Infrastructure Asset Management System Optimized

Configuration: A Genetic Algorithm–Complex

Network Theoretic Metamanagement Approach
Eric Goforth, Ph.D., [Link] 1; Ahmed Yosri 2;
Wael El-Dakhakhni, [Link] 3; and Lydell Wiebe, [Link] 4
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: An effective infrastructure asset management (AM) system is crucial for utilities, city officers, government agencies, and other
asset-owning organizations to facilitate navigating the numerous challenges associated with operating and managing infrastructure assets. In
this paper, the AM system itself is represented as a complex network (comprised of nodes and links) that describes the major components
necessary for its operation within an organization and the information connections between such components. ISO 55001, a widely accepted
international standard, specifies the requirements for an effective AM system and outlines the criticality levels of different system
components—reflected in the corresponding network by the link weights. The main challenges facing managing an AM system (i.e., meta-
management) pertain to (1) information asymmetry (i.e., not relying on consistent information for decision making) between AM system
components; and (2) information overload (i.e., excessive information undermining decision making) within the AM system components.
These challenges cause systemic risks (possibility of dependence-induced disruptions) within the system network due to the connectedness of
system components. Systemic risks can be mitigated through built-in network resilience by restructuring the system component connections.
Such network reconfiguration presents a complex nonconvex optimization problem with multiple potential solutions depending on the num-
ber of new connections to be added to the AM system, the length of those connections, and the target risk mitigation level. Through this
metamanagement (managing the management system) lens, a genetic algorithm approach was employed to explore the optimal AM network
configurations considering different objective functions. These objective functions were based on different complex network measures in-
cluding the betweenness-, closeness-, and eigenvector-centrality, as well as the vulnerability index. The devised objective functions were
employed to the cases of adding 1 to 15 links only to limit network overconnectedness (i.e., information overload). Considering all objective
functions evaluated, adding a small number of links (fewer than five) provided a significant reduction in systemic risk (18% to 49%). Finally,
managerial insights are presented to explain how to employ the developed approach to mitigate the systemic risks within an organization’s
AM system based on different metrics valuations and stakeholder inputs. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000712. This work is made
available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, [Link]
Practical Applications: The effective implementation of infrastructure asset management systems within organizations that own, operate,
and manage infrastructure assets is critical to address the pressing challenges facing the infrastructure decision makers (e.g., infrastructure
ageing and deterioration, maintenance backlogs, strict regulatory operating conditions, limited financial resources, and losing valuable
experience through retirements). Infrastructure asset management systems contain connectivity between major operational components that
can lead to systemic risks (i.e., dependence-induced possible disruptions). Such systemic risks are typically caused by information asym-
metry, when (some) asset management stakeholders operate in silos, and/or information overload, when asset management stakeholders are
overwhelmed by too much/irrelevant information thus, hindering their decision-making effectiveness. The approach described in this paper
empowers infrastructure asset managers with the necessary means to reduce their organizations’ systemic risk exposure, and subsequently
enhance their organization resilience to information asymmetry and/or overload. This study is meant to be applied by organizations that align
their asset management system with an accepted system that includes 39 separate asset management subject areas.
Author keywords: Centrality analysis; Complex network theory; Genetic algorithm; Infrastructure asset management; ISO 55001;
Systemic risk; Vulnerability index.

1 2
Formerly, Graduate Student, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, ON, Canada Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, NTERFACE Institute
L8S 4L8; Senior Consultant, Global Infrastructure Advisory, Bay Adelaide for Multi-Hazard Systemic Risk Studies, McMaster Univ., 1280 Main St.
Centre, KPMG LLP, 333 Bay St. #4600, Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 2S5 West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L7; Assistant Professor, Dept. of Irri-
gation and Hydraulics, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo Univ., Orman, Giza
(corresponding author). ORCID: [Link] 12613, Egypt. ORCID: [Link] Email:
Email: egoforth@[Link] ahmeda69@[Link]
3
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 7, 2022; approved Professor and Director, Dept. of Civil Engineering, School of Computa-
on May 31, 2022; published online on August 8, 2022. Discussion period tional Science and Engineering, INTERFACE Institute for Multi-Hazard Sys-
temic Risk Studies, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S4L7. Email:
open until January 8, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted for eldak@[Link]
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Infrastructure 4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, McMaster Univ., 1280
Systems, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0342. Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L7. Email: wiebel@[Link]

© ASCE 04022029-1 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 Introduction being the AM subject areas according to IAM (2015) and links
being the information flow between connected nodes as defined
Organizations that own and manage infrastructure assets face many by Global Forum on Maintenance and Asset Management
challenges in operating their businesses, including infrastructure (GFMAM 2014).
ageing, evolving (usually more strict) regulatory operating condi- The ISO 55001 standard Asset Management—Management
tions, limited renewal financial resources, and losing valuable Systems—Requirements specifies requirements for the AM system
experience through retirements (CIRC 2016; ASCE 2021). A well- within the context of an organization (ISO 2014a). This standard
defined asset management (AM) program can nonetheless mini- was designed to be applied to all asset types and by all types and
mize the impacts of these organizational challenges (Bertling sizes of organizations (ISO 2014a). ISO 55001 groups the main
Tjernberg 2018; INFC 2018; CIRC 2019; ASCE 2021). AM is requirements of an AM system according to the context of the
the structured decision making and execution of plans adopted organization, leadership, planning, support, operation, performance
to achieve a balance between asset performance and disruption risk evaluation, and improvement (ISO 2014a). There are currently
through the optimal allocation of available resources and the pro- merely 27 ISO 55001 certified organizations in North and South
curement of additional resources (Uddin et al. 2013; Ross 2019). America, indicating that they meet or exceed the specifications for
Organizations that own, manage, and operate infrastructure assets an AM system as outlined in the standard (ISO 2021). In general,
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

