Author: Ing. Jan Stoker MSc. MEng.   Follow Jan Stoker

1. Introduction

This chapter frames the central idea of the SSAMM Trefoil P–C–R Balance: treating Performance (P), Costs (C), and Risk (R) as one integrated system rather than three competing aims. We explain why a single governance gate—represented by a trefoil knot at the centre of the A&MM lemniscate—improves explainability, alignment, and assurance. Readers will see how this view connects Asset Management intent to Maintenance execution in a way that is traceable, auditable, and anchored in value as defined by ISO 55000.

1.1 Why P–C–R matters

Every significant decision in Asset and Maintenance Management balances three tightly coupled concerns: delivering the service performance stakeholders expect (P), spending money wisely over the life cycle (C), and keeping exposure within appetite and obligations (R). ISO 55000 defines Asset Management as the coordinated activity to realise value from assets; value, in this sense, is not a single metric but the coherence of these dimensions over time.

In practice, adjustments in one dimension ripple through the others: a reliability upgrade that lifts availability may change energy use and spares holdings; a cost-saving that trims inspection scope may shift risk; a safety barrier introduced to meet ALARP can add downtime if maintainability is not addressed. Treating P, C, and R as a single system is therefore not a stylistic preference but a condition for making defensible, repeatable choices aligned with value creation.

1.2 From arrows to a system view

Arrows and triangles are familiar, but they imply separable forces. The trefoil knot gives us a structure that matches reality more closely: one continuous band (a single value function) forming three lobes (P, C, R). At each decision gate, one lobe can be declared temporarily “over” the others—signalling local priority—while the loop remains unbroken. The over/under crossings make the priority visible; the unbroken band preserves the message that we are still optimising the same system.

We place this trefoil at the centre of the A&MM lemniscate (∞), precisely where Asset Management intent (left loop: SAMP/AMP, risk appetite, objectives) meets Maintenance execution (right loop: policy, processes, work, evidence). Decisions that pass through this gate are explicit (which lobe is over), constrained (thresholds for Pmin, Rmax/ALARP, Ccap/TCO), and evidenced (data lineage and analyses), so that strategy and execution stay connected and auditable.

1.3 Sources and alignment

This article brings together five SSAMM pillars into one operational logic. The A&MM Lemniscate – Cornerstones provides the overall line-of-sight from purpose to work and back through assurance. The Maintenance Framework (CEN/TC 319) supplies the normative process architecture (EN 17007), the policy layer (EN 17485), and the risk-based discipline (EN 16991) that turn gate choices into coordinated actions. The Asset Management BowTie clarifies what must be controlled—threats, barriers, consequences—so that the trefoil gate can decide how to prioritise among feasible control sets. The Industry 5.0 perspective adds non-negotiable constraints—human-centricity, sustainability, resilience—so priorities remain explainable to people and traceable for digital tools. Finally, the Asset Management System (ISO 55000:2024) anchors the definition of value, risk, assurance, and continual improvement that this approach operationalises.

1.4 Contribution and claims

The contribution of this work is twofold. Conceptually, it provides a single decision language—the trefoil gate—that replaces vague “trade-off” talk with a documented statement of dominance under explicit thresholds. Computationally, it offers a practical equation set (a transparent additive score and an interaction-aware Trefoil Balance Index) so priorities can be calculated, compared, and audited. We claim that using this gate improves understanding across roles, shortens review cycles, and strengthens assurance because reviewers can reconstruct what was prioritised, under which conditions, and with what evidence. We do not claim that a score replaces professional judgement; rather, the gate disciplines judgement so it is more consistent, explainable, and learnable over time.

1.5 Practical outcomes and audience

Executives and Asset Managers gain visible governance: board papers can state the dominant lobe, thresholds used, and evidence backing the recommendation. Maintenance Managers obtain a repeatable pathway from policy to plans and work orders, with gate fields reflected in CMMS/EAM. Reliability Engineers get a computable interface that ties analyses (RCM, Weibull, FMECA, PdM) to decisions. Engineers and technicians see clear priorities at task level, supported by thresholds and verification steps. Auditors and assurance functions access consistent records that link intent, choice, and outcome. In short, the trefoil gate equips all roles with a shared grammar for P–C–R inside the lemniscate.

