Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
N AT I O N A L
SOLIDWASTEBENCHMARKING
Jan. 2011
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
ei
gn
it
es
c
ol
la
bo
ra
ti
ve
e
xc
el
le
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
i g n i t e si g n i t e si g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
e ex
cell
ence
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
i g n i t e s
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
exce
llen
ceig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
c o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nite
s co
llab
orat
ive
ign
ite
s c
oll
ab
ora
tive
exc
ell
en
ce
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
ec o l l a b o r a t i v e e x c e l l e n c e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eig
nit
es
co
lla
bo
rati
ve e
xce
lle
nc
e
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eTHE WORLD’S BUILT, NATURAL, + SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTSTHE WORLD’S BUILT, NATURAL, + SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTSTHE WORLD’S BUILT, NATURAL, + SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS
enabling us to enhance + sustain enabling us to enhance + sustain enabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain enabling us to enhance + sustain enabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain
igni
tes
coll
abor
ativ
eenabling us to enhance + sustain enabling us to enhance + sustain enabling us to enhance + sustain
table of contents
INTRODUCTION TO THE BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE ................................................ 1
Project Contact .................................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................. 2
FEE PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................... 2
AECOM Support for Data Collection ................................................................................ 2
Workshop Travel + Accommodation Expenses .............................................................. 2
Project Billings Schedule .................................................................................................. 2
INFORMATION EXCHANGE + CONFIDENTIALITY........................................................ 3
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ................................................................... 4
Factors affecting solid waste management systems .................................................... 4
Waste Diversion ................................................................................................................. 4
PROJECT METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 7
Goals + the Utility Management Model .......................................................................... 8
Performance Measures: Aligned with Triple Bottom Line Reporting Techniques ................................................. 8
Benchmarking Summary Workshop ................................................................................ 9
DELIVERABLES ........................................................................................................10
Annual Summary Report CD Rom. ................................................................................. 10
Attendance at Annual Benchmarking Workshop ......................................................... 11
Project Summary Contents from Benchmarking Website .......................................... 11
Use of Benchmarking Help Desk Services .................................................................... 11
Team Organization + Key Personnel .............................................................................. 13
AECOM Project Personnel .............................................................................................. 13
Wilbert Yang, P. Eng. .................................................................................................... 13
David Main .................................................................................................................... 13
Konrad Fichtner, P.Eng. ............................................................................................... 13
Yann Delieuvin, M.Sc. .................................................................................................. 14
Alex Kolesov .................................................................................................................. 14
Erin Hobbs, P. Eng. ....................................................................................................... 14
Catherine Dallaire, BSc, EIT ........................................................................................ 14
JME Maxwell, MBA ...................................................................................................... 14
Andrew Kier, MCIP, R.P.P.............................................................................................. 14
Dennis Siu ..................................................................................................................... 14
Bill Pardu, B.L. Arch., MES, MBA ................................................................................. 14
Mareese Keane, M.Sc., P.Geo. .................................................................................... 14
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE
AECOM and the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative participants have successfully been benchmarking municipal water, wastewater and stormwater utility operations since 1997. This partnership has grown to include more than 45 of Canada’s most progressive municipal and regional utilities from coast to coast. By following this time tested and proven benchmarking methodology, a robust information base is developed regarding key utility performance measurements.
AECOM is taking the success of this proven benchmarking methodology and expanding it to include solid waste utilities. Solid waste systems throughout Canada, United States and the rest of the world vary dramatically in terms of services provided, disposal rates, disposal options and methodologies for measuring waste diversion and recycling rates. Compound these differences with the ever changing circumstances regarding managing waste, diverting materials, minimizing environmental impacts and fi nding resources from what was once thrown away, and the differences can become overwhelming. This is where solid waste benchmarking becomes a valuable tool to municipalities and regional governments.