typically implement AM systems to achieve their organizational organizations aim at employing the principles and guidelines de-
strategic plan and objectives (Hodkiewicz 2015). An AM system scribed within the ISO 55001 standard to improve their AM system
is a set of interrelated and interacting elements of an organization; operations (Woodhouse 2014; Hodkiewicz 2015; Konstantakos
the system’s function is to establish the AM policy and AM objec- et al. 2019).
tives and the processes needed to achieve those objectives (ISO An efficient AM system must include consistent information
2014b). flow between the connected subject areas because miscommuni-
As outlined by the Institute of Asset Management’s (IAM) Asset cation can lead to system dysfunction. In addition, an effective
Management Anatomy document, a typical AM system is com- AM system minimizes the exposure of AM stakeholders to in-
posed of six divisions and 39 subject areas (IAM 2015), as shown formation overload caused by having access to too much out-of-
in Fig. 1. Each of the 39 AM subject areas was designed to illustrate scope information and data (Herrera et al. 2011; Prajogo et al.
the breadth of a certain set of activities within an AM system, the 2018). An AM system may be influenced by systemic risks
relationships between these activities and the need to integrate (i.e., dependence-induced disruptions) related to information
them, and the critical role for AM to align with and deliver the stra- asymmetry caused by the malfunction of one or multiple specific
tegic plan of an asset-intensive organization (IAM 2015). As such, subject areas or the interruption of information flow between
each AM subject area is a functional component necessary for subject areas (Goforth et al. 2022). Examples of information
the implementation and operation of an AM system within an asymmetry in an AM system include stakeholders that use differ-
organization that owns and manages infrastructure assets. Detailed ent and/or inconsistent information to support their AM subject
descriptions of each AM subject area are given in the Asset Man- area-specific decision process, not responding to other stakehold-
agement Anatomy guide developed by IAM (IAM 2015). Goforth ers’ decisions promptly, and the isolation of AM subject areas
et al. (2022) introduced the concept of how a typical AM system due to inadequate information-sharing procedures or protocols
can be viewed as a network of connected components, with nodes (Bergh et al. 2019).

Fig. 1. AM divisions and subject areas as defined by IAM (2015).

© ASCE 04022029-2 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 Systemic risks might also be caused by information overload
within an AM subject area where there is too much (out-of-scope)
information available and an AM stakeholder is overwhelmed and
unable to make decisions (Goforth et al. 2022). These examples
of information asymmetry and information overload are critical
challenges for the effective operation of an AM system within an
organization, and can potentially instigate cascading disruptions
(systemic risks) throughout an AM system (Brunetto et al. 2014;
Xerri et al. 2015; Pell et al. 2015; de la Pena et al. 2016;
Golightly et al. 2018). However, the systemic risks caused by in-
formation asymmetry and information overload can be mitigated
by increasing the system resilience to dependence-induced dis-
ruptions through adding new connections between related, yet
unlinked, AM subject areas (Barabási 2016; Goforth et al.
2022).
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Improving the resilience of a network to dependence-induced

possible disruptions (i.e., systemic risks) has been discussed in dif-
ferent fields such as financial systems, transportation engineering,
and social science, with adding new connections between the dif-
ferent network components being suggested as a potential solution
(Bloomberg Professional Services 2020; Crescenzi et al. 2016;
Ohara et al. 2017; Pacreau et al. 2021; Papagelis 2015; Parotsidis
et al. 2015; Wu 2015). Although introducing additional connec-
tions within a network may provide faster information transfer
(Medvet and Bartoli 2021; Parotsidis et al. 2016), determining the
optimal number and configuration of added connections is chal-
Fig. 2. AM network structure based on the AM subject areas presented
lenging because there may be multiple solutions depending on the
in Fig. 1.
number of links to be added, the length of those links, and the tar-
geted reduction in systemic risk levels (Barbosa et al. 2018;
Bhavathrathan and Patil 2018; Morshedlou et al. 2021; Nozhati
et al. 2019; Vishnu et al. 2021). The connection-addition process
has thus been formulated as an optimization problem, where pre- specific AM subject area. Node labels in Fig. 2 correspond to the
vious studies have deployed different heuristic-based optimization AM subject areas shown in Fig. 1.
techniques, including greedy algorithms (Crescenzi et al. 2016; The valuation of the criticality of each subject area within an
Ohara et al. 2017; Parotsidis et al. 2015, 2016), path screening tech- AM system depends on multiple metrics such as money, technol-
niques (Papagelis 2015), and genetic algorithm (Medvet and ogy, data, and personnel. Fusing such metrics is challenging, and
Bartoli 2021; Paterson and Ombuki-Berman 2020; Pizzuti and therefore specific quantification of the criticality of every AM sub-
Socievole 2018; Zhao et al. 2018). ject area to the operation of an AM system is unattainable without
Therefore, the objective of the present study is to identify opti- detailed stakeholder input. Alternatively, the ISO 55001 standard
mal link configurations to be added to the AM system network such (ISO 2014a) outlines the main requirements for a system to manage
that the expected systemic risks caused by information asymmetry an organization’s infrastructure assets. The Institute for Asset Man-
and information overload would be significantly mitigated. This agement defines functional relationships between the clauses of the
study first explains the structure of the AM network and its rela- ISO 55001 standard and each of the typical 39 AM subject areas
tion to ISO 55001. Next, a description of the network centrality (IAM 2015). Therefore, this study approximates the criticality of
measures used to determine the most critical AM subject areas each AM network subject area to the operation of an AM system
in the AM system network is presented. Subsequently, the appli- as the number of ISO 55001 clauses related to each subject area as
cation procedure of genetic algorithm (GA) is described for differ- defined by the IAM (2015). These relationships are shown in Fig. 3,
ent centrality measure–based objective functions. Results are then with the total number of connected ISO 55001 clauses (i.e., the AM
presented in terms of optimal link configurations to satisfy the dif- subject area weight) being shown in the bottom row.
ferent objective functions and the practical implications of the link Links between node pairs were defined according to GFMAM
additions to a real AM system. Finally, managerial insights are pre- (2014), which described each AM subject area and identified its
sented to allow for the comparison between the different link con- connections to others. Such connections are essential to provide
figuration scenarios according to the different centrality measures information necessary to make decisions within each AM subject
investigated. area and thus the overall AM system. Links in the AM network are
directed as information transfer occurs from source to target nodes
and are also weighted according to the criticality of source nodes.
Asset Management Network Structure In Fig. 2, link direction is represented by an arrowhead at the target
node, and link thickness reflects the corresponding weight, where
Goforth et al. (2022) conceptualized the AM system as a network of thicker links indicate a greater ISO 55001 influence and therefore
connected nodes to facilitate identifying the key elements within an greater criticality to the overall AM system operation. The AM net-
organizational structure. Building on the same methodology, the work shown in Fig. 2 is represented mathematically through an
typical AM system, developed by the IAM, is represented in this adjacency matrix A, which can be found in Appendix S1, with
study by a weighted, directed network as shown in Fig. 2. This AM entries ai;j reflecting the link weight and direction between nodes
system network consists of 39 nodes, where each represents a i and j.