We appriciate your thoughts & comments

2. Foundations: the lemniscate and the two landscapes

Here we set the structural backbone of the approach: the A&MM lemniscate as one continuous loop and the two landscapes that inhabit it—Asset Management (IAM/ISO) and Maintenance (CEN/TC 319). The chapter clarifies roles, artefacts, and information flows that keep strategy and execution coherent. It prepares the ground for a common language in which thresholds, evidence, and priorities can be applied consistently to create and protect value.

2.1 The A&MM lemniscate (one loop, two halves)

The A&MM lemniscate is not merely a diagram; it is a discipline for keeping strategy and execution on the same continuous path. The left half represents Asset Management’s intent: purpose, value, risk appetite, and objectives expressed through SAMP and AMP. The right half represents Maintenance’s execution: policies, processes, resources, and work that give that intent effect in the field. By forcing every significant decision to pass through the same centre, the lemniscate eliminates the common drift where strategy evolves in board papers while daily work follows separate habits.

At the centre sits the governance gate—the trefoil. Its position is deliberate: every translation from intent to execution, and every return of evidence from execution to assurance, crosses this point. In practice this means that thresholds for performance (Pmin), risk (Rmax/ALARP), and cost (Ccap/TCO) are applied at the same place where priorities are declared (which lobe is “over” for this context). The result is a shared record that shows what was decided, why it was acceptable, and how it will be verified later. Over time, the lemniscate becomes a learning loop: it documents not only outcomes, but also the choices and justifications that produced those outcomes.

2.2 The Asset Management landscape (IAM/ISO)

The IAM/ISO perspective defines the capabilities an organisation needs to realise value from assets: leadership and governance, strategy and planning, risk management, information and decision-making, performance and improvement. For the trefoil gate this matters in three ways. First, value and risk appetite must be stated clearly enough to set thresholds and dominance rules. Second, decision-making must be explicit about the evidence that will be accepted. Third, information management must ensure that data lineage, quality, and timing are good enough to support defensible choices.

ISO 55000:2024 frames these capabilities as a system: intent is not a statement but a repeatable activity that shapes decisions and monitors outcomes. The trefoil gate gives that system a tangible moment of truth. When the Asset Management side specifies objectives and constraints, it is also specifying how the gate will be used. When assurance reviews occur, they do not ask only “what happened?”; they also ask “which priority was declared, under what thresholds, with which evidence?” This closes the loop between desired value and delivered value in a way that can be audited and improved.

2.3 The Maintenance Landscape (CEN/TC 319)

The Maintenance Landscape makes the right half of the lemniscate operational. EN 17485 defines the maintenance policy that encodes thresholds and principles for action; EN 17007 provides the reference model of core processes; EN 16991 formalises risk-based maintenance so that acceptance is consistent with appetite and regulation. Together they ensure that choices at the gate turn into coherent plans, coordinated resources, and verifiable work.

Because EN 17007 decomposes maintenance into recognisable building blocks (e.g., preventive, corrective, improvement, optimisation, resources, HSE, data, documentation, inspections, services, planning, budgeting, management, materials, activities, tolerances), the trefoil record can be propagated without ambiguity. If a preventive strategy runs R-over, the same priority is reflected in task intervals, inspection scope, and acceptance criteria. If an optimisation effort runs C-over, the same priority appears in resource planning, standardisation, and spares strategy. If a corrective action runs P-over, the restoration plan, access arrangements, and checks after start-up will show that restoration took precedence while remaining within risk and cost limits. The Landscape therefore acts as the structured pathway through which gate decisions become consistent, testable operations.

