In my article, The Best Capital Playbook Ever!, published by
About.com, I asserted that interdisciplinary/multi-disciplinary consulting teams,
and viewing capital programs from life-cycle asset management perspective make
a difference. I poked fun at what seems
to be the standard healthcare process for asset reporting and capital programs:
Hire a valuation team to inventory, tag, and place a value on assets. Next, hire a consultant to help rewrite
policy, tighten up the capital committee, and make sure projects are tied to
strategic plans.
Yet, excess equipment, poor
utilization, and inconsistent reporting remain issues within healthcare despite
the practices. Is this the cost of doing
business or is there something we can do about it?
One obstacle may be the
perspective of viewing asset management functions only as an expense center. This perspective, I believe, hinders
investment into the development of asset management practices, positions, and
tools.
I am re-reading sections of The Best Kept Profit Secret: The Executive's Guide to Transforming a
Cost Center Into a Profit Center by Flood, Jerralds, Perez, Sanchez, and Tyburski. Abe Walking Bear Sanchez wrote. ”Every
business function must have a clearly stated purpose that addresses the cost
associated with carrying out that business function.” Even more, he asks on
page 22, “Why incur the cost of carrying out a function?”
In the case of Asset
Management, what is the stated function and why incur the cost? For this series of articles, I have broken
Asset Management down into philosophy, practice, and tools. The philosophy concerns the asset
life-cycle. The practice will address
policy and programs. The tools will
address Enterprise Asset Management applications and Real-Time Location
Systems.
In regards to how
Walking Bear framed the statement, the principles Asset Managers use are as
timeless as when the first person fashioned, domesticated an animal, or
constructed something to scratch out a living on planet Earth. The asset life-cycle of acquire, utilize,
maintain, and dispose became relevant at that point.
“Why incur the cost of
carrying out a function?” I would modify the statement a little. Why invest in what looks
like an increase in the operational budget of the function? If one views Asset Management purely as an expense
related business function, the only investment will be the time it takes in cost-cutting. Cut, slice, and minimize are just par for the
course and lead to the point of outsourcing or getting rid of all together. There is only so much one can cut.
The purposes of
acquiring an asset are to treat the patient and make money. The business functions of Asset Management increase
the profitability of revenue projections, reduce risks, reduce costs, and
recover investment.
If you buy an asset,
keep it until it is fully depreciated or you have fully recaptured your
investment, then turn around and sell it for cash, is that not revenue?
A department has
$1,000,000 in overhead cost. Projects
and initiatives generated by that department slices $3,000,000 from corporate
cost over the previous 3 years, actually freeing up cash that previously trended
as spent in that category. The
department has decreased the total liabilities in comparison to total
assets. Is that not a form of equity… actually
an increase in equity? If equity is
increased, that is a factor of revenue.
ROI is target or ahead
of the game. Equipment purchases and utilization
supports revenue generations. Assets
that have market value are disposed of accordingly. Revenue! Investment
in the Asset Management function is more than just proper. It is a necessity.