© ASCE 04022029-3 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. ISO 55001 clauses mapped to AM subject areas as defined by IAM (2015).

Centrality Measures 1X
ECi ¼ a EC ð3Þ
λ j i;j j
The betweenness centrality is a measure that identifies the critical-
ity of a specific node as the fraction of shortest paths passing where λ = maximum eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix A. For the
through it (Freeman 1977). The betweenness centrality of a node AM network, a greater value of ECi indicates that the correspond-
i (BCi ) is thus calculated as follows ing AM subject area is connected to other highly influential AM
subject areas and is thus critical to the information transfer within
X ρjk ðiÞ the AM system.
BCi ¼ ð1Þ
j≠i≠k
ρjk The vulnerability index is related to the size of the network’s
giant component (i.e., the largest connected set of nodes) and
is used to identify the critical nodes that are highly sensitive
where ρjk = weighted length (i.e., sum of the link weights) of all to disruptions by quantifying the fraction of nonoperational
shortest paths connecting nodes j and k; and ρjk ðiÞ = weighted nodes when a specific node is triggered to fail (Ezzeldin and
length of these shortest paths that traverse node i. Regarding the El-Dakhakhni 2021). The vulnerability index of node i (VIi ) is
AM network, the BCi values reflect the importance of the corre- given by
sponding AM subject area to the operation of the whole AM system
and can thus be used to reflect its influence on the information flow N − N0
VIi ¼ ð4Þ
throughout the AM system. N
The closeness centrality is a measure that identifies nodes that
are key to rapidly process and relay information to other nodes in where N 0 = total number of operational nodes in the network’s
the network (Estrada and Knight 2015). The closeness centrality of giant component after node i was triggered to fail. The value
a node i (CCi ) is evaluated as of VIi is estimated considering the cascading disruption effect
within the network as follows: (1) once a node i is triggered to
P fail, information moving through the network is redistributed
j dði; jÞ based on the shortest paths available; (2) following the redistrib-
CCi ¼ ð2Þ
N ution, nodes are considered operational when they can sustain
their original information share in addition to those transferred
where dði; jÞ = shortest path length between nodes i and j; and N = from other nodes; and (3) the redistribution process continues un-
total number of nodes in the network. When applied to the AM til all nodes in the network are functional and the corresponding
network, the closeness centrality can be used to identify the AM N 0 value is then obtained. Therefore, calculating the values of VIi
subject areas that are critical for the rapid processing and transfer- necessitates adopting the concept of overflow modeling (Motter
ring of information to other AM subject areas. and Lai 2002).
The eigenvector centrality is a measure that identifies nodes that Several studies have adopted the concept of overflow modeling
are highly connected to influential nodes within the network (Thai in different fields, where the flow is simulated by the exchange of
and Pardalos 2012). The eigenvector centrality of a node i (ECi ) is a single unit between node pairs along the shortest path connecting

© ASCE 04022029-4 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 these nodes (Motter and Lai 2002; Ezzeldin and El-Dakhakhni Critical Subject Areas in the Asset Management
2021; Goforth et al. 2020; Alzoor et al. 2021). Within the AM net- Network
work, this flow is the information or data shared between two AM
subject areas. The betweenness centrality has been extensively em- The centrality measures described previously were evaluated for
ployed to quantify the flow transmitted through a specific node the AM system network shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 4 presents the BCi ,
(Kinney et al. 2005; Kourtellis et al. 2013; Mahyar et al. 2018). CCi , ECi , and VIi for the top 15 nodes (i.e., AM subject areas)
As such, the same methodology is adopted herein, where the BCi because these were the most critical nodes to the AM system op-
is assumed to be equivalent to the amount of information shared eration. Such nodes represent the most critical nodes within the
by node i (Li ). In addition, the maximum amount of information typical AM system proposed by the IAM that can facilitate the sys-
(i.e., the capacity) that can be managed by a node i (CAPi ) is temic risk propagation within the AM system. The AM subject
assumed to be linearly proportional to its initial load Li ð0Þ, as areas that are critical based on all four measures considered include
follows: Strategic Planning (S4), Resource Management (L3), and Life
Cycle Value Realization (A4). This observation is well aligned with
CAPi ¼ αLi ð0Þ ð5Þ the definition of AM as the structured decision making and execu-
tion of plans (i.e., strategic plan) developed to optimize a balance
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where α = design capacity tolerance that represents the ability of between asset performance and risk (i.e., life cycle value realiza-
a node to sustain additional information due to any disturbance tion) using available resources or the procurement of additional
in the network. The information overload of a node can be repre- resources (i.e., resource management).
sented through Eq. (5). Therefore, within an AM system, the VIi The AM subject areas identified within the top 15 based on three
represents the susceptibility of an AM subject area to information centrality measures include Asset Management Planning (S5),
overload. Operations and Maintenance Decision Making (A5), Stakeholder

Fig. 4. Top 15 AM subject areas ranked based on (a) betweenness centrality; (b) closeness centrality; (c) eigenvector centrality; and (d) vulnerability
index.