2.4 BowTie and line-of-sight

The Asset Management BowTie describes what must be controlled: credible threats, preventive and mitigative barriers, and potential consequences. It gives decision-makers a disciplined view of causality and defence in depth. The trefoil gate stands orthogonal to this logic. When several barrier configurations are feasible, the gate clarifies which dimension takes temporary priority—risk reduction now, cost efficiency next, performance assurance at commissioning—while keeping the BowTie intact.

This separation is productive. The BowTie ensures completeness of control thinking, while the trefoil ensures clarity of prioritisation at the moment of choice. The line-of-sight is preserved because both artefacts are referenced in the same record: the threat–barrier logic that justifies action, and the declared P–C–R dominance that explains how trade-offs were resolved under the stated thresholds. In audits and post-event reviews this combination makes it possible to reconstruct not only what was done, but also why it was proportionate and aligned with appetite.

2.5 Industry 5.0 as a constraint, not a slogan

Industry 5.0 introduces three non-negotiable constraints for contemporary asset systems: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. These constraints change the way P, C, and R interact. Human-centric design influences maintainability and restoration time; sustainability reshapes lifecycle cost profiles and risk registers; resilience requires capacity to absorb shocks without unacceptable performance loss. The trefoil gate helps teams encode these constraints as thresholds and priorities that are visible and explainable at each decision.

Digital twins, AI-supported diagnostics, and advanced analytics can accelerate this work, but they do not replace it. The quality of outcomes still depends on how priorities are declared and evidenced. The trefoil record provides the scaffolding for trustworthy autonomy: a machine can recommend, but the gate shows which lobe was over, why the thresholds were acceptable, and how results will be verified. In this way the lemniscate remains a continuous loop where modern tools strengthen, rather than obscure, the chain from intent to execution to assurance.

We appriciate your thoughts & comments

3. Why a trefoil knot (and how it improves understanding)

This chapter explains why the trefoil knot is the right decision metaphor for P–C–R. One band (integration) and three lobes (P, C, R) allow local priority without breaking the system, while Borromean rings underpin completeness of consideration. We also link this reasoning explicitly to value creation in the ISO 55000 sense—showing how the trefoil turns “balancing” into a concrete, reviewable act at each decision gate.

3.1 Why a trefoil knot (and how it improves understanding)

Arrow diagrams imply three forces pulling in different directions. In real organisations, Performance (P), Costs (C), and Risk (R) behave as parts of one system: a decision that improves availability usually shifts lifecycle cost; a cost-saving often changes risk exposure; a risk control may affect both performance and cost. The trefoil makes that unity visible. It is a single, unbroken loop (one value system) that forms three equal lobes (P, C, R). At each decision point—the “gate”—one lobe can be temporarily placed “over” the others to signal local priority without cutting the loop.

This matters because leadership needs to prioritise context by context while keeping the overall promise intact: meeting service objectives, staying within lifecycle budgets, and managing risk consistently with appetite. The trefoil replaces vague language (“we balanced things”) with a concrete statement (“for this gate, R is over; thresholds and evidence are recorded”), which is easier to explain, govern, and audit.

3.2 How the trefoil connects the landscapes

Placed in the centre of the A&MM lemniscate, the trefoil acts as a translator between the Asset Management landscape (strategy, SAMP/AMP, decision-making, information, assurance) and the Maintenance landscape (policy, process, execution, evidence, improvement). On the left, intent is made explicit: targets for service performance, limits for risk (e.g., ALARP), and financial constraints (e.g., caps, TCO/NPV).

That intent passes through the trefoil gate, where a decision declares which dimension is dominant at this moment and under which thresholds. On the right, the Maintenance landscape (per CEN/TC 319) operationalises the decision through policies (EN 17485), the core processes (EN 17007), and risk-based maintenance (EN 16991). Evidence then flows back through the same gate—actual performance, actual cost, realised risk—so the left side can test whether strategy is working.

Over time, the gate record becomes a learning archive: it shows whether similar contexts led to similar priorities and whether those priorities produced better outcomes. In practical terms, this is how line-of-sight is kept intact from “what we want” to “what we do” to “what we achieved”.