The Vision for solid waste benchmarking is to take the common elements in solid waste systems and to track how waste is managed from generation to ultimate disposal. By recognizing that there are differences in every communities’ solid waste system, we will start to see where there is commonality, where there are challenges and where others have overcome those challenges. Ultimately it is about managing solid waste in a socially, environmentally and fi nancially responsible manner.
As the process of metric benchmarking develops, the project will evolve into a dynamic vehicle for the development, sharing, and implementation of municipal best practices. In addition, the project serves as a highly effective repository of management information from which managers can draw on to provide feedback to stakeholders on utility performance, to identify continuous improvement opportunities, and to induce change within organizations. Most importantly, the benchmarking group will develop into a highly effective network of peers from which they can share and exchange ideas about utility management.
For the majority of benchmarking participants, this initiative has become a fundamental component for evaluating public utility systems. For many of you, it is not about gathering and reporting data, but “How do we focus on specifi c processes within our utilities?”, “Are our strategies working?”, “Are these the best opportunities for improvement?” and “How do I communicate my results to staff and stakeholders?”.
Project ContactFor more information on this proposal, please contact:
Wilbert Yang, Project Manager AECOM’s Vancouver Offi ce Phone: (604) 444-6550 E-mail: [email protected]
2
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Please note the following key dates for the National Solid Waste Benchmarking Initiative:
• March 8-10, 2011: S olid Waste Benchmarking Initiative Kick-off Workshop – Development of Utility Management Model and Identifi cation of Participant Priorities
• April 4, 2011: Develop criteria for data collection.• April 20, 2011: Commence data collection for solid waste
benchmarking.• June 30, 2011: Deadline to complete all aspects of date
collection.• September 2011: Draft performance results circulated to
all benchmarking participants.• January 2012: Summary workshop for National
Benchmarking Participants in a TBD location.• March 31, 2012: Project Iteration conclusion –
Project Report to be available online.
For your convenience, we have included a calendar with key Benchmarking dates that can be downloaded from the “Member’s only” section of the website.
FEE PROPOSAL
The fees is $15,000.• Fee is a fl at rate. Discounts for prorating any portion of
the work described in the proposal is not available unless negotiated and accepted by AECOM in advance.
• Please contact Wilbert Yang at AECOM (604-444-6550) to review any aspect of the fee schedule.
AECOM Support for Data CollectionWe will work closely with designated personnel from each participing utility in person, by phone and by e-mail to assist in data collection. The Benchmarking Website will include tools, FAQs, and a discussion board for municipal data collection staff. We will also continue to meet with municipal staff to focus on continuous improvement.
Workshop Travel + Accommodation ExpensesThe Benchmarking Summary Workshop fees are included for two (2) utility staff attendees. The project fee does not include your personal workshop travel and accommodation expenses. If you would prefer to have the fee inclusive of travel and accommodation, this can be arranged on a case-by-case basis. Please let us know and we will be happy to include a travel expense surcharge.
Project Billings ScheduleProject fees are based on a lump sum, and payments canbe made as follows:
• 50% of fees at commencement of project (by January 31st, 2011); and
• 50% of fees at 50% completion (July 15th, 2011.
Note: Fees can also be paid in a single installment at the beginning of the project to ease municipal budgeting needs.
3
INFORMATION EXCHANGE + CONFIDENTIALITY
The results of the benchmarking process are used within the group for the sole purpose of individual utility and participant group performance improvement and education. As such, the results of the process are “Commercial Confi dential” and are not shared outside of the confi nes of the participant group. Participants are required to keep the databases and the Project Summary Report confi dential to their organization.
In situations where an organization wishes to publicly review their performance in comparison with other utilities individually, or with the entire group, the organization is required to “blind” the results so that individual utilities cannot be identifi ed by name.
Subsets of the participants may also compare their data in a public forum or report, provided all of the subset participants agree and that no data from the remainder of the partnership is disclosed (e.g. a group of municipalities from a single province).
The precise extent to which confi dentiality extends can be reviewed with group consensus in any of the participant workshops.