© ASCE 04022029-5 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 Engagement (R1), Maintenance Delivery (L1), Shutdown and Out- ensure that (1) the original AM system nodes are always present in
age Strategy (A2), and Shutdown and Outage Management (L4), the optimal network configuration and directed links Lad are only
whereas those identified based on two centrality measures include added to the original AM system nodes; and (2) the AM system still
Asset Management Strategy and Objectives (S2), Asset Perfor- provides the intended functionality of managing the organization’s
mance and Health Monitoring (R2), Asset Information Strategy objectives, processes, and assets. The optimization problem repre-
(I2), Sustainable Development (R5), Asset Costing and Evaluation sented by Eqs. (6)–(8) can be solved for either an individual mea-
(R9), Procurement and Supply Chain Management (O1), Technical sures (i.e., betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, eigenvector
Standards and Legislation (L5), Capital Investment Decision Mak- centrality, or vulnerability index) or a weighted measure. When the
ing (A3), Risk Assessment and Management (R4), and Asset Op- former is of interest, the weighting factor corresponding to the con-
erations (L2). The AM subject areas that have greater centralities sidered centrality is 1.0, whereas those corresponding to other mea-
for multiple measures are very critical for the functionality of the sures are set to zero. When the latter is of interest and a minimized
AM system because they can instigate cascade disruptions when weighted centrality is desired, a, b, c, and d should be chosen ac-
they become dysfunctional. Therefore, adding new connections cording to the target weighting scheme.
(i.e., links) between the AM subject areas (i.e., nodes) can enhance The application of the GA starts with defining the desired num-
the resilience of the network to systemic risks (Goforth et al. 2022). ber of links to be added (i.e., the size of the set Lad ). A population
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of individuals is subsequently generated randomly, where each

individual contains the possible link indices x to be added. Each
Link Addition Methodology individual is subsequently assigned a fitness value based on its abil-
ity to achieve the objective presented in Eq. (6). Individuals are
The link addition process is formulated as an optimization problem evolved continually through a set of reproduction mechanisms,
with the objective of identifying new connections that can reduce including (1) elitism, where individuals with high fitness values are
the criticality of highly important AM subject areas and therefore replicated in the following generations, (2) crossover, where two
minimize the systemic risks within the AM system. There are 1,359 individuals are selected based on their fitness and subsequently
links that do not already exist in the AM system network and sub- mixed to produce two offspring, and (3) mutation, through which
sequently 1359 Cr possible added link configurations, where r is the entries of a single individual are changed randomly. The repro-
the specified number of links added to the AM system network. duction process continues until a termination criterion is achieved.
Such an extensive search space, combined with the complex, non- Such criterion may be a maximum number of generations, a certain
linear, and nonconvex nature of the problem in hand, increases the fitness value, a specific computational time, or a combination of
likelihood that mathematical linear or nonlinear optimization tech- two or more criteria.
niques will be trapped in local optima. Conversely, heuristic opti- In this study, the GA was applied for different link addition con-
mization techniques represent efficient alternatives that can rapidly figurations with up to 15 links to assess the optimal combination of
provide solutions near the global optima for large optimization link additions that yielded the most improved centrality measure.
problems (Rodríguez et al. 2018) and when the objective function It should be emphasized that adding links increases the information
is nonconvex (Artoni 2019; Dolatnezhadsomarin and Khorram connectivity within the AM system network but can also lead to
2019; Mosa and Ali 2021). information overload for AM stakeholders and possibly a break-
Of such techniques, GA has been successfully applied for down in system functionality (Herrera et al. 2011; Prajogo et al.
complex system identification and optimization and was therefore 2018). Up to 15 added links were chosen arbitrarily as a represen-
employed in the present study to identify the optimum link con- tative number to illustrate the impact on centrality reduction with
figuration added to the AM system network, with the objective of respect to links added to the AM system network without causing
minimizing the average centrality of the most critical AM subject information overload. Information overload can be included within
areas. Accordingly, the following optimization problem has been the link addition problem through (1) a direct incorporation into the
formulated: objective function, or (2) applying a postoptimization sensitivity
0
analysis of the effect of the number of added links on information
a X BCi ðG; xÞ b X
Nt Nt
CCi ðG; xÞ
min@ þ overload. Although these approaches are not demonstrated herein,
x N t i¼1 BCi ðGÞ N t i¼1 CCi ðGÞ they could be nonetheless operationalized when all proprietary
1 information is made available by stakeholders. In other words, the
c X ECi ðG; xÞ d X
Nt Nt
VIi ðG; xÞA link addition methodology presented in this study outlines the
þ þ ð6Þ meta-management approach that can be applied to real AM systems
N t i¼1 ECi ðGÞ N t i¼1 VIi ðGÞ
when all relevant data is available.
subject to As the number of added links increased, a larger population
and a higher number of maximum generations were employed to
x ∈= G ð7Þ
enhance the likelihood of achieving a globally optimal solution.
aþbþcþd¼1 ð8Þ The GA’s convergence to a globally optimal solution is primarily
governed by the population size and the maximum number of gen-
where N t = number of critical nodes to be considered; G = directed erations employed (Yosri et al. 2021). Therefore, the global opti-
graph representing the typical AM system network (Fig. 2) before mality of a GA solution can be evaluated through (1) employing
adding the new set of links Lad with indices x; and a, b, c, and initial populations with different sizes for the same maximum num-
d = weighting factors of the betweenness centrality, closeness cen- ber of generations and subsequently evaluating the variability
trality, eigenvector centrality, and vulnerability index, respectively. across the obtained solutions, (2) utilizing different values for the
In this optimization problem, the objective function is defined maximum number of generations for the same initial population
by Eq. (6), the constraints are defined by Eqs. (7) and (8), and the and compare the resulting solutions, or (3) using fixed-sized sets
decision variable is the link index vector x that represents the set of randomly generated initial populations and assessing the vari-
of links, Lad , added to the AM system network to minimize the ability in resulting solutions for the same maximum number of
objective function. Eqs. (6)–(8) were developed in such a way to generations. The third approach has been employed in this study

