Fig. 3).
During the modelling of the OCD, we noticed that TK04 “AM risk establishing” and TK05
“AM plan establishing” are not linked to the other revealed (multi) transaction kinds. As we
only analysed two of the seven chapters of ISO 55001, we presume that the TK04 and TK05
might be used when analysing the remaining five chapters of ISO 55001. Therefore, we left
Table 1
Transaction Product Table of ISO 55001
Transaction kind Product kind Executor role
TK01 Strategic AM plan PK01 [Strategic AM plan] AR01 Strategic AM plan
establishing is established establisher
TK02 AM policy establish- PK02 [AM policy] is es- AR02 AM policy estab-
ing tablished lisher
TK03 AM objectives es- PK03 [AM objective] is es- AR03 AM objective estab-
tablishing tablished lisher
TK04 AM risk establish- PK04 [AM risk] is estab- AR04 AM risk establisher
ing lished
TK05 AM plan establish- PK05 [AM plan] is estab- AR05 AM plan establisher
ing lished
TK06 Strategic AM con- PK06 Strategic AM con- AR06 Strategic AM con-
trolling trolling for [period] troller
is done
TK07 AM policy control- PK07 AM policy control- AR07 AM policy con-
ling ling for [period] is troller
done
TK08 AM objective con- PK08 AM objective con- AR08 AM objective con-
trolling trolling for [period] troller
is done
Table 2
The multi transaction kinds
Multi transaction kind Chapter of ISO 55001
MTK01 Asset management system scope facts 4
MTK02 Management system facts 4
MTK03 Financial information facts 4
MTK04 Stakeholder facts 4
MTK05 External and internal issues facts 4
MTK06 Criteria asset management decision facts 4
MTK07 Organizational objective facts 4
MTK08 Asset portfolio facts 4
MTK09 Organizational policy facts 5
MTK10 Organizational plan facts 5
MTK11 Organization risks facts 5
TK04 and TK05 out of the OCD. We noticed that based on ISO 55001, MTK02, MTK03, MTK04,
MTK05, and MTK06, are related to MTK01. However, in the DEMO specification language
[27] is no link defined between MTK. Therefore, we added the proposed “contained in” [26]
to the model. We modelled the “contained in” into an OCD to create a single overview for
the focus group participants. On one hand, this design decision might affect the conciseness
and comprehensiveness of the OCD during the focus group. On the other hand, this might
help the (non) DEMO participants to determine whether the researcher correctly translated
the ISO 55001 chapters into the OCD. While modelling the OCD, we made another design
Figure 3: The developed early artefact
decision according to results of earlier conducted focus groups with non-DEMO participants
[26]. We modelled the information link explicitly in the OCD. Explicitly modelling means that
the link between AR and TK does not “overlap”, but each relationship has an individual link.
Not overlapping the information links might give less conciseness and comprehensiveness of
the OCD during the focus group. However, it might improve and increase readability for the
non-DEMO participants of the EFG. Also, this could increase the evaluability of the conducted
translation of ISO 55001 requirements into an OCD.
5. Explorative focus group
In the explorative focus group, the participant answers the following open question: “What can
an ontological model offer for implementing ISO 55001 standards?” Every participant had the
opportunity to submit multiple answers. After submitting the answers, the moderators display
all the participants’ answers, and there is an opportunity for everyone to clarify their or ask for
clarification on other participants’ answers. After that, the moderator clusters the given answers
in agreement with the participants. Based on the average rating, variability, and abstains on the
open question, the participants tend to agree that an ontological model could help organisations
to focus on “what” should be implemented and/or maintained for an AMS instead of “how”.
