By David Jenkins
Our central question should not be about the asset itself, but rather about the outcomes we aim to achieve. While infrastructure asset management has brought discipline, evidence, and accountability to our planning, maintenance, and renewal efforts, we must ensure these tools serve our true objectives: the needs underpinning modern life.
We count what we can see: kilometres of road sealed, pipes relined, bridges rated. Yet, the real measure of success is the human experience those assets enable: safety, access, wellbeing, resilience, and connection. If asset management gave us the rigour, systems thinking asks us to lift our gaze to see not just the asset, but the web of interdependencies that make it work.
The challenge isn’t a lack of intelligence or intent. It’s the architecture of how we decide. Infrastructure still operates in a world of silos, with planning, transport, water, finance, and environment each having its own language, priorities, and metrics. As psychologists remind us, people are wired to seek familiarity; we gravitate to those who share our vocabulary and validate our expertise. So, we talk in our own professional dialects and then wonder why collaboration feels like translation.
Research in both cognitive psychology and organisational behaviour suggests that when groups lack a shared language, they tend to defend their own domains. The antidote isn’t more structure, it’s more shared meaning. Studies by MIT’s Human Dynamics Lab show that interdisciplinary teams outperform when they build what’s called “collective attunement” – the ability to see problems through each other’s eyes and speak in a common tongue. In infrastructure, that’s where systems thinking begins.
What would that look like in practice? It could start with a deceptively simple step: a “shared language” workshop before the next major project. In this workshop, engineers, planners, ecologists, and accountants would each translate their top five technical terms for the group to share. For example, “level of service” becomes “what people experience,” and “risk appetite” becomes “how much uncertainty we can live with.” Although this may seem trivial, it helps to build cognitive empathy, the ability to understand another’s reasoning without necessarily agreeing with it.
When professions share understanding, they build trust. And trust, as every alliance contract will tell you, is the real lubricant of performance.
The next shift is moving from projects to outcome portfolios. Rather than approving isolated projects that compete for funding, governments and councils could fund an entire outcome, such as creating cooler, safer neighbourhoods. This portfolio might comprise road renewals, tree planting, stormwater upgrades, and shaded bus stops: different assets, but a shared purpose.
Under this model, engineers enhance their expertise rather than lose it. Maintenance teams continue to repair assets while also maintaining liveability. The Treasury continues to balance budgets while also investing in public value.
We often say, “what gets measured gets managed,” but perhaps the real issue is that we’re measuring the wrong thing. Traditional indicators, such as asset condition and cost, are essential but incomplete. When paired with human-centred measures, such as travel time reliability, comfort, heat exposure, and community satisfaction, we begin to see the full picture.
Breaking silos is not simply about changing the org chart; it involves shifting ingrained behaviours. Humans naturally simplify complexity to conserve mental energy. Systems thinking, however, demands that we accept some cognitive discomfort. Fortunately, this is a skill we can develop.
Behavioural studies in collaboration show that when teams frame problems as shared challenges rather than territorial debates, performance rises sharply.
Technology can support our work, but it is not a complete solution. Dashboards add value only when they lead to informed discussions. Instead of data theatre, we should pursue data dialogue bringing professionals together to interpret what the numbers mean for people, not only for assets.
Asset management is the discipline. Systems thinking is the lens. One gives us order; the other gives us meaning. Together, they form the architecture of modern stewardship.
If we can start our projects with a shared purpose, speak a shared language, and measure shared outcomes, we can transform the way our infrastructure serves society.
Ask those questions often enough, and the silos start to soften. And in that moment, the system starts to think for itself.