© ASCE 04022029-6 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 to evaluate the global optimality of the GA solutions, where the across different link addition scenarios for each centrality measure
largest population size employed was 5,500 when 15 links were used to define the objective function. A full Pareto analysis would
added, and the most generations used was 32. Convergence was be completed internally by a specific AM organization using link
defined when the evaluated function changed by less than 1 × 10−3 addition costs unique to their organization.
from the previous GA iteration.
Betweenness Centrality
Analysis Results Fig. 6 presents the connections that were identified to be added to
the typical AM system for up to six added links when minimizing
Fig. 5 shows the average centrality value of the most critical 15 AM the systemic risk due to critical betweenness centrality AM subject
subject areas (i.e., N t ¼ 15) for the different numbers of added areas is of interest, and Appendix S2 provides the labeled connec-
links when the betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, eigen- tions in a table for 1 to 15 link additions.
vector centrality, and vulnerability index are considered individu- By including a mere four additional links (i.e., increasing the
ally in Eq. (6). To identify the true optimum, a balance between the number of links in the typical AM system from 123, as suggested
link addition cost and the improvement in the objective function
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

by the IAM, to 127 would decrease the mean betweenness central-

would need to be obtained as described previously. The cost of a ity of the most critical 15 AM subject areas by 38%. The informa-
link addition would be in terms of resources (e.g., money, people, tion connection formed between Asset Management Strategy and
data, and technology) needed to establish an information connec- Objectives (S2) and Resource Management (L3) is an optimal link
tion, which would be provided by an organization, but such cost addition for one to four link additions, and the information con-
details were proprietary to specific organizations at the time of the nection formed between Demand Analysis (S3) and Management
development of this study. Therefore, Fig. 5 presents a Pareto front Review, Audit, and Assurance (R8) is including in the optimal set
with respect to the objective function value and the number of when adding two, three, and four links. This indicates that the
added links, and the following discussion identifies commonalities S2 → L3 and S3 → R8 links are critical in reducing the average

20

-20.4%
-20.8%

-11.6%
-10.9%

150
Average Betweenness Centrality

Average Closeness Centrality

-6.0%

15

-12.3%
-6.2%
-5.1%

-7.7%
-5.2%
-0.3%
-3.1%

-7.8%
-3.1%

-8.0%
-6.1%
-0.4%
-2.3%
-1.2%

-6.7%
-2.3%
-1.5%

-6.1%
100
10

-8.3%
-5.4%
-5.8%
-6.7%
-6.1%
-0.5%
-7.0%
50 5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(a) Number of Added Links (b) Number of Added Links

1.0
0.25
-4.6%

-23.5%
-5.7%
-4.9%
-3.9%
Average Eigenvector Centrality

Average Vulnerability Index

0.8
-5.6%

-18.5%
-1.5%
-3.3%

0.20
-0.6%
-1.5%
-1.8%
-1.1%

-11.4%
-4.4%
-1.5%
-1.1%
-0.3%

-8.5%
0.0%
0.0%

0.6
-9.3%

0.15
-7.8%
-2.8%

-2.8%
0.0%
0.0%

-2.9%
-3.0%
0.0%

0.10 0.4

0.05 0.2

0.00 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(c) Number of Added Links (d) Number of Added Links

Fig. 5. Optimization results specific to the number of links added to the AM system network for (a) betweenness centrality; (b) closeness centrality;
(c) eigenvector centrality; and (d) vulnerability index. The values above the data points indicate the percent difference from the previous centrality
value.

© ASCE 04022029-7 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Link additions according to the betweenness centrality (labels are defined in Fig. 1).

betweenness centrality in the highly critical AM subject areas when additional information to describe the process and the feedback
only up to four link additions are available to implement. required for asset decommissioning and disposal.
Beyond four added links, the S2 → L3 and S3 → R8 links are Adding the three links identified as optimal within the typical
replaced by a combination of other links that stem from similar AM system decreased the average closeness centrality of the most
source nodes. The S2 → L3 and S3 → R8 connections would be critical 15 AM subject areas by 30%, whereas adding the six links
feasible for introducing an information- or data-sharing process in identified as optimal provided a 52% reduction. Both scenarios pro-
a real AM system. For example, the AM strategy and objectives vide a large reduction in the closeness centrality–based objective
would specifically provide information on how the resources of function without greatly increasing the number of links, and there-
the organization should be managed and the analysis of asset de- fore the possibility of information overload, within the AM system
mand would provide information related to the review, audit, and network.
assurance processes.
Eigenvector Centrality
Closeness Centrality
Fig. 8 presents the connections that were identified to be added to
Fig. 7 presents the connections that were identified to be added to the typical AM system for up to six added links when reducing
the typical AM system for up to six added links when reducing the the systemic risk due to the eigenvector centrality is the focus, and
systemic risk due to nodes with high closeness centrality values is Appendix S2 provides the labeled connections in a table for 1 to 15
desired, and Appendix S2 provides the labeled connections in a link additions.
table for one to fifteen link additions. An 18% reduction in the systemic risk due to the disruption of
The information connection formed between the Strategic Plan- AM subject areas with high eigenvector centralities can be obtained
ning (S4) and Asset Decommissioning and Disposal (L11) areas by adding just four links to the AM system network. The informa-
is optimal among all link addition scenarios from Scenario 1 to tion connection formed between the Risk Assessment and Manage-
Scenario 6. All optimal link additions identified originated from ment (R4) and Sustainable Development (R5) areas is optimal for
the Strategic Planning (S4) subject area, highlighting the impor- each link addition scenario in Fig. 8, and the information connec-
tance of links originating from this node in reducing the average tion from Risk Assessment and Management (R4) and Stakeholder
closeness centrality within the AM system (i.e., reducing the dis- Engagement (R1) areas is optimal among all link addition scenarios
tance of the 15 critical AM subject areas to the other AM subject from Scenario 2 to Scenario 6. Such occurrences highlight the criti-
areas in the AM system network). The S4 → L11 link would be cality of each link in the reduction in eigenvector centrality–based
feasible within a working AM system if the strategic plan provided systemic risk (i.e., reducing the reliance of the AM system on

© ASCE 04022029-8 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Link additions according to the closeness centrality (labels are defined in Fig. 1).

Fig. 8. Link additions according to the eigenvector centrality (labels are defined in Fig. 1).