4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Solid waste management systems are complex processes that vary from region to region. These systems are only similar from the perspective that waste is generated and waste is ultimately disposed. The numerous pathways that waste materials can travel depend on many factors such as solid waste programs, collection systems and disposal options. Figure 1 illustrates the many possible pathways that solid waste systems can be structured.
Factors affecting solid waste management systemsSector responsibility – sectors (waste generators) that utilities are responsible for serving.
• Residential (Single family only)• Residential (Single family and Mulit-family)• Residential (SF & MF) and Commerical (ICI)• All sectors (Residential, Commercial,
Construction & Demolition)Disposal system – disposal options available to various sectors.
• Local landfi ll (public sector) • Local landfi ll (private sector)• Out-of-Region Landfi ll (public sector) • Out-or-Region Landfi ll (private sector)• Waste to Energy Facility
Collection Systems – collection service providers.• Municipal – city collection crews• Municipal – contracted service • Private sector – private collection service• Combination – serviced by municipal and private
collection crews • Drop off depots – no collection service
As important as it is to benchmark similar aspects in a solid waste system, it is just as important to benchmark different types of systems. Although differences are diffi cult to quantity and compare, we can benchmark how these differences affect the fi nal end point (disposal system). Examples of programs to consider are listed below:
• Recycling programs (single stream, dual stream and source separated)
• Organic waste diversion programs (yard waste, food waste, soiled paper, etc.)
• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs• Eco-Centres/Drop-off depots
Differences in solid waste systems are also important to benchmark because solid waste collectionsystems are not embedded into the ground and are subject to change. Understanding these changes is important because it helps utilities estimate the ramifi cations of certain changes and how resources would need to be modifi ed. This is one of the strengths of using benchmarking as a tool for utility management and planning.
Waste DiversionA frequently asked question in the solid waste fi eld is “How do you calculate and defi ne waste diversion?” Through the benchmarking process we will develop a consensus for defi ning and calculating waste diversion. This will lead to developing a methodology that can be used to determine waste diversion for a solid waste system and/or specifi c program.
FIGURE 1 | Diagram of Solid Waste Management System
RE
STA
UR
AN
TS, GROCERY, OFFICE
PrivateCollection
MunicipalCollection
SelfHaul
PublicPublicPublicTSTSTS
PrivatePrivatePrivateTSTSTS
RecyclingFacility
Landfi ll WTEFacility
CompostingFacility
Single Family Multi-FamilyInstitutional, Commercial,
Industrial
Construction+
Demolition
Photo by WRAP
Photo by WRAP
5
Photo by WRAPPhoto by WRAP
7PROJECT METHODOLOGY
The following table summarizes the year’s proposed benchmarking process:
Benchmarking Activities Action
Activity 1 Establish Priorities for the fi rst Benchmarking year – what do we want to tackle fi rst, and at what level?
Activity 2 Strategic Partnering - which organizations do we need to partner with? Where can we get the best information? E.g. SWANA, Recycling Councils, CCC, ISWA, etc.
Activity 3 Data Collection and Verifi cation – develop data collection templates and initiate consistent data collection
Activity 4 Evaluation of Results from data collection and comparison with trends and existing information
Activity 5 International Comparisons – consider value of comparing results with international standards and practices
Activity 6 Advance Benchmarking Roadmap and Levels of Service – make mid-course corrections based on information received and evaluated
Activity 7 Prepare customized graphed results for each participant that compares their results to the sorted group “median value”, “maximum value”, and “minimum value”.
Review the graphed results for each participant.
Using a weighted average formula for each performance measure within each goal, recommend a goal attainment measure.
For each participant, plot all goal attainment measures on the radar graphs to describe a complete goal attainment view.
Prepare Customized Benchmarking Comparisons (Bar Graphs and Goal Attainment Radar Graphs)
Activity 8 Process Benchmarking – set benchmarks for various identifi ed and selected parameters. Identify performance measures, and targets. Prepare case studies.
