North American Water Loss Conference 2017

NRW Practices Rating Tool

Alan S Wyatt

for the

Inter-American Development Bank

Tuesday December 5, 2017 Session 21 #2

1. Introduction

2. Purpose

3. Structure

4. Use

5. Results

6. Tool for North America ?

7. Conclusion

1

Water utilities can use metric benchmarking and / or process benchmarking. Using both, in a coordinated way, is more useful than either one alone

This tool evolved from an IWA Utility Efficiency Practices Rating Tool –covered many utility efficiency aspects

IWA Water Loss Specialists Group drafted a simple spreadsheet version focusing just on NRW – never published

2

Under an IDB Technical Cooperation Project, an expanded Rating Tool was developed and used in 12 utilities in 6 countries. Use is now expanding.

This IDB Tool just focuses on internal NRW Practices – IDB has other tools for other elements of water utility efficiency, including commercial practices, energy efficiency, and good governance

Under a separate effort, USAID sponsored development of a similar tool with the Arab Countries Water Utilities Association (ACWUA)

3

The Purpose is to:◦ Document current NRW Practices◦ Prepare a quantitative Rating on the completeness and

maturity of current NRW Practices – in six Practice Fields◦ Identify strengths and weaknesses of the current Practices,

and priority areas for improvement – Gap Analysis◦ Support preparation of an NRW Plan, Program and Budget◦ Identify areas for possible “out-sourcing”◦ Monitor progress on improvement of Practices

The Tool is most effective when used with:◦ IWA Water Balance◦ Historical or ongoing trends on total NRW, NRW Component

Volumes, Service Quality, OPEX, Rates, etc

4

The Tool groups practices into 6 Practice Fields:

1. NRW Program Management2. Information Systems3. Water Balance 4. Apparent Loss Reduction and Control5. Real Loss Reduction and Control6. Monitoring and Analysis

There are twelve practices in each Practice Field

Specific guidance is provided on how to “score” current Practices (completeness and maturity) on a scale from

0 = No Practice 5 = Excellent Practice

5

6

1. NRW Program Management

NRW leadership, organization, planning, budgeting, human and material resources, incentives and use of outside resources

2. Information Systems

Establishing information systems, and keeping them up to date so that NRW planning and programs are based on accurate data

3. Water BalanceWater audit / water balance practices as per IWA/AWWA terminology and methods, focusing on accuracy and validity

4. Apparent Loss Reduction and Control

Policies and practices on all components of apparent loss reduction and control

5. Real Loss Reduction and Control

Policies and practices on all components of real loss reduction and control

6. Monitoring and Analysis

Practices on use of experiences, program results, and information system data to assess Practices and procedures, and revise strategies, plans, Practices and targets

The 6 Practice Fields reflect the management

cycle: PDCA – Plan, Do, Check, Adjust

Plan

DoCheck

Adjust

Practice Field - NRW Program Management: 12 Criteria

8

1. Top Management Interest / Leadership regarding good NRW management

2. NRW Management Organization

3. Communication and Coordination among Departments regarding NRW

4. NRW Program Planning and Budgeting

5. Oversight of NRW Program Plans and Budgets

6. Technical Skill Level and Training of NRW Personnel

7. Technical Resources Available

8. Reporting and Public Information on NRW Progress, Targets, Plans and Budgets

9. Advanced, Ongoing, Staff Training / Capacity Building

10. Use of internal awards and recognition for excellent staff performance

11. Performance-based compensation bonus systems for staff

12. Experience in contracting for NRW services

9

For Communication and Coordination among Departments regarding NRW –Guidance on how to score from 0 (None), 1(Poor), …. 5(Excellent)

0 (None) Communication between departments (planning, commercial, water production, water distribution, finance) is non-existent.

1 (Poor) Communication between departments is very infrequent: for example, only in writing during the annual planning process

2 (Deficient) Communication between departments is loosely structured but infrequent - semi annually or quarterly. There is no coordination of NRW related activity

3 (Adequate) Communication between departments is well structured but infrequent - quarterly. There is some coordination of NRW related activity

4 (Good) Communication between departments is well structured and fairly frequent - monthly. The various "functions" meet quarterly or monthly, and coordinate activity on NRW

5 (Excellent) Communication between departments is well structured and frequent. The various "functions" meet monthly, coordinate activity on NRW and informally exchange information and ideas frequently

10SEE WALL POSTER

11

Spreadsheets

available in

English, Spanish

and Portuguese

12SEE WALL POSTER

Conduct Collaborative Learning Process:• Outside “facilitator” leads the Rating process• Purpose should be made clear – no one will lose their job• Facilitator should have no particular programmatic agenda or

bias, or any interest in future sales• Gaming the Rating (high or low) is non-productive • Could be done as a series of small meetings – with various utility

functions, or conducted in a “Workshop” setting• In a large utility could do several ratings with people from

different zones and compare results.