3.3 The distinct role of Borromean rings (assurance)

The Borromean rings complement the trefoil by emphasising indispensability: if Performance, Costs, or Risk is removed from consideration, the system falls apart. We use this icon where completeness must be checked—management reviews, audits, readiness checks before major changes. The message is different from the trefoil’s message. The Borromean rings ask, “Did we consider all three pillars?” The trefoil asks, “Which pillar is over at this gate, under which thresholds, and with what evidence?” Keeping these roles distinct helps teams avoid two common errors: incomplete trade-off discussions (no assurance) and undocumented prioritisation (no decision logic). Together, they create disciplined conversations that respect constraints and make priorities explicit.

3.4 What readers can expect in practice

After adopting the trefoil gate, documents and dialogues change in predictable ways. Board papers and portfolio reviews explicitly state the dominant lobe, the thresholds used (Pmin, Rmax/ALARP, Ccap/TCO), and the evidence backing the recommendation. Maintenance policies and plans show how gate decisions propagate into work packages, spares, and shutdown windows, and how evidence will be captured (DTA, DOC) and verified. Reliability analyses (RCM, Weibull, FMECA) are linked to the gate via simple fields, so assumptions and parameter changes are visible at the point of decision. Dashboards display both icons: Borromean (completeness) and trefoil (priority), making it easier for mixed audiences—executives, asset managers, maintenance managers, reliability engineers, and technicians—to see the same logic. Training becomes simpler because the vocabulary is common across roles, and post-implementation reviews can trace not only what outcome occurred but also which priority choice led there.

Forthcoming (mid-November): We are preparing a Strategic Maintenance Policy grounded in the ISO 55000 Asset Management system and the A&MM lemniscate. It is designed as a SAMP-equivalent for the Maintenance Landscape (CEN/TC 319), translating portfolio intent into policy thresholds, gate rules, and evidence requirements. Publication on the SSAMM Academy site is targeted for mid-November, with companion posts on the SSAMM LinkedIn pages.

3.4 Why this matters for value creation (ISO 55000 perspective)

ISO 55000 defines Asset Management as the coordinated activity of an organisation to realise value from assets—where value is determined by the organisation and its stakeholders and typically balances performance, costs, and risks over the lifecycle. The trefoil gate operationalises that definition. By treating P, C, and R as one system and by declaring gate-specific dominance under explicit thresholds, organisations make the value proposition concrete and testable: service is delivered as promised (P), resources are used wisely over time (C), and exposures remain within appetite and obligations (R).

Because each gate produces a small, consistent record, value is no longer an abstract aspiration but a chain of justified decisions that can be compared, repeated, and improved. This is especially important when contexts shift—new regulations, ageing assets, budget pressure, sustainability targets—because the same value logic still applies, only the thresholds or dominance may change. In short, the trefoil strengthens value creation by aligning everyday decisions with stated intent, preventing silent sacrifices of one pillar, and enabling organisations to prove how value is created and protected across the lifecycle.

We appriciate your thoughts & comments

4. A computable P–C–R balance (under development)

Chapter 4 translates the decision logic into numbers so that priorities and outcomes can be calculated, compared, and audited. We introduce normalised indices, two complementary scoring forms (a transparent additive score and an interaction-aware Trefoil Balance Index), and simple rules for encoding dominance. This chapter is under active development: we are refining calibration, uncertainty treatment, and data-quality rules based on pilots, but the current formulation is already usable and reproducible.

Status note. This chapter is in development. The equations below are a working version used in pilots. We are actively refining weight calibration, uncertainty treatment (e.g., tail risk), and data quality rules based on feedback from field applications. Publishing this interim version is intentional: the method is already useful, and transparency accelerates improvement.

4.1 Quantities and normalisation

4.2 Two complementary scores 

4.3 Encoding “which lobe is over”

4.4 Worked example (illustrative, pilot values)

5. Embedding the trefoil gate in daily work

This chapter shows how the trefoil gate operates at strategic, tactical, and operational levels, and how results flow through the Maintenance Landscape processes. We map gate choices to policies, plans, job packages, and evidence capture, so the line-of-sight from SAMP/AMP to execution and assurance is maintained. A dedicated section explains why P–C–R revolves around value and how the gate makes value real in day-to-day decisions.

