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.
Switching  from the vision of public real estate as object from a productive asset had  implications for public sector accounting (Kaganova and Nayyar-Stone, 2000).
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