In recent years, the focus on instrumental real estate - buildings that core business is carried out - has grown a lot. The reasons are numerous. The first relates to the ability of influence on costs. In companies, the assets instrumental costs are second only to staff costs \citep{book}. The second, now also shared by PREM, real estate component is a resource and competitive advantage; a correct asset management (location, cost control, space flexibility etc.) allows to respond promptly to market and society changes.
Traditionally the public sector uses the cash accounting system and it does not use the accruals accounting one (used by private sector) which calculates revenue and costs. This means that public bodies not paying the true economic cost of the assets they occupy because they don't provide for the depreciation, amortisation, impairment of real estate assets or to ensure a target rate of return on the capital employed. The request for change in assets management raises questions about what assets ought to be owned and whether renting is an option. Furthermore, it requires the use of investment appraisal techniques to determine expenditure and explicit risk management methods
White (2011).
This change was first legislated in New Zealand (1986), the U.K. (1989) and in 1999 in U.S. where the Governmental Accounting Standards Board in the U.S. introduced accrual accounting standards for local governments \citet*{articleq}.
Despite the literature review shows that both in the private sector (earlier) and in the public sector, the approach to real estate as an asset has been redefined: property is increasingly perceived as strategic stock, to achieve the organisation’s objectives, but even today some municipal strategies are short-term actions in response to asset users’ needs. The objective for property tended to be related to minimizing costs in the short term rather than assessing and enhancing the added value property could bring to an organization.
Many public administrations focused their activity on specific actions on property-by-property, showing lack of common strategic vision on real estate assets. The operational property assets were often managed with specific actions on specific buildings, minimizing costs in the short term rather than assessing and enhancing the added value property could bring to an organization.
According to
(Gibson, 1994), managing property in a proactive manner requires the long planning horizon; an organization should attempt to consider its property requirements over a five-toten- year period (horizon temporal of a political cycle) if it is going to be able to take full advantage of property market opportunities. In addition, as regard public administration, we must not forget its main object.
According to literature municipality is a set of interests, different, sometimes conflicting, objectives, which implies that public entities act as intermediaries between various actors. The main public objective is to meet the collective needs by providing optimum living conditions for its inhabitants. A basic means of achieving this objective is to ensure local social and economic development. Space and its quality perceived by its users are therefore an essential factors here. It is a foundation of the framework where all social and economic processes take place. It should ensure proper spatial order within which the economy and the community can function in the best possible way.
\citet{articlej} claims that also asset management decisions are interconnected with other decisions and affect many stakeholders; in consequence public task is the proper allocation of resources.
And then, according to \citet*{articler} asset management can only be effective if municipalities develop a strategy of asset management.
Decision making process