5.1 From strategy to work (left → gate → right)

On the left half of the A&MM lemniscate, Asset Management formulates purpose, stakeholder needs, risk appetite, and targets in the SAMP/AMP. These intent statements must be specific enough to drive thresholds (Pmin, Rmax/ALARP, Ccap/TCO) and to define which evidence is required at decision time. The trefoil at the centre is the governance gate: teams declare which lobe is “over” for the current decision (P, C, or R), apply the thresholds, compute the score(s) (U and/or TBI), and record the rationale. On the right half, Maintenance translates the gate outcome into policy, plans, work orders, and verifiable results. Evidence then flows back through the same gate to inform assurance and improvement, keeping the loop continuous and auditable.

5.2 Decision granularity and cadance

The same trefoil logic holds at three levels. At the strategic level, portfolios use the gate to shape long-term funding envelopes, performance commitments, and risk appetite across asset systems. At the tactical level, programmes and networks apply the gate to set maintenance concepts, spares strategies, and intervention mixes for families of assets. At the operational level, engineers and planners apply the gate to job plans, task intervals, and changes (MoCs). Cadence mirrors these levels: strategic gates align with annual or multi-year planning; tactical gates with quarterly reviews and programme milestones; operational gates with weekly planning, shutdown windows, and condition-triggered decisions. Using one gate language across levels prevents drift between intent and execution.

5.3 How this maps to the EN17007 processes

The Maintenance Landscape provides the operational backbone for gate decisions. Preventive maintenance (PRV) frequently runs R-over: safety and compliance set hard limits first; among feasible options, the best value is selected using U/TBI. Corrective maintenance (COR) on critical functions often runs P-over: restoration of continuity dominates, while cost and risk constraints still apply. Optimisation (OPT) typically runs C-over: lifecycle-cost minima are sought under fixed performance and risk thresholds. Improvement and design-out (IMP) may rotate dominance across phases—early risk reduction (R-over), then cost efficiency (C-over), and, at commissioning, performance validation (P-over). Supporting processes—resources (RES), planning (SPP), budgeting (BUD), data/analytics (DTA), documentation (DOC), HSE, inspections/tests (IST), services and contractors (SER), control and tolerances (TOL), management (MAN), material requests (MRQ), activities (ACT)—all adopt the same gate record. This shared record ensures that what is decided at the gate appears consistently in work packages, service levels, and contractor briefs, and can be traced back during assurance.

5.4 Roles and responsibilities explained 

The Asset Manager owns value definition, risk appetite, thresholds, and the dominance policy by context; this role sponsors the gate and keeps the left-hand rules current and explicit. The Maintenance Manager translates gate outcomes into policy, resource plans, schedules, and contract briefs, and is accountable for delivering the agreed balance in practice. The Reliability Engineer supplies the analyses (e.g., RCM, Weibull, FMECA, condition-based and predictive models), runs the U/TBI computations, and tests sensitivity so that decisions remain robust when data or assumptions shift; Finance validates cost references and budget caps; HSE/Compliance safeguards the risk thresholds and verifies ALARP arguments; Engineers and Technicians execute the work as specified and capture evidence in CMMS/EAM using the same gate fields. When each role works with the trefoil vocabulary and keeps the gate record complete, hand-offs become clearer and fewer decisions are lost in translation.

Note on standards (EN 15628): the current qualification standard for maintenance personnel does not explicitly define a distinct “Reliability Engineer” role profile. Many organisations therefore map reliability responsibilities across existing roles (e.g., Maintenance Engineer, Specialist, Manager) or define an internal competency profile and RASCI to make the reliability accountabilities visible at the trefoil gate. This article follows that pragmatic approach while keeping alignment with EN 15628 for competencies and with EN 17007/EN 17485/EN 16991 for process, policy, and risk.