© ASCE 04022029-9 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 information transfer through important AM subject areas connected This lack of link addition commonality highlights the importance
to other important AM subject areas). of applying this optimization methodology when looking to reduce
Both the R4 → R5 and the R4 → R1 added links are feasible to the systemic risk related to vulnerability index (i.e., reducing the
be implementing in an AM system if appropriate information or potential for information overload scenarios within the AM system
data transfers were available. For example, the risk assessment and network) because a small number of specific links do not provide
management process could provide details on a risk-based plan for a consistent reduction, as was the case with the previous centrality
sustainable development and for engaging with AM stakeholders. measures. There is still great value in implementing the proposed
The Risk Assessment and Management (R4) subject area is a link addition configurations because adding the identified four op-
common source node for many links in Fig. 8, indicating its im- timal links can lead to a 49% decrease in the average vulnerability
portance to the reduction in eigenvector centrality–related systemic index of the most critical 15 AM subject areas.
risk of the most critical AM subject areas.
Weighted Combination of Measures
Vulnerability Index Whereas the previously described applications considered mini-
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9 presents the connections that were identified to be added to mizing each of betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, eigen-
the typical AM system for up to six added links when reducing the vector centrality, and vulnerability index separately, minimizing a
systemic risk due to the average vulnerability index of the top 15 weighted combination of such measure is also crucial because each
subject areas is the only goal, and Appendix S2 provides the la- centrality measure evaluates a different aspect of the network’s
beled connections in a table for 1 to 15 link additions. The α value exposure to systemic risks. As such, the values of a, b, c, and d
from Eq. (5) was specified as 0.05, indicating that if a node’s in- in Eq. (7) were each assumed as 0.25, and the resulting objective
formation load exceeded its capacity by 5%, the node was consid- function evaluations are shown in Fig. 10 for link additions from 1
ered to be in a state of information overload; 5% was chosen as a to 15.
representative value to illustrate the application of the previously Fig. 11 presents the connections that were identified to be added
described methodology and it has been used in other vulnerabil- to the typical AM system for up to six added links and Appendix S2
ity index applications (Ezzeldin and El-Dakhakhni 2021; Goforth provides the labeled connections in a table for 1 to 15 link
et al. 2020). additions.
The optimal added links presented in Fig. 9 do not have signifi- The information connection between the Strategic Planning (S4)
cant commonalities among each of the six link addition scenarios. and Resource Management (L3) areas is common among most link
There are only three links (i.e., L1 → R1, L5 → R8, and L8 → S4) addition scenarios, highlighting its importance in reducing the com-
that were optimal among two consecutive link addition scenarios. bined systemic risk according to the weighted objective function

Fig. 9. Link additions according to the vulnerability index (labels are defined in Fig. 1).

© ASCE 04022029-10 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 further highlights the impact of a small number of added links in
reducing systemic risk within the AM system network.

Managerial Insights

In each of the aforementioned cases, it was found that adding even

only a small number of links (fewer than five) provided large re-
ductions in each of the evaluated objective functions [18% (EC) to
49% (VI)]. This result is valuable for AM organizations because
they could reduce their systemic risk exposure with minimal added
links and therefore minimize the exposure of their AM stakeholders
to information overload. However, there is little commonality in
added links among each of the individual centrality-based objective
functions. This highlights the importance for organizations and
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

managers within such organizations to evaluate the relative impor-

Fig. 10. An equal weighted combination of betweenness centrality, tance of each centrality-based systemic risk to their organization
closeness centrality, eigenvector centrality, and vulnerability index ac- and run the optimization methodology accordingly.
cording to Eq. (6) evaluated for different link additions. The values The optimal added links associated with the weighted combina-
above the data points indicate the percent difference from the previous tion, outlined in Fig. 11, were the same as those for the closeness
centrality value. and eigenvector measures. Specifically, the Strategic Planning (S4)
to Resource Management (L3) link was important for the reduction
in closeness centrality and it was also important to the weighted
combination reduction. Additionally, the links that originated from
(19% reduction). The importance of the S4 → L3 link is also con- the Risk Assessment and Management (R4) subject area were
sistent with the criticality of each AM subject area because both S4 critical for the reduction in the weighted combination, which was
and L3 are critical for all centrality measures as determined from similar in the eigenvector centrality reduction. This demonstrates
Fig. 4. Adding just four links can provide a 40% reduction in the how employing a weighted combination of the described mea-
weighted objective function value from the original AM system sures allows individual organizations to optimize their own AM
network. This large reduction in the objective function evaluation system network for their desired systemic risk reduction focus.

Fig. 11. Link additions based on an equal weighted combination of betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, eigenvector centrality, and vulner-
ability index (labels are defined in Fig. 1).

© ASCE 04022029-11 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 This facilitates implementation of this optimization methodology in a full Pareto analysis to minimize the centrality values while also
AM organizations across all infrastructure classes. minimizing the cost of adding new links to the AM system
network.