Activity 9 Set-up Benchmarking Specialty Workshops, for example;• Recycling Markets• Diversion Measurements• Technology maturity reviews• GHG Reduction• Others
Activity 10 Summary Workshop – review results as a group, develop future action plans and strategies, defi ne process improvements.
Activity 11 Produce and Distribute Deliverables (Summary Report, CD ROM, Website, and Database)
National Benchmarking Task Summary: 2011-2012
8
Goals + the Utility Management ModelOne of the fi rst NSWBI goals will be to design the goals for the Utility Management Model. These will need to be relevant, complete, and thorough. Each year, utility participants attending the Summary Workshop will review the model to ensure that it refl ects the needs and priorities of the partnership.
The Benchmarking Utility Management Model will be developed as part of the Kick-off Workshop. The model will need to be a robust framework so that performance measurements can be conducted in a meaningful and tangible manner. The utility management model typically consists of seven key utility goals that have been accepted within the benchmarking partnership. The Utility Management Goals are reviewed annually and can undergo slight modifi cations. Goals that have been adopted in the benchmarking initiated include:
• Provide reliable service and infrastructure.• Ensure adequate capacity.• Meet service requirements with economic effi ciency.• Protect public health and safety.• Provide a safe and productive workplace.• Have satisfi ed and informed customers.• Protect the environment.
Performance Measures: Aligned with Triple Bottom Line Reporting TechniquesA key activity is the continual refi nement of performance measures. Performance measures (also referred to as metric benchmarking) are the quantitative measurement of performance in terms of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and the relationships between them. Performance is to be tracked and compared over time with similar organizational units or external partners with similar functions. Performance measures generally address issues of cost, environmental stewardship and community labour as follows:
• Cost is a principle component of the majority of benchmarking exercises, as a goal of any organization is to perform required tasks more effectively and effi ciently and to reduce costs;
• Environmental stewardship is a priority in any solid waste system. This includes environmental compliance and new programs to reduce environmental impacts; and
• Health/Community and Labour recognizes that the provision of utility services includes insurance of public heath, addressing social values, community issues (such as disruptions to service) and labour relations (including safety and productivity).
Our experience shows that these measures get refi ned over time to better refl ect their value in information or their practicality in terms of obtaining the data.
Satisfi ed Customers
68.3%
87.5%Workplace
Environmental Stewardship
97.3%
70.6%Minimum Sustainable Cost
Suffi cient Capacity
93.4%
100%System Reliability
Utility A Overall Radar Chart S O L I D W A S T E S Y S T E M S
2005 RESULTS 2006 RESULTS 2007 RESULTS 2006 2006 2007 2007
9
Benchmarking Summary WorkshopThe summary workshop is a critical task that sets the stage for the entire benchmarking effort. This workshop has become globally renowned for its success in leveraging the many talents and skills from municipal utility delegates that attend. Workshops are valuable, integral components of the project methodology for several reasons:
• To assist collaboration between Canadian solid waste utilities;
• To generate open discussion, provide group decision making, and to ensure consensus on key issues;
• To share experiences from utilities on progress with performance improvement strategies;
• To achieve a consensus on utility Best Practices, based upon the experiences of all participants;
• To assist in identifying potential strategies and actions that can improve performance;
• To provide networking and interaction between participants;
• To feature an informative range of experts and guests from both Canada and around the world to contribute to the advancement of benchmarking objectives, and
• To plan the future of the project through debate amongst all participants.
The Summary Workshop is tentatively scheduled for January 2012 at a location to be determined. The annual benchmarking workshop will be conducted over two or three intensive days.
The emphasis of the workshop include documenting specifi c process improvements and case studies of real life experiences of participating municipalities. Where appropriate and applicable, the advice of recognized experts may be featured. AECOM’s experience is that the workshops provide an intensive, informative and highly rewarding experience for all participants, and are a vital tool in the complete benchmarking process.
