IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i22p15754-d1276401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physical Asset Life Cycle Evaluation Models—A Comparative Analysis towards Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • José Torres Farinha

    (RCM 2+ —Research Centre in Asset Management and System Engineering, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal
    ISEC/IPC—Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute of Engineering, Rua Pedro Nunes—Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal)

  • Hugo D. N. Raposo

    (RCM 2+ —Research Centre in Asset Management and System Engineering, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal
    ISEC/IPC—Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute of Engineering, Rua Pedro Nunes—Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal)

  • José Edmundo de-Almeida-e-Pais

    (RCM 2+ —Research Centre in Asset Management and System Engineering, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal
    CISE—Electromechatronic Systems Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal)

  • Mateus Mendes

    (RCM 2+ —Research Centre in Asset Management and System Engineering, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal
    ISEC/IPC—Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute of Engineering, Rua Pedro Nunes—Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal)

Abstract

In order to reach a sustainable circular economy, it is important to maximise the life cycle of a Physical Asset. An evaluation of a Physical Asset Life Cycle can be conducted via several approaches, and these may provide different results. The differences may be insignificant, but they must be taken into consideration because they have consequences for a manager’s decisions. This allows for a wider time interval to decide when to withdraw a Physical Asset or renew it and/or if it ought to continue functioning when profits are higher than expenses, thus allowing for a reduction in waste and increase in sustainability. These are some of the aspects that are discussed in this paper; it presents several models for the evaluation of the Physical Asset Life Cycle, considering the market value, devaluation methods and a more generalised use of Fisher’s Equation, which can include the Risk Tax, among others. The results are discussed based on data that support evaluations obtained with the models, and these are used for each Life Cycle model with the aim of evaluating the differences among them. Not only do all of the models consider expenses, namely those in Investment and Functioning, but also profits, which allows for a more holistic evaluation of the Physical Asset Life Cycle. The models are significantly versatile, allowing for a quantitative evaluation of changes in maintenance policies, energy price variations, risks, variations of profits according to the real market and so on. The results demonstrate the robustness of the approach described and indicate that it maximises the Physical Asset Life Cycle, allowing for the consumption of world resources to be minimised and, as a result, contributing to a more sustainable world.

Suggested Citation

  • José Torres Farinha & Hugo D. N. Raposo & José Edmundo de-Almeida-e-Pais & Mateus Mendes, 2023. "Physical Asset Life Cycle Evaluation Models—A Comparative Analysis towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-23, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:15754-:d:1276401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15754/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15754/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Damjan Maletič & Matjaž Maletič & Basim Al-Najjar & Boštjan Gomišček, 2018. "Development of a Model Linking Physical Asset Management to Sustainability Performance: An Empirical Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Damjan Maletič & Matjaž Maletič & Basim Al-Najjar & Boštjan Gomišček, 2020. "An Analysis of Physical Asset Management Core Practices and Their Influence on Operational Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Lima, Eliana Sangreman & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas, 2019. "Improving Asset Management under a regulatory view," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Xin Liu, 2019. "The Role of Enterprise Risk Management in Sustainable Decision-Making: A Cross-Cultural Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Lima, Eliana Sangreman & McMahon, Paul & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas, 2021. "Establishing the relationship between asset management and business performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    5. Caropul Mendes & Hugo Raposo & Ricardo Ferraz & José Torres Farinha, 2023. "The Economic Management of Physical Assets: The Practical Case of an Urban Passenger Transport Company in Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Alice Consilvio & José Solís-Hernández & Noemi Jiménez-Redondo & Paolo Sanetti & Federico Papa & Iñigo Mingolarra-Garaizar, 2020. "On Applying Machine Learning and Simulative Approaches to Railway Asset Management: The Earthworks and Track Circuits Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-24, March.
    7. José Edmundo de Almeida Pais & Hugo D. N. Raposo & José Torres Farinha & Antonio J. Marques Cardoso & Pedro Alexandre Marques, 2021. "Optimizing the Life Cycle of Physical Assets through an Integrated Life Cycle Assessment Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Elizaveta Gavrikova & Irina Volkova & Yegor Burda, 2020. "Strategic Aspects of Asset Management: An Overview of Current Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-31, July.
    9. Małgorzata Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek & Patryk Żywica & Arkadiusz Gola, 2021. "Fuzzy set theory driven maintenance sustainability performance assessment model: a multiple criteria approach," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1497-1515, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:15754-:d:1276401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.