For example, it provides an overview of necessary asset management roles which should be
assigned within the organisation. Therefore, an ontological model provides a structure for
organisations to implement and/or maintain an AMS. To a lesser degree, an ontological model
could help organisations start a generic but adaptable supporting software system. Then again,
ISO experts experience an ontological DEMO model as complex, impractical, and challenging
to communicate with stakeholders, which suggests that an ontological model can not be used
in its original form. Based on the open question round, the ISO and DEMO experts agree that
an ontological DEMO model could offer multiple benefits when implementing ISO 55001. The
benefits vary from focusing on “what”, to an overview of asset management roles, structure,
and reference model.
We drafted and asked the focus group participants to rate the statements with the opportunity
for feedback. Based on the three statements, we explored whether the participants agreed that
a good implementation process, certification of ISO 55001, or ontological model would enhance
an organisation’s asset management performance. The results show high variability for scores
of every item, indicating that the focus group participants tend to disagree with each other. As
feedback, two participants suggest bringing more nuance into the statements as they tend to be
multi-interpretable. Therefore, it is hard to draw conclusions.
We split the evaluation of the artefact into two parts where the first part discusses the four
𝐶4 𝐸 criteria [14] and the second part the ease of implementation and maintenance criteria. The
participants scored the (detailed) artefact on seven criteria and had the opportunity to leave
feedback on every score. The translation of the ISO requirements into the artefact is shown
during the evaluation for transparency. We found fluctuating average ratings and variability in
the participants’ feedback and captured the following elements. First, the information links are
explicitly modelled instead of overlaid in the OCD, which resulted in some participants’ (detailed)
artefacts scoring lower on conciseness, coherence, essence, and comprehensive criteria. The
contained in link in the third and fourth evaluation rounds influenced some participants’ scoring
on conciseness, coherence, essence, and comprehensive criteria. Considering the feedback and
suggestions given by the ISO and DEMO experts, they seem to agree that the translation of
requirements of ISO 55001 chapters four and five towards the artefact is proper.
The DEMO experts disagree on whether the given artefact could ease the implementation. A
participant stated that the detailed artefact would be more accessible to implement than the
overall artefact, but the whole could give more structure. Another participant gave feedback
that the artefact supports only the roles, which was not the information he needed. Based on the
results, the artefact could partly support DEMO experts in the ease of implementation. The ISO
experts could not see the ease of implementation due to the abstract nature of the artefact and
the lack of context and content. Results suggest that translating an ontological DEMO model
towards an implementation is more complex, but maintaining the implementation afterwards is
easier.
The (detail) artefact evaluation provided the following insights:
• The artefact might be an aspect that could positively affect the implementation process.
• The effect on the ease of maintenance could not be determined.
• The ISO and DEMO expert seems to agree on translating ISO 55001 requirements into
the artefact.
6. Conclusion and discussion
We combined the literature study, document analyses, and explorative focus groups to answer
the research questions. From the insights gathered via the focus group, we conjecture that an
ontological model, premised on the Design and Engineering Methodology for Organisations
(DEMO), could facilitate the implementation and maintenance of an ISO 55001-based asset
management system (AMS) in several ways:
1. It emphasises the ‘what’ to implement rather than the ‘how’.
2. It caters to an organisation’s informational requirements and asset management roles.
3. It provides a structural framework for an organisation.
4. The model can serve as a reference point.
However, while the findings suggest that the artefact could effectively assist organisations
in implementing and maintaining an ISO 55001-based AMS, it requires further refinements to
unlock this potential fully. Lastly, we concluded that an ontological DEMO model (coordination)
of an AMS guided by ISO 55001 chapters four and five could be modelled, and we suspect
chapters six to ten also could translate into a similar artefact. In the performed focus group, the
participants seem to agree that the translation of requirements of ISO 55001 chapters four and
five into the artefact is correct. We also find that an OCD might not be the most suitable DEMO
aspect model for an organisation to implement and maintain such a management system due to
its abstract nature.
This research is subject to limitations. We gathered data from ISO 55001 documents and
performed content analysis to develop an early artefact. An issue concerning the use of docu-
ments for data collection is assessing their credibility [19]. Though ISO 55001 is the most used
management system for asset management, and many experts worldwide support the norm,
the document may contain inaccuracies, biases, and errors.