Benchmarking Summary Workshop
Provide Reliable Services
Provide Adequate Capacity
Economic Effi ciency
Protect Public Health + Safety
Protect the Environment
Provide a Safe Workplace
Informed + Satisfi ed Customers
NSWBI Preliminary Utility Management Model 7 P O T E N T I A L G O A L S
10 DELIVERABLES
The project deliverable for the NSWBI will include the following: annual summary reports on CD ROM, attendance at the summary workshop, access to the National Solid Waste Benchmarking Initiative database, and help desk to support all workbooks, issue papers, templates, and management tools associated with the project. (Travel and accommodation expenses for workshop participants are not included). Individual specifi c deliverables are noted below:
Annual Summary Report CD Rom.All proceedings for the entire year of benchmarking are organized and placed on a CD ROM. The content can be accessed through a user-friendly graphical dashboard than enabled easy access to the full content of the annual results. While the requirements and priorities of the participants will guide the fi nal content and format of the CD ROM, the following outlines typical content:
• Benchmarking Summary Report• Grouped Benchmarking results for all utilities• Customized “Min, Max, Median graphs and personalized radar graphs that pertain to your utility• Complete Proceedings from the Summary Workshop, including all presentations and session minutes.• A full Participant Directory that includes a listing of all participating utilities, contact names, telephone
numbers, and email addresses for key individuals in each utility. • Results from Process Benchmarking Initiatives (based on Utility Action Plans) on the selected process
based topics.• Updated Disposal and Tipping Rate Compendium, which includes Canada’s most detailed and
comprehensive comparison of solid waste rates and fi nical strategies. • Benchmarking database in Excel that contains data for all participating municipalities
11
Attendance at Annual Benchmarking WorkshopThe annual workshop is considered a key project deliverable, and as such, it is included in the project fees (travel and accommodation expenses for workshop participants are not included). The workshop includes site tours, break out meetings, and networking events. Most meals during the workshop are also included in the project fee. We encourage utilities to send a range of staff to this important event, and allow staff to attend the workshop under the set project fee. You are invited to send additional staff, but we reserve the right to charge a nominal incremental fee to cover direct workshop costs for additional staff. Project fee discounts are not offered to utilities that do not attend, or send only a reduced number of staff to the workshop.
Project Summary Contents from Benchmarking WebsiteThe project report will summarise the entire project results and proceedings. This information is maintained and stored in the “Members Only” section of the Benchmarking Website (www.nationalbenchmarking.ca). Each participating municipality will receive an account name and password to access the site. While the requirements and priorities of the participants will guide the fi nal content and format of the website, the following is typical of the downloadable material that will likely be include:
• A summary of the group’s performance results including graphs personalized results in comparison to sorted group (minimum, maximum and median), and the personalized goal attainment graphs;
• Detailed descriptions of selected measures and their specifi c defi nitions;
• Summary of Workshop proceedings;• Identifi cation of potential performance gaps and strategies for
additional investigation;• Results from Process Benchmarking Initiatives on the selected
process based topics.
Use of Benchmarking Help Desk Services“Help Desk” style assistance from AECOM staff is provided to assist you to extract your required information for specialized tables or graphs in a quick and accurate fashion. The Help Desk serves to ensure that all benchmarking related information is accessible to all participants. In our past experience, we have observed that many utilities would like to customize their view of the data for special purposes. In some cases it is for a report for Council, or in others, to isolate the numbers that relate to a specifi c process. Whereas it sometimes took utility staff hours or even days to prepare special graphs or results (especially to blind comparison results for public viewing), our familiarity with the data and report content enables us to often complete the same task in minutes. This service now extends to include surveys to participating utilities, and to initiate process reviews.
12 QUALIFICATIONS + PROJECT TEAM
AECOM’s utility benchmarking team is unique in the world. The National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative is generally acknowledged as the most advanced water/wastewater metric benchmarking program in the world. Over the last few years, the team has developed unequalled knowledge, expertise and skills in municipal utility benchmarking and asset management services. This team is widely recognized both here and globally, and has been highlighted at many key industry workshops and conferences.