Conclusion
Data Availability Statement
Implementing an effective AM system is critical for organizations
that own, manage, and operate infrastructure assets to ensure Some data (network data), models (MATLAB and R models), and
that their assets can provide the greatest life cycle value and the code (optimization code) that support the findings of this study are
best service to their customers or users. A well-managed asset man- available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
agement system can help organizations alleviate the challenges
induced by infrastructure ageing, strict regulatory operating condi-
tions, limited financial means, and losing valuable experience due Acknowledgments
to retirements. Through a metamanagement lens, this study syn-
thesized the AM system, developed by the IAM, as a network The financial support for the study was provided through the
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of connected components (i.e., nodes and links). Nodes within Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience under Systemic
the network represent the AM subject areas, whereas links between Risk (CaNRisk)—Collaborative Research and Training Experience
node simulate the information transfer between subject area pairs. (CREATE) program of the Natural Science and Engineering Re-
The ISO 55001 standard specifies the best practice for organ- search Council (NSERC) of Canada. The INTERFACE Institute
izations in their implementation and operation of AM systems. and the INViSiONLab support in the development of this study is
Based on this, the AM system network link weights were defined also acknowledged.
in this study as the number of ISO 55001 clauses that pertain to the
source node. The main challenges of AM system operation are Supplemental Materials
caused by information asymmetry between and information over-
load within system components. These main challenges create sys- Appendixes S1 and S2 are available online in the ASCE Library
temic risks (i.e., dependence-induced possible disruptions) within ([Link]).
the AM system network, which can lead to cascading disruptions
throughout the system. To mitigate such risks, this study manages
the AM system through a network reconfiguration approach. References
Betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, eigenvector cen-
Alzoor, F. S., M. Ezzeldin, M. Mohamed, and W. El-Dakhakhni. 2021.
trality, and vulnerability index were employed to identify the dif-
“Prioritizing bridge rehabilitation plans through systemic risk-guided
ferent AM subject areas most critical for information transfer. classifications.” J. Bridge Eng. 26 (7): 04021038. [Link]
Identifying such subject areas is essential because their disruption .1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001733.
can initiate a systemic risk situation within the AM system and may Artoni, A. 2019. “A methodology for simulation-based, multiobjective gear
lead to system-level malfunction. Subsequently, a GA was de- design optimization.” Mech. Mach. Theory 133 (Mar): 95–111. https://
ployed to reduce the systemic risk within the AM system through [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2018.11.013.
minimizing the measures considered. Different objective functions ASCE. 2021. 2021 report card for America’s infrastructure. Reston, VA:
were considered to minimize the betweenness centrality, closeness ASCE.
centrality, and eigenvector centrality, as well as the vulnerability Barabási, A.-L. 2016. Network science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
index (individually or weighted combinations thereof), and optimal
Barbosa, F., A. De Sousa, and A. Agra. 2018. “Topology design of trans-
link configurations were presented visually for one to six added parent optical networks resilient to multiple node failures.” In Proc.,
links. Considering all evaluations, adding a small number of links 2018 10th Int. Workshop on Resilient Networks Design and Modeling,
(fewer than five) can significantly enhance the AM system’s ability 1–8. New York: IEEE.
to combat system risks (reduced the EC and VI by 18% and 49%, Bergh, D. D., D. J. Ketchen Jr., I. Orlandi, P. P. M. A. R. Heugens, and
respectively). B. K. Boyd. 2019. “Information asymmetry in management research:
Managerial insights were also presented highlighting that there Past accomplishments and future opportunities.” J. Manage. 45 (1):
were only very few added link commonalities considering the differ- 122–158. [Link]
ent objective functions. This observation underlines the importance Bertling Tjernberg, L. 2018. Infrastructure asset management with power
of clarify organization-specific systemic risk reduction goals and system applications. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
Bhavathrathan, B. K., and G. R. Patil. 2018. “Algorithm to compute urban
highlights the value of exploring the use of weighted combinations
road network resilience.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2672 (48): 104–115. https://
of different network measures. It should also be recalled that the val- [Link]/10.1177/0361198118793329.
uation of an AM subject areas depends on multiple metrics such as Bloomberg Professional Services. 2020. Supply chain momentum
money, technology, data, and personnel. Fusing such metrics is chal- strategies with graph neural networks. New York: Bloomberg.
lenging, and therefore relevant detailed stakeholder input is key to Brunetto, Y., M. Xerri, and S. Nelson. 2014. “Building a proactive
operationalize the developed metamanagement approach. engagement culture in asset management organizations.” J. Manage.
Overall, organizations can employ the approach developed in Eng. 30 (4): 04014014. [Link]
this study to reduce the exposure of their AM system to systemic .0000251.
risks due to the potential cascading disruption of highly connected CIRC (Canadian Infrastructure Report Card). 2016. Informing the future:
The Canadian infrastructure report card. Montreal: CIRC.
and critical AM subject areas. The connection addition methodol-
CIRC (Canadian Infrastructure Report Card). 2019. Monitoring the state
ogy presented herein enhances the information transfer throughout of Canada’s core public infrastructure: The Canadian infrastructure
the AM system while also ensuring that AM stakeholders are not report card 2019. Montreal: CIRC.
overloaded with too much information. Future work may apply the Crescenzi, P., G. D’Angelo, L. Severini, and Y. Velaj. 2016. “Greedily im-
developed methodology at different stages of AM deployment proving our own closeness centrality in a network.” ACM Trans. Knowl.
within organizations and with specific link addition costs, allowing Discovery Data 11 (1): 1–32. [Link]