5.5 Assuring the rocess and making it reconstructable 

A good decision is one that can be reconstructed months later. Each gate therefore produces a lightweight record: the declared dominance (P-over, C-over, or R-over), the thresholds applied, the normalised indices (p, c, r), the chosen score(s) (U and/or TBI), the selected option, and the evidence list (datasets, analyses, approvals). Versioning the record with dates and owners supports internal reviews, external assurance, and learning cycles. In dashboards and reviews, the Borromean icon signals completeness checks (all three pillars present), while the trefoil icon signals the gate decision itself (which pillar was over and why). This separation helps teams distinguish between “did we consider everything?” and “what did we prioritise here, under which conditions?”

5.6 Why P-C-R revolves around valu (The Asset management Perspective)

Asset Management is the coordinated activity of an organisation to realise value from assets. Value is defined by the organisation and its stakeholders, and typically includes service performance, financial outcomes, safety, environmental and societal effects, and resilience. The P–C–R triad is therefore not three goals in competition but the operational expression of how value is created and protected over time. Performance represents the service actually delivered to stakeholders; Costs represent the resources consumed across the life cycle; Risk represents the exposure that can undermine value if left unmanaged. The trefoil makes this value logic visible: by declaring which lobe is over at a gate, we state how value is being pursued or protected in this context, while thresholds ensure none of the pillars is silently sacrificed. Over successive gates, the record shows whether the organisation is realising its stated value proposition—meeting performance commitments, living within lifecycle cost constraints, and staying inside acceptable risk—thus turning the abstract promise of “value from assets” into an auditable, repeatable practice.

Appriciate your thoughts & comments

6. Discussion: strengths, limits, and next steps

Here we summarise the immediate benefits of adopting the trefoil gate, acknowledge known limitations, and lay out a pragmatic roadmap. We address governance and change control, data maturity and assurance, and typical pitfalls to avoid. The chapter closes with measurable indicators of success that reflect ISO 55000’s focus on realising value from assets.

6.1 What improves immediately

Adopting the trefoil gate produces visible benefits from day one because it changes how decisions are framed and recorded. People stop discussing Performance, Costs, and Risk as if they were three competing agendas and start treating them as one system in which a local, explicit priority is chosen for the current context. That simple shift reduces rework and speeds up approvals: the record shows which lobe was over, which thresholds applied (Pmin, Rmax/ALARP, Ccap/TCO), and what evidence supported the choice. Line-of-sight becomes concrete: strategy (SAMP/AMP) flows through the gate into policy and work, and results return as evidence for assurance and improvement. Because the same vocabulary is used at portfolio, programme, and job level, reviews become comparable across assets and sites, and audits focus on substance rather than format.

6.2 Known limitations

No single score can capture every nuance of asset decisions, and the trefoil framework is not a substitute for professional judgement. The additive form (U) is extremely transparent but linear; it will not capture diminishing returns or interaction effects unless you design the indices carefully. The multiplicative Trefoil Balance Index (TBI) handles interactions and relative changes better, yet it depends on sensible exponents and reliable normalisation. Data quality matters: weak measurement of R or inconsistent cost allocation will distort results, and over-precise numbers can create false confidence. Finally, tail risks may dominate in some contexts; in those cases, you may need chance constraints or CVaR-style risk measures alongside the basic gate logic. The practical answer is to combine the scores with sensitivity checks, keep thresholds anchored in policy, and require short, written rationales in the gate record so numbers are never read without context.

6.3 Roadmap and invitation

The next iteration focuses on three concrete deliverables. First, a calibration guide that explains how to set references and thresholds and how to elicit weights/exponents with simple MAUT/AHP sessions—stressing periodic review so settings keep pace with risk appetite and regulation. Second, an uncertainty toolkit that offers pragmatic ways to treat low-frequency/high-consequence events (e.g., scenario bands, chance constraints for R, optional CVaR), without complicating routine gates. Third, a starter workbook (Excel/CSV) and a set of gate templates so teams can compute indices, apply thresholds, record dominance, and store evidence consistently in EAM/CMMS. These deliverables will mature Chapter 4 (work-in-progress) while keeping the method usable in the field.