The early artefact is evaluated by gathering data from an explorative focus group. After the
focus group, the researcher interprets the data. A drawback of a focus group, in general, is
the dependency on the researcher’s interpretation and analyses. Strong participants’ opinions
in the focus group could influence the other participants during the focus group sessions and
drive the discussion in a particular direction [19]. In the conducted focus group, an experienced
moderator led the focus group for a fruitful discussion and interaction between participants to
minimise this chance.
The artefact is developed based on two of the possible seven chapters of ISO 55001 which we
presume can also translate into an similar artefact. As ISO 55000 standards are a generic norm,
an organisation should establish its organisation specifics itself, as the norm does not provide
these. Therefore, the developed artefact does not grasp organisational or asset-specific details.
The invited ISO experts expressed challenges in assessing the artefact, indicating potential
areas for improvement in our approach. One potential solution could involve dedicating more
time to explaining DEMO during the focus group. While this may encroach on the valuable
artefact evaluation time, given the recommended maximum focus group duration of two hours,
it could enhance the participants’ understanding of DEMO. Alternatively, despite already
providing extensive pre-reading material, a half-day boot camp could further enhance the ISO
experts’ familiarity with DEMO.
Moreover, we might consider revising our selection criteria for ISO experts, focusing not
solely on membership of the ISO 55001 committee but also on those employed by ISO 55001-
certified organisations. Such individuals, including senior management or staff on the work
floor, could possess a more practical understanding of ISO 55001 implementation, facilitating
better interpretation of the artefact and DEMO. Perhaps, employees of organisations who certify
ISO 55001 could be part of the EFG to provide valuable insights.
Our assessment was limited to the ease of implementation and maintenance of the coordi-
nation model at the organisation’s construction level (refer to Figure 8). However, it might be
more insightful to explore the process, action, or fact model, given their operational proximity
and recognisably to non-DEMO participants.
Considering the ISO experts’ feedback regarding the artefact’s lack of practical application,
alternative research methods, such as case studies, could be deployed. This would allow the ISO
experts to evaluate the artefact within a specific context, possibly improving their understanding
and assessment of its implementation and maintenance.
This paper represents an initial step towards creating an ontological DEMO model for an ISO
55001-based asset management system. Future research could expand the artefact to include
chapters six to ten of the ISO 55001, and possibly incorporate other DEMO aspect models to
address ease of implementation and maintenance.
Additionally, future research could explore the applicability of the other three DEMO aspect
models for evaluating an organisation’s ease of implementation and maintenance.
The research shows that the requirements of the ISO 55001 standard can be translated into
the CM. We presume that ISO standards such as ISO 9001, 27001, 14401, etc. could be developed
into a DEMO model as they are part of the high level structure family of ISO.
As conjectured, DEMO supports the introduction of an AMS, and we have a base to model the
communication within an asset management organisation or with contracted service providers
that implement the AMS. When we use DEMO modelling and focus on communication in
a process, we can do future research on using the ‘Creating conditions(V) for Introduction
of Standards for Ict in construction (VISI) systematic for implementing the artefact. VISI is
the de-facto open standard in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) (in the
Netherlands) for communicating contractual agreements between Organisations and audit trails.
VISI is captured into ISO 29481 Building information models — Information delivery manual and
is a proven systematic and, therefore, on the governmental list of standards of “Use, or explain”
and has been used for around 25 years now. As VISI captures "how" the communication between
parties should be done, it is feasible to apply VISI for the communication and audit trails of an
AMS.
Yet unpublished research confirms the transformation of any DEMO model on PSD level
into a VISI model that is executable. Using VISI as communication means for the ISO 55001
standard appears to be feasible the results of this research. Though not tested in this research,
transforming the DEMO model of the ISO 55001 to a VISI model could result in a usable
operational model.