© ASCE 04022029-12 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 de la Pena, C., D. Gonzalez Fernandez, and J. Rodriguez Gonzalez. 2016. crew routing problem.” Comput. Ind. Eng. 161 (Nov): 107626. https://
“How analytics can improve asset management in electric power [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2021.107626.
networks.” McKinsey & Company Electrical Power & Natural Gas. Mosa, M. A., and A. A. Ali. 2021. “Energy management system of low
Accessed June 14, 2018. [Link] voltage dc microgrid using mixed-integer nonlinear programing and a
-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/. global optimization technique.” Electr. Power Syst. Res. 192 (Mar):
Dolatnezhadsomarin, A., and E. Khorram. 2019. “Two efficient algorithms 106971. [Link]
for constructing almost even approximations of the Pareto front in Motter, A. E., and Y. C. Lai. 2002. “Cascade-based attacks on complex
multi-objective optimization problems.” Eng. Optim. 51 (4): 567–589. networks.” Phys. Rev. E 66 (6): 065102. [Link]
[Link] RevE.66.065102.
Estrada, E., and P. Knight. 2015. A first course in network theory. Oxford, Nozhati, S., Y. Sarkale, B. Ellingwood, E. K. P. Chong, and H. Mahmoud.
UK: Oxford University Press. 2019. “Near-optimal planning using approximate dynamic program-
Ezzeldin, M., and W. E. El-Dakhakhni. 2021. “Robustness of Ontario ming to enhance post-hazard community resilience management.”
power network under systemic risks.” Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 181 (Jan): 116–126. [Link]
6 (3–4): 252–271. [Link] .ress.2018.09.011.
Freeman, L. C. 1977. “A set of measures of centrality based on between- Ohara, K., K. Saito, M. Kimura, and H. Motoda. 2017. “Maximizing net-
ness.” Sociometry 40 (1): 35–41. [Link] work performance based on group centrality by creating most effective
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GFMAM (Global Forum on Maintenance and Asset Management). 2014. k-links.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Data Science and Advanced Analytics,
The asset management landscape. Toronto, ON, Canada: GFMAM. 561–570. New York: IEEE.
Goforth, E., W. El-Dakhakhni, and L. Wiebe. 2022. “Network analytics Pacreau, G., E. Lezmi, and J. Xu. 2021. Graph neural networks for asset
for infrastructure asset management systemic risk assessment.” J. Infra- management. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
struct. Syst. 28 (2): 04022006. [Link] Papagelis, M. 2015. “Refining social graph connectivity via shortcut edge
-555X.0000667. addition.” ACM Trans. Knowl. Discovery Data 10 (2): 1–35. [Link]
Goforth, E., M. Ezzeldin, W. El-Dakhakhni, L. Wiebe, and M. Mohamed. .org/10.1145/2757281.
2020. “Network-of-networks framework for multimodal hazmat trans- Parotsidis, N., E. Pitoura, and P. Tsaparas. 2015. “Selecting shortcuts for a
portation risk mitigation: Application to used nuclear fuel in Canada.” smaller world.” In Proc., SIAM Int. Conf. on Data Mining 2015, 28–36.
J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 24 (3): 04020016. [Link] Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000493. Parotsidis, N., E. Pitoura, and P. Tsaparas. 2016. “Centrality-aware link rec-
Golightly, D., G. Kefalidou, and S. Sharples. 2018. “A cross-sector analysis ommendations.” In Proc., 9th ACM Int. Conf. on Web Search and Data
of human and organisational factors in the deployment of data-driven Mining, 503–512. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
predictive maintenance.” Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manage. 16 (3): 627–648. Paterson, J., and B. Ombuki-Berman. 2020. “A hybrid approach to
[Link] network robustness optimization using edge rewiring and edge
addition.” In Proc., IEEE Int. Conf. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Herrera, F., G. Chan, M. Legault, R. M. Kassim, and V. Sharma. 2011. The
4051–4057. New York: IEEE.
digital workplace: Think, share, do. New York: Deloitte & Touche.
Pell, R., R. Svoboda, R. Eagar, P. Ondko, and F. Kirschnick. 2015. Effective
Hodkiewicz, M. R. 2015. “The development of ISO 55000 series stan-
infrastructure asset management—A holistic approach to transforma-
dards.” In Vol. 19 of Engineering asset management-systems, profes-
tion. Hong Kong: Arthur D. Little—Prism.
sional practices and certification, 427–438. Cham, Switzerland:
Pizzuti, C., and A. Socievole. 2018. “A genetic algorithm for improving
Springer.
robustness of complex networks.” In Proc., IEEE 30th Int. Conf. on
IAM (Institute for Asset Management). 2015. Asset management—An
Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 514–521. New York: IEEE.
anatomy. Bristol, UK: IAM.
Prajogo, D., J. Toy, A. Bhattacharya, A. Oke, and T. C. E. Cheng. 2018.
INFC (Infrastructure Canada). 2018. Investing in Canada: Canada’s
“The relationships between information management, process manage-
long-term infrastructure plan. Ottawa: INFC.
ment and operational performance: Internal and external contexts.”
ISO. 2014a. Asset management—Management systems—Requirements. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 199 (May): 95–103. [Link]
ISO 55001. Geneva: ISO. .2018.02.019.
ISO. 2014b. Asset management—Overview, principles and terminology. Rodríguez, N., A. Gupta, P. L. Zabala, and G. Cabrera-Guerrero. 2018.
ISO 55000. Geneva: ISO. “Optimization algorithms combining (meta)heuristics and mathematical
ISO. 2021. “Known certified organizations.” ISO/TC 251 Asset Manage- programming and its application in engineering.” Math. Probl. Eng.
ment. Accessed October 28, 2021. [Link] 2018 (Sep): 1–3. [Link]
/social-links/resources/[Link]. Ross, R. 2019. Reliability analysis for asset management of electric power
Kinney, R., P. Crucitti, R. Albert, and V. Latora. 2005. “Modeling cascad- grids. Singapore: Wiley.
ing failures in the North American power grid.” Eur. Phys. J. B 46 (1): Thai, M. T., and P. M. Pardalos. 2012. Handbook of optimization in com-
101–107. [Link] plex networks: Communication and social networks. Edited by M. T.
Konstantakos, P. C., P. T. Chountalas, and A. I. Magoutas. 2019. “The Thai, P. M. Pardalos, and Laboratory of Algorithms and Technologies
contemporary landscape of asset management systems.” Qual.-Access for Networks Analysis. New York: Springer.
Success 20 (169): 10–17. Uddin, W., W. R. Hudson, and R. Haas. 2013. Public infrastructure asset
Kourtellis, N., T. Alahakoon, R. Simha, A. Iamnitchi, and R. Tripathi. management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2013. “Identifying high betweenness centrality nodes in large social Vishnu, C. R., S. P. Das, R. Sridharan, P. N. Ram Kumar, and N. S.
networks.” Social Network Anal. Min. 3 (4): 899–914. [Link] Narahari. 2021. “Development of a reliable and flexible supply chain
.1007/s13278-012-0076-6. network design model: A genetic algorithm based approach.” Int. J.
Mahyar, H., R. Hasheminezhad, E. Ghalebi, A. Nazemian, R. Grosu, Prod. Res. 59 (20): 6185–6209. [Link]
A. Movaghar, and H. R. Rabiee. 2018. “Identifying central nodes for .1808256.
information flow in social networks using compressive sensing.” Social Woodhouse, J. 2014. “Standards in asset management: PAS 55 to ISO
Network Anal. Min. 8 (1): 1–24. [Link] 55000.” Infrastruct. Asset Manage. 1 (3): 57–59. [Link]
-0506-1. .1680/iasma.14.00013.
Medvet, E., and A. Bartoli. 2021. “Evolutionary optimization of graphs Wu, L. 2015. “Centrality of the supply chain network.” Accessed August 29,
with GraphEA.” In AIxIA 2020—Advances in artificial intelligence, 2015. [Link]
edited by M. Baldoni and S. Bandini, 83–98. Cham, Switzerland: Xerri, M. J., S. Nelson, and Y. Brunetto. 2015. “Importance of workplace
Springer. relationships and attitudes toward organizational change in engineering
Morshedlou, N., K. Barker, A. D. González, and A. Ermagun. 2021. asset-management organizations.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (5): 04014074.
“A heuristic approach to an interdependent restoration planning and [Link]

© ASCE 04022029-13 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029

 Yosri, A., Y. Elleathy, S. Hassini, and W. El-Dakhakhni. 2021. “Genetic Zhao, L., B. Li, H. Chen, and Y. Yao. 2018. “An assembly sequence
algorithm-markovian model for predictive bridge asset management.” optimization oriented small world networks genetic algorithm and case
J. Bridge Eng. 26 (8): 04021052. [Link] study.” Assembly Autom. 38 (4): 387–397. [Link]
.1943-5592.0001752. -04-2017-049.
Downloaded from [Link] by [Link] on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE 04022029-14 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst., 2022, 28(4): 04022029