In response to our clients’ demands in recent years, AECOM has diversifi ed its consulting practice to include advances in asset management, information technology, performance measures/ benchmarking and value engineering. This diversifi cation has enabled AECOM to add value to traditional municipal services and their delivery. Our fi rm’s extensive breadth and depth allows us to offer strong multi-disciplinary services to meet our clients’ needs. We ensure that our clients obtain the best product available by preparing a quality management plan and selecting a project team that is tailored to each project and the clients’ needs. Effective communication and our detailed attention to thoroughness are two of the other components that make our corporate goals achievable.
AECOM has an in-depth understanding of Solid Waste Management Systems. We are qualifi ed to support clients in the full suite of facility/system assessment, data collection and analysis, cost estimating, benchmarking, and advisory services required for decision-making related to utilities operation. AECOM’s staff also includes project fi nancing professionals who specialize in fi nancial analysis and modelling for solid waste utilities.
13
Team Organization + Key PersonnelIn addition to providing a high degree of continuity in our benchmarking team, we will be able to work with your utility in a familiar manner, as well as providing you with a broader base of utility expertise to draw upon. AECOM is also pleased to provide benchmarking project support in both English and French.
The experience of each team member is provided below. (Curriculum Vitae for the key Team members are available upon request.)
AECOM Project PersonnelWilbert Yang, P. Eng., Project ManagerWilbert will be the Project Manager for the National Solid Waste Benchmarking Initiative. He has been involved in assessing, planning, monitoring and developing solid waste initiatives for more than 15 years. His knowledge of solid waste programs, collection systems, education programs, waste composition studies, solid waste sectors, waste diversion initiatives, government policies (Federal, Provincial, Regional and Municipal), organics management, air emissions inventories including Greenhouse Gas emissions, anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization, landfi lling, thermal conversion technologies, transfer station planning and design and integrated waste management programs makes him an excellent candidate to lead this initiative.
David Main, Project DirectorDavid is the Project Director of the National Water and Wastewater Initiative and has been one of the primary architects of the benchmarking methodology. He has participated in the project since its inception in 1998 (originally as a participant), and since 2000, he has directed AECOM’s benchmarking activities as well as other Asset Management functions within AECOM’s Vancouver, BC offi ce.
With 24 years of business experience, David has specialized in assisting both public and private utilities throughout North America to improve productivity and performance through better business planning and management processes. David has been involved in a wide variety of strategic management projects including: performance management systems, best practice design and implementation; design of strategic planning models; design of strategic information plans; capital asset management planning systems; and the development of cost allocation and utility pricing strategies to insure sustainability and equity.
Konrad Fichtner, P.Eng., Senior AdvisorKonrad is a senior environmental engineer with more than 25 years of experience managing complex environmental projects focusing on waste management, environmental management and alternative energy. He is a recognized specialist in waste processing technologies, including energy-from-waste using conventional and emerging technologies, and organics management. In addition to directing large-scale projects, he provides conceptual and preliminary engineering support on projects involving solid waste management planning, permitting, and implementation. Konrad’s broad expertise includes environmental planning, recycling, waste combustion, air pollution control, composting, emerging technologies, waste transfer and disposal and leading the Pilot Solid Waste Benchmarking Project in 2003.
14
Andrew Kier, MCIP, R.P.P Senior Socio-Economist Andy has 30 years of consulting experience and has worked extensively with public and private sector across North America and abroad. As a Senior Socio-Economist with significant expertise in financial analysis and the development of decision support models, he brings a broad range of experience in business planning and environmental impact assessment. He has also led several large asset management projects involving financial analysis and the development of spatial models utilizing Geographic Information Systems technology.
