by Berend Booms, Associate Editor, Future of Assets
As I am closing in on ten years in this wonderful industry, one of the things that has stood out to me most over the past few years is how quickly uncertainty has become a permanent feature of the environments our assets operate in. It used to be that disruption was the exception, and it was treated as such: a broken link in the supply chain, a geopolitical event or crisis making its impact, an extreme weather event, or an unexpected surge in demand would occur, organizations would respond, and eventually an equilibrium would be found and a degree of stability would return. When I look at the world around me, that stability has started to feel increasingly elusive.
When we read our morning papers, the headlines tend to focus on the visible manifestations of uncertainty: war in the Middle East, shipping disruptions, tariffs, inflationary pressures, and volatility in the energy markets. While the average reader might browse them over in between sips of their morning coffee, leaders in asset-intensive organizations experience them differently. What appears as a geopolitical event on the front page often shows up internally as longer lead times for critical equipment, greater uncertainty around capital projects, tighter and more demanding maintenance windows, increasing gaps in spare-part management, and difficult decisions about where limited resources should be allocated.
At the start of this year, I made five predictions that I thought would shape the future of asset management. Now that we are approaching this year’s halfway point, I had another look at these predictions. What stood out to me most was not whether the predictions were right or wrong, but how many of the underlying forces they described have continued to gain momentum.. In particular, the shift from operational reliability to enterprise risk and the movement from efficiency by default to resilience by design appear increasingly relevant.
When Energy Systems Come Under Stress
I discussed the April 2025 Iberian blackout on my LinkedIn before, and I think it offers a compelling example. Following the event, the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) established an expert panel to investigate the incident and determine what exactly happened. ENTSO-E's final investigation described a complex sequence of events involving oscillations, shortcomings in voltage and reactive power control, generator disconnections, and limitations in system stabilization capabilities. What makes this event so interesting from an asset management perspective is that it demonstrates how technical failures rarely remain just “technical” for long. Within hours, transportation networks were disrupted, communications systems were affected, businesses experienced downtime, and public services came under pressure and, in some cases, came to a halt. What started as a technical issue quickly became a societal one. The event demonstrated how deeply modern communities depend on interconnected infrastructure, and how quickly the consequences of disruption extend beyond the asset itself. In an attempt to reduce the likelihood of similar events in the future, Portugal focused not only on restoring reliability but also on strengthening resilience through additional black-start capability, reinforced critical infrastructure, and renewed investment in the grid itself.
At the same time, the external environment surrounding energy systems has become increasingly complex. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), ongoing conflict in the Middle East has contributed to the largest oil supply disruption in history, restricting tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, shutting in significant volumes of production, and increasing pressure on global energy markets. While the direct impact of the war in Gaza on global energy balances has been more limited, the broader implications for maritime security have been far more visible. Disruptions to shipping routes in the Red Sea have increased transportation costs, affected trade flows, and highlighted just how dependent modern energy systems remain on infrastructure and supply chains that stretch across continents.
What makes these developments particularly significant is that they are unfolding alongside continued growth in electricity demand. The IEA expects global electricity consumption to continue growing at close to four percent annually through 2027, driven by industrial activity, electrification, cooling demand, and the rapid expansion of data centers. Interestingly, the technologies many organizations are investing in to manage complexity and improve decision-making are themselves contributing to growing energy demand. Despite this growth, investment in grid infrastructure continues to lag behind what many analysts believe is required. Challenges around permitting, utility finances, transformer availability, and cable manufacturing capacity continue to constrain progress. This is what makes the conversation especially relevant for asset managers.
Translating Geopolitics into Asset Decisions
Geopolitical instability is often discussed in abstract terms, but in an industry like ours its consequences are remarkably tangible. When critical equipment takes longer to procure, organizations begin exploring life-extension strategies for assets that may previously have been scheduled for replacement. When uncertainty increases around energy security, maintenance planning becomes less focused on optimizing cost and more focused on preserving flexibility. When supply chains become less predictable, spare-parts strategies change. What I keep coming back to is that many of these decisions would traditionally have been viewed as operational concerns, but as time goes on, they are becoming strategic ones.
The Financial Times recently highlighted how transformer shortages are forcing utilities to extend the operational life of existing infrastructure because replacement equipment cannot always be delivered within required timeframes. It is something I have witnessed happening across the sector: reliability is no longer determined solely by the condition of an asset. Instead, it is increasingly influenced by the resilience of the wider ecosystem that surrounds it. This now includes suppliers, logistics networks, workforce capability and availability, regulatory frameworks and the geopolitical conditions that impact all of the aforementioned.
The Human Side of Reliability
This for me is also why the shift from AI accuracy (answering the question “Can AI do this?”) to AI accountability (answering the question “Now that AI can do this, should AI do this?”) has started to feel so relevant. The more artificial intelligence becomes embedded in critical infrastructure, the more urgent the need to understand how decisions are made, and the more pressing the need to maintain accountability when those decisions carry operational consequences. This shows that for all of the discussion around infrastructure, markets, and technology, the most important dimension remains the human one – it is certainly the dimension that is impacted most severely, albeit indirectly.
Communities rarely experience geopolitical instability directly; they experience its consequences. Most people never think about transformers, substations, pipelines, generation assets, or transmission networks. They think about whether the lights turn on, whether public transport runs on time, and whether essential services remain available when they need them. The Iberian blackout already made this visible in Europe, and the recent disruptions to global energy and shipping markets have demonstrated similar vulnerabilities at a more global scale.
What today's environment reinforces is that asset management increasingly sits at the intersection of geopolitical uncertainty, economic pressure, technological change, and societal expectation. The role is no longer confined to maintaining equipment or optimizing performance; it involves navigating trade-offs under uncertainty, strengthening resilience where possible, and preserving continuity in systems that people depend on every day. When conditions are stable, much of this work goes unnoticed. It is only when systems come under pressure that the importance of effective asset management becomes visible. Looking back at the first half of the year, and ahead to whatever uncertainty the second half may bring, I keep returning to the same conclusion: reliability is not created in moments of crisis; it is built long before they arrive.