References
[1] International Organization for Standardization, Asset management — overview, principles
and terminology, 2014.
[2] Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, Ontwikkelplan assetmanagement ienw asset-
management op het hoofwegennet, -vaarwegennet en watersysteem, 2020.
[3] H.-C. Su, S. Dhanorkar, K. Linderman, A competitive advantage from the implementation
timing of iso management standards, Journal of Operations Management 53 (2015) 31–44.
[4] I. Alsyouf, M. Alsuwaidi, S. Hamdan, M. Shamsuzzaman, Impact of iso 55000 on organi-
sational performance: evidence from certified uae firms, Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence 32 (2021) 134–152. 12.
[5] R. da Silva, G. Souza, Modeling a maintenance management framework for asset manage-
ment based on iso 55000 series guidelines, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
28 (2021).
[6] P. Konstantakos, P. Chountalas, A. Magoutas, The contemporary landscape of asset
management systems, Quality - Access to Success 20 (2019) 10–17.
[7] D. Prajogo, The roles of firms’ motives in affecting the outcomes of iso 9000 adoption,
International journal of operations and production management 31 (2011) 78–100.
[8] N. Astrini, Iso 9001 and performance: a method review, Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence 32 (2021) 5–32.
[9] F. Urmetzer, A. K. Parlikad, C. Pearson, A. Neely, Design considerations for engineering
asset management systems, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 20 (2014).
Proceedings of World Congress on Engineering Asset Management OCT 28-31, 2014
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA 0.
[10] Y. Wijnia, J. Croon, The asset management process reference model for infrastructures, in:
9th WCEAM Research Papers: Volume 1, 2015, pp. 447–457. Proceedings of WCEAM OCT
28-31, 2014 University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
[11] J. Hanski, J. Jännes, V. Ojanen, P. Valkokari, Strategic asset information management:
Experiences from finnish companies, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering (2016) 686.
[12] H. M.R., The development of iso 55000 series standards, Lecture Notes in Mechanical
Engineering 19 (2015).
[13] P. Okoh, P. Schjølberg, A. Wilson, A new maintenance management model based on iso
55000, Infrastructure Asset Management 3 (2016) 21–28.
[14] J. Dietz, H. Mulder, Enterprise ontology, Springer, 2020.
[15] Institute, Enterprise engineering, Practitioner publications, 2023. URL: https://ee-institute
.org/demo/practitioner-publications/.
[16] J. B. F. Mulder, Rapid Enterprise Design, ViaGroep, 2007.
[17] J. Hintzen, S. J. H. v. Kervel, T. v. Meeuwen, J. Vermolen, B. Zijlstra, A professional case
management system in production, modelled and implemented using demo, 2014.
[18] A. Hevner, A three cycle view of design science research, Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems 19 (2007) 87–92.
[19] P. Johannesson, E. Perjons, An introduction to design science, Springer, 2014.
[20] A. R. Hevner, S. T. March, J. Park, S. Ram, Design science in information systems research,
Management Information Systems Quarterly 28 (2004).
[21] M. Markus, A. Majchrzak, L. Gasser, A design theory for systems that support emergent
knowledge processes, MIS Quarterly 26 (2002) 179–212.
[22] M. Tremblay, A. Hevner, D. Berndt, S. Chatterjee, The Use of Focus Groups in Design
Science Research, volume 22, Springer, 2010, pp. 121–143.
[23] International Organization for Standardization, Asset management — management systems
— requirements, 2014.
[24] International Organization for Standardization, Asset management — management systems
— guidelines for the application of iso 55001, 2018.
[25] International Organization for Standardization, Quality management systems - fundamen-
tals and vocabulary, 2015.
[26] M. Mulder, Enabling the automatic verification and exchange of DEMO models, Thesis,
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 2022.
[27] Institute, Enterprise engineering, Demo specification language 4.6.1, 2023. URL: https:
//ee-institute.org/download/demo-specification-language-4-6-1/.