Examine results and develop plans to adopt or change Practices as necessary

Examine results in relation to NRW Performance IndicatorsPerform Annual Updates, Track Progress and Adjust

13

14

Concessionaire AEGEA, Brazil, 2014 – Towns in 3 States

Score = 59

Score = 67

Score = 88

Different utilities under the same ownership have different Practice Scores

15

Concessionaire AEGEA – Nascentes do Xingu, 2014

For a given Practice

Field, practice

scores can be quite

uneven, showing

strengths and

weaknesses

Composite score = 59

Locations◦ Belize Water Services

◦ EPSAS – Bolivia

◦ SeLA – Bolivia

◦ SAGUAPAC - Bolivia

◦ CAGECE, Brazil

◦ AEGEA, Brazil (5 sites)

◦ CORASAAN, DR

◦ INTERAGUA, Ecuador

◦ ETAPA, Ecuador

◦ ESSAP, Paraguay

◦ SAWACO, Vietnam

16

Good Practices lead

to Good Performance,

but……

ISSUE: Which is more useful or realistic: comparing Practices in different places or different times in the same place ? Both ?

DATA: Many elements of AWWA Grading Matrix are based on Practices –but there are no Practices for Real Loss

DATA: WLCC did a Practices Survey in 31 Utilities in 2013–2014 as a part of WADI; followed up by WRF Project 4695 survey in 2016-2017 in 5 of those utilities plus 1 more.

CONCEPT: Frontier Analysis of Real Loss in 27 NA Utilities from from 2 years of WADI data by Wyatt et al (2015) showed that Real Loss can best be “explained” by a mix of parameters relating to:

◦ Site Conditions – Connections, Length of Mains, Pipe Material and Age, Pressure, Reported Mains Burst Rates. Could have added Climate

◦ Practices – Types of Interventions, Frequency, Quality of Work, Other ?

Very comprehensive and detailed, but multiple practices are bundled into a single Grade.

The WADI Practices Survey has more parameters, more disaggregation of practices, site conditions data and ample information on real loss management practices: ALC, DMA, PM, etc

Attributes: Population, Growth, Pipe material, size & age

Water Resources: Rainfall, Water Source; Water Availability

Regulation & Audits: Audit method and frequency

Source Metering: Type, Verification, Calibration

Water Rates: Structure, Changes, Approver

Apparent Loss Control: Customer Meter Inaccuracies,

Unauthorized Consumption, SDHE

Real Loss Control: ALC, DMAs, Pressure Mgmt, Network

Rehabilitation / Replacement

Source: Trachtman G., J. Cooper, S. Sriboonlue, A. Wyatt, S. Davis, and G. Kunkel. Forthcoming. Guidance on

Implementing an Effective Water Loss Control Plan. Denver, Colo.: Water Research Foundation.

1. Predict leakage with a model using variables related to conditions/ situation.

2. Compare actual leakage to modeled leakage – related to Practices

3. Compute ratio, “Frontier Score” and link to Practices

This should be updated now that we have 5-6 years of real loss data at most sites

Can also look at evolving practices and trends on leakage, while accounting for site conditions.

Conditions Practices

Conditions and Practices

Low Score on Condition,

implies conditions which

would lead to high real

loss

Low Score on Practices,

implies incomplete,

infrequent use of Best

Practices

The NRW Practices Rating Tool is useful to identify strengths and weaknesses in current practice, and to plan, implement and monitor focused efforts on priority improvements.

24

The combination of Data on Site Conditions, Practice Rating, Time Trends and Water Audits make a powerful toolkit for diagnostics and planning.

A tool for North America is worth a try – but it will take some work.

The Practice Rating Tool is not input data intensive, nor a lengthy exercise.

Milene AgularJean-Charles BelleyLuiz Celso PintoTony FarrarFabio Garzon-ContrerasJan JanssensGeorge KunkelRoland Liemberger

Dave PearsonIgnacio PenaJen RichkusSher SinghRodrigo RiquelmeJulian ThorntonGary TrachtmanTom Williams