The assurance, governance and accountability division of the AGL Asset Lifecycle Guide. After Divisions 01–22 establish the complete lifecycle — from planning and asset registration through operation, maintenance, reliability, digital management, performance and replacement — Division 23 verifies that the lifecycle system is actually being followed, the asset information remains reliable, and identified deficiencies are formally corrected and closed. The framework identifies asset audit checklists as a major deliverable, so this division is structured around audit criteria, evidence, findings, corrective actions and closure — not another maintenance or inspection procedure.
The question this division answers — Are we managing, recording, controlling and improving the AGL asset correctly — and can every claim of compliance be traced to objective evidence, a documented finding, a corrective action and a verified closure?
Division 23 does not compete with inspection, testing or KPI management — it verifies that those functions are actually happening, are properly evidenced, and that any deficiency they surface is corrected and closed. It is the independent assurance layer wrapped around Divisions 01–22.
Evaluates whether the overall AGL asset-management framework — Divisions 01 through 22 — is being implemented effectively, not just documented.
Is the airport managing its AGL assets according to the approved asset-management framework?
Verifies whether the physical AGL asset population agrees with the controlled asset register maintained under Division 02.
Any mismatch should be recorded and investigated.
Evaluates the quality and completeness of asset information, connecting directly with Division 21 — Digital Asset Management.
Verifies whether assets have been correctly classified according to the approved criticality methodology from Division 03.
Verifies that the approved maintenance strategy is being implemented in practice, not only defined on paper.
Verifies that required inspections are being performed and properly documented.
Can every significant inspection result be traced to the correct AGL asset?
Verifies that required electrical, functional and performance testing has been properly recorded.
Verifies that warranty information is complete and actively managed.
Ensure that valid warranty rights are not lost because of poor documentation or missed claim opportunities.
Verifies that critical spare-parts requirements are being properly managed.
Are critical AGL assets adequately supported by the required spare-parts strategy?
Verifies that asset condition information is accurate, current and supported by evidence.
The audit should verify that this chain is logically supported.
Verifies whether lifecycle-cost information is being captured and used for asset-management decisions.
Confirm that major lifecycle decisions are not being made solely on initial purchase price.
Verifies whether the approved replacement programme is supported by objective asset evidence.
Are the highest-priority replacement needs actually receiving appropriate planning and funding attention?
Verifies that retired assets have been properly decommissioned and closed.
The audit should ensure that a physically removed asset is not still incorrectly shown as an active asset in the register.
Verifies that lifecycle documentation is complete, current and traceable.
Verifies whether the digital asset-management system accurately represents the physical asset-management process.
This is one of the most important audit checks in the modern AGL environment.
Verifies conformity with the applicable requirements governing the AGL asset-management system.
The audit should identify the specific applicable requirement and objective evidence, rather than making a generic claim of compliance.
Governance defines who is responsible for what within the asset lifecycle.
Is there clear accountability for every major asset-management decision?
| Activity | Asset Owner | Engineering | Maintenance | Procurement | Data/CMMS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asset Identification | A | R | C | I | R |
| Criticality | A | R | C | I | C |
| Maintenance Strategy | A | R | R | I | C |
| Asset Register | A | C | C | I | R |
| Replacement | A | R | C | C | C |
| Disposal | A | R | R | C | R |
| Data Governance | A | C | C | I | R |
| Audit | A | R | C | C | R |
R = Responsible · A = Accountable · C = Consulted · I = Informed. The actual assignments should be customized to the airport's organizational structure.
Every audit finding should be documented consistently so it can be tracked, prioritized and closed.
Audit findings should result in controlled corrective actions that resolve the underlying deficiency.
A corrective action should address the cause of the deficiency, not merely correct the immediate symptom.
An audit should only be closed after the findings have been appropriately addressed and verified.
All 20 Division 23 topics at a glance.