Dennis Siu Mechanical EngineerMr. Siu is a mechanical engineering with experience in the field of environmental engineering and solid waste management. He has been involved in a wide range of projects including assessment of materials recycling facilities (MRF) and transfer stations (TS), reviewing MRF processing equipment, analyzing and forecasting solid waste data, developing conceptual designs of recycling and public drop-off depots, and conducting solid waste management plan reviews. Recent notable projects for municipal governments include revision of MRF operation contracts, site assessments for product stewardship drop off facilities, and assessment of collection and processing systems for blue box materials.
Bill Pardu, B.L. Arch., MES, MBA Senior Management ConsultantBill is a Senior Management Consultant, Environment with over 25 years of experience delivering strategic management, environmental, and socio-economic programs to clients in Canada, U.S. and Europe. This work has incorporated: program management of large, complex initiatives; financial analysis, system modelling, market planning, enterprise transformation focused on achieving sustainable performance objectives; stakeholder management and communications; development of waste diversion program plans; environmental and urban planning, site remediation and loss management.
Mareese Keane, M.Sc., P.Geo.Mareese Keane is a 12 year environmental professional and was one of the original team members on the Pilot Solid Waste Management Benchmarking Project in 2003. Her work in waste management has spanned the spectrum from major waste management system planning to individual facility and program design and implementation. Mareese has experience in regional government having worked for Metro Vancouver on the Solid Waste Management Plan team in 2008. She also has experience in industry having worked for Covanta Energy on business development and marketing projects. Her experience spans Canada, the US and Europe.
Yann Delieuvin, M.Sc. Infrastructure + Environmental Analyst, Data Analysis + CollectionYann is an established team member within AECOM’s National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative as an Infrastructure Analyst. He is experienced in Industrial Waste Management including wastewater treatment, solid waste management and asset evaluation. He played a key role in previous iterations of the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative and was involved in all aspects of the deliverables including data collection, work group facilitation and utility management level reviews. Yann is fluent in English and French.
Alex Kolesov Data Analysis + Collection, Database ManagementAlex is a team member within the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative. He is experienced in developing methodologies for calculating and establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories for various energy sectors and municipalities. He is also proficient in data collection, and, evaluating energy data, energy efficiency and auditing energy usage of various types of facilities.
Erin Hobbs, P. Eng. Utility Process Assessment Benchmarking Support for East CoastErin is an Asset Management Engineer with AECOM’s Infrastructure Analysis and Asset Management (IAAM) Group in Kitchener. Erin has extensive experience in working in all aspects of water and wastewater facilities. Erin has been a key member of previous iterations of the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative completing data collection for a number of municipalities and assisting in work group facilitation.
Catherine Dallaire, BSc, EIT Infrastructure Planning Engineer, Data Analysis + CollectionCatherine is project engineer with the AECOM Asset Management group. She specializes in utility costs analysis, reinvestment planning, technology evaluations and maintenance management optimisation. She has worked on a wide range of projects such as water network modelling and solid waste management planning. Her excellent interpersonal skills have allowed her to facilitate numerous workshops with operations and maintenance staff of all levels. She has also worked abroad in Peru, South Africa and Alaska. Catherine is fluent in English and French.
JME Maxwell, MBA Senior ConsultantJME is a senior consultant with extensive experience working for public and private sector clients across Canada and overseas. He has been an economic advisor on numerous consulting projects and has significant expertise in project and program management, strategic planning, business planning, financial analysis, and economic assessment. His experience with solid waste include developing financial models and conducting economic analysis for product stewards, material recycling facilities (MRF), transfer stations, recycling industry, collection operations and closure and site of landfill.
AECOM is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental, energy, water and government. With approximately 51,000 employees around the world, AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation, and technical excellence in delivering solutions that enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural, and social environments. A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in more than 100 countries and had revenue of $6.3 billion during the 12-month period ended June 30, 2010. More information on AECOM and its services can be found at www.aecom.com.
AECOM4th Floor, 3292 Production WayBurnaby, BC, V5A 4R4Phone: 604.444.6400 Fax: 604.294.8597
