PAS 55-1 Specification for Asset Management


The PAS 55 is not a standard as yet, and there is a process in place to try to make it a standard through the British Standards Association.

It was sponsored by the Institute of Asset Management of the UK and developed by some consultants and company representatives. (Some of the nations leading institutions and asset management companies it needs to be stated)

Basically, it is an attempt to try to state all of the component parts of a asset management structure. (There are inherent problems with trying to create a standard for the entire field of asset management.)

There are some shortfalls, and it has spurred a flurry of activity around developing industry specific standards. (Facilities and buildings management is one of these for example)

I have been involved in measuring this against good practice for a few clients to date, there is also a range of companies starting to offer services of auditing the compliance with this publicly available specification.

But as yet, it is not a standard and does not hold that legal or other authority. I am not sure where it is currently along the path to become a standard.

I believe that some of the national regulation bodies are also starting to refer to it in their

It is not really PC for me to comment too much more on this particular issue.

Find attach below a memo about the PAS 55 related initiative in the UK.

I also suggest visiting the website of the Institute of Asset Management at "" in their "News" section where you can download some pdf presentations about asset management following PAS-55.

For the UK Office of Gas & Electricity Market (Ofgem), it is clear that capital funding for asset renewal can be made only with evidence of well-formulated asset management policies. Check their News section at "" news 66/06 where they clearly and strongly invite all their operators to go for voluntary certification against PAS 55.

In fact, PAS 55 seems to attract (mostly in the UK sofar) lots of companies which need to demonstrate formal asset management policies and implementation to their various stakeholders (government bodies for example) namely with regard to sound risk management.
For these companies and stakeholders, getting independent assessment and verification / certification from third-party, gives them the assurance that corporate risk issues are being tackled properly.

European Union essential directives for prevention of major accidents (accidents generate heavy property / asset losses) like SEVESO II are not covering those industry sectors which are not involved in the processing and storage of hazardous products.

UK interest into PAS 55 might also be a specific case because of the deregulation level they have achieved; PAS 55 and incentives to go to certification against its requirements might be a way to impose performance and management goals to sectors already heavily deregulated: water, transportation, electricity, etc.



I attended a seminar on this in the UK recently. It also has application for those of us in high hazard businesses, as a good 'checklist' of everything you need for good governance - many of the requirements are covered by COMAH, HAZOP etc, but PAS-55 provides a framework for the totality of asset management. The auditing companies are also offering a 'benchmark' against other companies, and there is a group looking at providing accreditation and certification for asset managers (rather than technical specialists).

Our parent company is the leading accreditation company for the PAS55 in the UK presently, also I have had some glancing involvement in the competency framework that the IAM are working on.

Feel free to send me an email if you would like to know more about either.

Best regards,
"The consequences of such a transformation are now a matter of record:
BP, for example, was producing oil at around $15/barrel in the 1980's –
now it does so, in more extreme conditions, at greater safety and
environmental standards, for just $2/barrel."

Is this cost reduction sustainable over the long term such as over the lifecycle of the field? We can reduce the cost considerably but at the end eg after 25 years, is it guaranteed no serious consequences forthcoming as a result of the transformation?

P/s Thanks for that Terry! I tried to print but some letters left out on the right hand side. Is it meant to discourage printing?

Add Reply