Regional Western Australia | Local Government
Turning three different versions of the asset network into a clearer picture Council could rely on.
When Different Systems Tell Different Stories
This regional WA council manages a broad portfolio of roads, drainage, footpaths, bridges and open space across a demanding regional environment.
Information about those assets was held across the asset register, GIS and valuation records. The problem was that the three sources did not always agree.
That uncertainty mattered. Before Council could use the information with confidence, it first had to work out which version it could rely on.
Asset Lab worked with Council to understand those differences and progressively reconcile the information, one asset class at a time.
The Project at a Glance
Building Understanding, Not Just Matching Records
This wasn’t simply an exercise in comparing datasets.
For each asset class, we worked through the relationship between the asset register, spatial information and valuation records. Differences were investigated, records were matched and gaps were identified.
Just as importantly, we looked at why those differences existed and what would help Council maintain stronger information over time.
The work included reviewing data structures, identifying improvements to the asset register and preparing TechOne attribute upload sheets so agreed changes could be carried into Council’s systems.
The value was not simply getting three datasets to agree. It was giving Council a clearer understanding of the assets it is responsible for and where its information still needed attention.
What the Work Gave Council
A clearer picture of the asset network
The asset register, GIS and valuation information were reconciled across 12 asset classes, giving Council a more consistent view of the infrastructure it manages.
Assets that had fallen between the gaps
The review identified 155 assets that were not previously recorded, bringing important parts of the network back into view.
Information ready to move forward
TechOne attribute upload sheets were prepared for each asset class, allowing agreed information improvements to be transferred into Council's corporate system once identified register issues were addressed.
A practical path for further improvement
The work did not assume reconciliation was the end point. Structural issues and improvement opportunities were documented and prioritised by asset class, giving Council a clearer basis for deciding what should be addressed next.
Why This Matters
Asset data is not valuable simply because the databases agree.
It matters because people need to be able to use that information with confidence in the work they do.
When the asset register, GIS and valuation records tell different stories, time and effort can be spent checking which source is right before the real work can even begin.
With a clearer and more consistent picture of its assets, Council can move beyond:
“Which system do we believe?”
and towards:
“How can we now use this information to better support the work we do?”
That is where the value of reconciliation really begins.
