Main Article Content

Abstract

This study focused on the concept of extinction and its two conflicted terms. It was found that studies attribute extinction to two main reasons. The first is the deterioration of the fixed asset (machines, devices and equipment) while the second reason is the technical obsolescence that affects the fixed asset. The study found that there was a confusion and conflict between the two concepts. Where, extinction depends on the expected chronological lifespan of the fixed asset, which is different from the term technical obsolescence, since the obsolescence may be faster than the extinction of the fixed asset. However, although fixed asset still well working, efficient, and not passing its temporal life, may technically become obsolete, but it has not exhausted its temporal life. It was shown in this study that separating the two terms is of significant benefits for consultants and feasibility studies and project evaluation for achieving a better evaluation and pre-estimation

Keywords

obsolescence feasibility studies project evaluation

Article Details

How to Cite
Ali Abdulhussein Khaleel Alfadhel. (2024). Introducing the Technical Obsolescence Standard for Fixed Assets in Economic Feasibility Studies and Project Evaluation. Central Asian Journal of Innovations on Tourism Management and Finance, 5(1), 62-66. Retrieved from https://cajitmf.centralasianstudies.org/index.php/CAJITMF/article/view/681

References

  1. 1. Ahmad, N., Aspden, C., & Schreyer, P. (2004). Depreciation and obsolescence. In Canberra Group meeting in London, September (pp. 1-3).‏
  2. 2. Jereb, B. (2017). Mastering logistics investment management. Transformations in business & economics, 16(1).‏
  3. 3. Webster's, (2002). Third New International Dictionary Clippings 1961–1964 at the University of Chicago Special Collections Research Center. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203017685
  4. 4. Boucekkine, R., Del Rio, F., & Martínez, B. (2009). Technological progress, obsolescence, and depreciation. Oxford Economic Papers, 61(3), 440-466. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpn016 .
  5. 5. Nechaev, A., & Rasputina, A. (2020). Integrated depreciation management system. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 421, No. 3, p. 032011). IOP Publishing.‏ DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/421/3/032011
  6. 6. Radu, M. (2013). The impact of depreciation on costs. Annals of the University of Petroşani. Economics, 13, 251-260.‏
  7. 7. Del Giudice, V., Manganelli, B., & De Paola, P. (2016). Depreciation methods for firm’s assets. In Computational Science and Its Applications--ICCSA 2016: 16th International Conference, Beijing, China, July 4-7, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 16 (pp. 214-227). Springer International Publishing.‏
  8. 8. Liapis, K. J., & Kantianis, D. D. (2015). Depreciation methods and life-cycle costing (LCC) methodology. Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 314-324.‏
  9. 9. Makov, T., Fitzpatrick, C. (2021). Is repairability enough? big data insights into smartphone obsolescence and consumer interest in repair. Journal of Cleaner Production, 313, 127561.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127561