6.4 Governance, calibration, and change controland

The trefoil gate only works as intended when ownership is explicit. Asset Management (left loop) owns the value definition, risk appetite, and the rules of the gate (thresholds, weight/exponent ranges, and when which dominance applies). Maintenance (right loop) owns execution and the completeness of the gate record in plans and work orders. Reliability engineering provides analyses and tests parameter sensitivity; Finance validates references for cost and discounting; HSE/Compliance verifies that ALARP arguments and R thresholds are genuine, not rhetorical. A light change-control routine is essential: any adjustment to thresholds or default weights is versioned, justified, and dated, so future reviewers can reconstruct why decisions looked the way they did at the time.

6.5 Assurance and data maturity

Assurance is easier when records are consistent. A practical path is to grow from “defined” to “managed” to “optimised” maturity in three areas. For records, begin with complete gate fields (dominance, thresholds, p/c/r, score, evidence) and then add sampling and peer review; at higher maturity, automated checks flag missing or stale inputs. For data, start by naming canonical sources for P, C, and R and noting confidence; then establish validation rules and time-stamping; at higher maturity, dashboards show both values and data quality status. For assurance, begin with periodic management reviews; then add targeted internal audits; at higher maturity, use trend analyses to show whether gate behaviour (e.g., frequent R-over in similar contexts) correlates with better outcomes, thereby closing the loop with ISO 55000’s continual improvement.

6.6 Industry 5.0 integration: explainability before automation

Digital twins, prognostics, and AI can accelerate evidence generation, but they do not remove the need for explainable priorities. The trefoil gate provides that scaffolding: a model may recommend an action, yet the gate still declares which lobe is over, which thresholds apply, and how the outcome will be verified. This protects human-centric decision-making, prevents opaque “black-box” optimisation, and supports sustainability and resilience constraints by making them visible as policy thresholds. Over time, recorded gate behaviour can train decision-support tools, while monitoring prevents drift between automated recommendations and stated appetite.

6.7 Typical pitfalls—and how to avoid them

Three pitfalls are common in early adoption. Priority drift occurs when dominance is chosen informally and not recorded; the cure is a firm rule that no gate is closed without an explicit dominance entry and thresholds. Threshold inflation happens when pressure leads to moving limits rather than making trade-offs transparent; the cure is change control plus a norm that exceptions are documented and time-limited. Spreadsheet divergence appears when teams build private calculators; the cure is a shared workbook, periodic reconciliation, and publishing the formulae alongside examples. A quieter risk is “aesthetic over substance”: attractive visuals with weak data. Insist that every visual used in governance references the corresponding gate record and evidence sources.

6.8 Measures of success: what to track 

Success should be measured in terms that reflect ISO 55000’s focus on value. Process measures include the percentage of decisions with complete gate records, cycle time from proposal to decision, and the rate of threshold breaches detected early. Outcome measures include availability or service performance relative to Pmin, lifecycle cost variance to Ccap/TCO forecasts, and risk exceedances relative to Rmax/ALARP. Learning measures include the stability of settings (fewer ad-hoc overrides), audit findings closed on first pass, and the correlation between the Trefoil Balance Index and realised outcomes. Reporting these consistently demonstrates that the organisation is not only claiming balance but proving it over time.

6.9 What remains open—and why that is acceptable

Two elements will continue to evolve: the quantitative treatment of tail risk and the calibration of weights/exponents across diverse asset classes. This is normal and acceptable because the gate already adds value by making priorities explicit, applying policy thresholds, and recording evidence. As pilots accumulate, parameter ranges will stabilise, and Chapter 4 will incorporate improved defaults and examples. In short, the method is useful now and designed to improve—which is precisely the posture ISO 55000 expects from a living Asset Management System.

We appriciate your thoughts & comments