| No. | Topic | Audit Question |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | Asset-Management Audit | Is the airport managing its AGL assets according to the approved framework? |
| 02 | Asset-Register Audit | Does the physical asset population agree with the controlled register? |
| 03 | Asset-Data Audit | Is asset information accurate, complete and traceable? |
| 04 | Criticality Audit | Have assets been correctly and consistently classified? |
| 05 | Maintenance Audit | Is the approved maintenance strategy being implemented? |
| 06 | Inspection-Record Audit | Can every significant inspection be traced to the correct asset? |
| 07 | Testing-Record Audit | Has required electrical/functional testing been properly recorded? |
| 08 | Warranty Audit | Is warranty information complete and actively managed? |
| 09 | Spare-Parts Audit | Are critical assets adequately supported by the spares strategy? |
| 10 | Condition-Data Audit | Is condition data accurate, current and evidence-based? |
| 11 | Lifecycle-Cost Audit | Is lifecycle cost — not just purchase price — driving decisions? |
| 12 | Replacement-Plan Audit | Is the replacement programme supported by objective evidence? |
| 13 | Disposal-Record Audit | Are retired assets properly decommissioned and closed? |
| 14 | Documentation Audit | Is lifecycle documentation complete, current and traceable? |
| 15 | CMMS/EAM Audit | Does the digital record match the physical asset-management process? |
| 16 | Compliance Audit | Is conformity supported by specific requirements and objective evidence? |
| 17 | Asset-Governance Review | Is there clear accountability for every major asset decision? |
| 18 | Audit Findings | Is every finding documented to a consistent standard? |
| 19 | Corrective Action | Does the action address root cause, not just the symptom? |
| 20 | Audit Closure | Has the finding been implemented, evidenced and verified? |
Since the framework identifies asset audit checklists as a major deliverable, every Division 23 checklist should follow this standardized field structure.
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Audit ID | Unique audit reference |
| Audit Area | Asset register / maintenance / etc. |
| Requirement | What should exist |
| Audit Question | What is being checked |
| Evidence Required | Record / document / physical evidence |
| Status | Compliant / Non-compliant / Observation |
| Finding | Identified deficiency |
| Risk | Consequence |
| Action | Required correction |
| Responsible Person | Action owner |
| Due Date | Closure target |
| Verification | Evidence of completion |
| Closure | Final status |
The mandatory outputs of Division 23.
Division 23 stays in the assurance layer. It does not repeat inspection or KPI work — it confirms that inspection, testing, maintenance, and performance management are actually being carried out, correctly evidenced, and that identified gaps are closed with a verified corrective action.
What is the condition of the asset?
How is the asset performing?
Are we managing, recording, controlling and improving the asset correctly?
Division 23 becomes the independent assurance and governance layer over Divisions 01–22, and closes the loop back into continuous improvement.
Quick answers about Asset Audit & Governance in the AGL Asset Lifecycle Guide.
Division 23 is the assurance, governance and accountability division. It covers 20 topics on asset-management, register, data, criticality, maintenance, inspection, testing, warranty, spares, condition, lifecycle-cost, replacement, disposal, documentation, CMMS/EAM and compliance audits, plus governance review, findings, corrective action and closure.
It evaluates whether the overall AGL asset-management framework, Divisions 01 through 22, is being implemented effectively and not just documented. Division 23 is the assurance, governance and accountability division of the guide.
An asset-register audit verifies whether the physical AGL asset population agrees with the controlled register from Division 02, checking items such as asset ID, tag, type, manufacturer, model and serial number. An asset-data audit evaluates the quality and completeness of asset information, judged on accuracy, completeness, consistency, validity, timeliness and uniqueness.
Division 23 has audits for criticality, maintenance, inspection records, testing records, warranty, spare parts, condition data, lifecycle cost, replacement plans, disposal records, documentation, CMMS/EAM systems and compliance.
It verifies whether assets have been correctly classified according to the approved criticality methodology from Division 03, covering safety, operational and regulatory criticality and risk ranking.
It verifies whether the digital asset-management system accurately represents the physical asset-management process, checking asset master data, hierarchy, work orders, PM schedules, maintenance history and failure records.
Governance defines who is responsible for what within the asset lifecycle, covering asset ownership and asset-management, engineering, maintenance and data responsibility.
Every finding should be documented consistently, with a finding ID, audit area, asset or system, requirement, evidence and description, so it can be tracked, prioritized and closed. Findings should lead to controlled corrective actions that resolve the underlying deficiency, and an audit should be closed only after findings have been addressed and verified. Status tracking runs from open through action in progress, awaiting evidence and pending verification to closed or overdue.
Effective AGL asset management starts with an audit process that checks whether the programme is actually being followed.
Learn how asset-register, criticality, maintenance, inspection and documentation audits connect across the complete AGL asset lifecycle.
Turn technical reference knowledge into a deeper understanding of how AGL assets are planned, managed, operated and sustained throughout their lifecycle.
Audit better. Govern the programme. Build technical capability.
Build structured knowledge in:
Please read before relying on any content on this page or on any record downloaded from it.