.

-'r

~".
ttt
t..\ .
~"

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 tech
nical integrity, and regulatory compliance. Innovative approaches to enhance and
sustain the proftle of values 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 pa
per 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 re
spondents. The paper provides a strategic view of engineering asset management
(HAM) within the context of innovation, with particular focus on behavioural align
ment towards the modem era ofinnovation, knowledge and learning economy.
Keywords Asset Management, Thinking Styles, Behavioural Preferences, Inno
vation

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

J.E. Amadi-Echendu
Graduate School ofTechnology Management, University ofPretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
e-mail:joe.amadi-echendu@up.ac.za
J.E. Amadi-Echendu. K. Rrnwn R wm..tT I

Ua+1.4".

J.E. Amadi-Echendu

348

systems, oil, gas and mining facilities. From an accounting and fmancial manage
ment 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 en
hanced in a sustainable manner throughout the asset's 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. Acqui
sition,. 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 compli
ance (Amadi-Echendu, 2005).
From a systems viewpoint, the life of an engineered physical asset may be de
scribed 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 synergis
tic integration of a wide range of 'hard' and 'soft' skills through the life-cycle
phases and stages. These skills include, for example, fmancial accounting, com

~~
.c

......~

Figure 1 Life-cycle stages and phases of an 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 learn
ing 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.

Thinking Styles and Behavioural Preferences

With the advent of the innovation, knowledge and learning economy era, knowl
edge has become the primary means of production. 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 manage
ment 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 of psychology, 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 devel
opment theory to discern four types of management thinking styles - analyser,
energiser, synthesiser, and humaniser. He further argued that successful 'informa
tion age organisations' require managers with higher preference for synthesising
and humanising thinking styles. Using a more rigorous approach, Herrmann's
Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) (Herrmann, 1996) articulates twenty think
ing styles, classifying them into four quadrants of the Whole Brain Model.
Herrmann's approach as summarised in Figure 2 shows a proforma of '200,000
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 man
agement of physical 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 process
ing modes. The innovation, knowledge and learning economy era is characterised
by continuous acquisition of new skills, with the corresponding rapid conversion

J.E. Arnadi-Echendu

350

PROFORMA PROFILES OF THE MENTALITV

OF REPRESENTATIVE OCCUPATIONS

UPPER LEFT
80h",.r

probte~.UC"1
:.~e::~h;.1
Logical

R_

En.gln..r

Ch_'.'

0ffIc.'

......,

CEO,

,....,~

~o~
p .

---n.

O ... " .........

:;!:,';'t':':!!.:::'YG
g~;:'"I~:~~C::!,':,
Adm"
LOWER

Conceptuall.lUr
Synthiou'.Qr

Q
..,

M.n. . . .'

SUP.:'u':-.':'''''

.mat:~n:;"j~

A"'.'

Artt_Uc

COO-~i5
.ran_'.,or

6 ....,.

R ...

e .....

"""',

"'a"'aUftiif

.O

Coun ...

"_'.'Wo"'.,

'Io,

T.lker
Mucol

l!.. fTI~~3..~chOOI

LEFT

Emoc'on.'

In ....p.r.on,..

LOWER

RIGHT

C
OHemnann rntemational. Z()()()

Figure 1 HBDI thinking style profiles of representative occupations

and application of ideas and knowhow towards generating the value profile de
fmed by multifarious stakeholders. A major challenge therefore is that, for the
respective life-cycle phases/stages 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 and/or adopt effective cognitive
processing modes within the vagaries ofthe innovation paradigm.

3.1

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 question
naire 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 respon
dents do not form a statistically representative sample of the entire population of
engineering professionals.

3.2

Splritu.S

351

'40 CJ

Mu'UdOft1ln.nt

. - -

~.

Boo

Entr.:~r:.)r

.....,

,elnanc.

h act-nUe'

Stock eroll...

An.ty ",

Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management

Research
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 speak
ing tour of Australia, the author requested that attendees complete a one-page
questionnaire at the start of the meeting. The audience mostly consisted of practis
ing engineers with primary responsibility for the maintenance of physical assets.
Considering that the engineering professional of the innovation generation is a

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. Ques
tionnaire 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 respon
dents did not attach any importance to artistic (9.7 %), emotional (10.7%), conser
vative (21.5 %), 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

J.E. Amadi-Echendu

352

---

IIIlilI

<>

NotImportant

Vaguely Important

S<lmewhat Important

<>

Important

Extremely Important

Right Cerebral Thinking Styles

'~-:.:ll~~=
Artdt$

~n. . . . l~"x,~-=====-iiiIiIII
~l~!-~~~~~!!I
*
20%

'JlO%

1l%

Behavioural Preferences for Engineering Asset Management

(iv) Interpersonal - Nearly 48 % of respondents indicate that the 'ability to

easily develop and maintain meaningful and pleasant relationships with
many different kinds of people' 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 meth
ods 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"

.q.#,;:;

..f",l {I
Figure 3 Respondent ranking ofthinking styles

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 im
portant.

353

"

g ,

t?~

I ,/

Figure" Respondents ranking oftop ten 'extremely important' thinking styles

J.E. Amadi-Echendu

354

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 quad
rants, with three in the upper right mental processing mode. This result also sup
ports 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 right
brained 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 chang
ing financial, social and environmental compliance requirements. Innovative ap
proaches to enhance and sustain the profile of values required from these assets
demands a shift in the behavioural preferences or attitudes of engineering profes
sionals in asset management occupations. This implies that engineering profes
sionals 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 deter
mine behavioural preferences of engineering-oriented managers of built environ
ment 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 of engineering professionals in asset management situations.
Although the sample size presents a limitation in tenns of generalisation, how
ever, the study has implications for education, research, training and leadership
development of an appropriate cadre of innovative managers of engineered physi
cal 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 proc
essing 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 mainte
nance: 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 & Social Change, 74 (2007) 1204-1214.
Maccoby M (1994). From Analyzer to Humanizer: Raising the Level of Management Thinking.
Research Technology Management, VoL 37 No.5: 57-59.
Herrmann N (1996). The Whole Brain Business Book, McGraw-Hill ISBN: 0070284628.