October 2, 2008
OIG Report on Integrated Asset Management
"The Office of Inspector General conducted an audit of NASA's Integrated Asset Management - Property, Plant, and Equipment (IAM/PP&E) module. A component of NASA's Integrated Enterprise Management Program (IEMP), the IAM/PP&E module is an automated asset-management system that performs two main functions: equipment management (logistics) and asset accounting (finance) and was designed to integrate logistics and financial processes to account for and facilitate management of NASA personal property."
Posted by kcowing at October 2, 2008 2:00 PM
This is a pretty arid topic I'm sure. But still, one should wonder why a report on NASA assets has so much emphasis on "depreciation"? The concept is useful in the private sector. If a company shuts down a site the plant equipment may be obsolete, or still very usable, and it's important to know what price might be had for the assets. The same is true of a facility, even a building. Not to mention the tax advantages and nuances of property appreciation or depreciation.
But for a facility firmly on Federal property or for equipment that is highly specialized, does this concept apply to the same degree of usefulness? The feds are not a profit making enterprise.
Sure, plenty of cars, some airplanes, lots of expensive test equipment, and basic items to run a center, but no where in the report is "replacement" cost mentioned? Does it really matter some equation says something is old and worthless? One would think there would be more emphasis in such a system in creating metrics of what the cost is to keep, and what the cost would be to replace. The rest is just pretty green numbers scrolling down the screen no?


