WAMI Sept06 f3 - IWA Publishing€¦ · Doug Harp, Westin CEO and co-principal investigator. ‘Moreover, there is no lack of information, opinions, models, “best practices,”

water assetmanagement I N T E R N A T I O N A L

SEPTEMBER 2006ISSUE 3 ■ VOLUME 2

PAPERS4 Condition assessment: should

you risk it?V Kenneth Harlow and Doug Stewart

9 Taking a global quality framework approach to driving infrastructure asset management improvements: A discussion paper designed to promote debate and progress of national and global collaborationBlake Anderson, Steve Allbee, RogerByrne, Duncan Rose, Andrew Sneesby and Doug Stewart

13 Asset management and its alignment with effective utility managementDavid C Sklar

16 Strategic management of waterin urban areas.The Canadian national water and wastewater benchmarking initiative: using process to drive improvementDavid Main, Leslie Ng and Andy North

23 AM UPDATES

Ofwat warns English and Welsh utilities against complacency

The UNDP’s 2006 Human Development report,Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the global

water crisis, warns that concerted internationalaction is needed to end this ‘silent emergency’.

‘When it comes to water and sanitation, theworld suffers from a surplus of conferenceactivity and a deficit of credible action,’ notedlead author Kevin Watkins.

National plans and a global action plan withactive buy-in from the G8 countries are bothneeded, he added.

Governments should spend 1% of GDP onwater and sanitation, the report says, adding thatwater should be made a human right, and thateveryone should be entitled to at least 20litres/day. Governments should go beyond ‘vague

constitutional principles’ in enabling legislation toachieve this goal.

National water and sanitation spending isdwarfed by military spends, the report notes. InEthiopia, the military budget is 10 times the waterand sanitation budget, and in Pakistan it is 47times higher.

The report also calls for an extra $3.4 billion to$4 billion each year, doubling current aid, tobring the water and sanitation MDG within reach.

As progress requires large, up-front invest-ments with a very long payback period, innova-tive financing strategies are essential, the authorssay, adding that this would be money well spent.

The total cost of meeting the MDG is estimatedat $10 billion a year. ●

UN report underlines globalwater spending needs

Ofwat chairman Philip Fletcher has warned thewater industry in England and Wales and its

investors not to assume that the regulator wouldreach similar conclusions either on the cost ofcapital or financial indicators at the next pricereview in 2009.

The economic regulator noted that it would‘take account of all market evidence in reachingits decisions to ensure that customers' bills wereno higher than necessary’.

New chief executive Regina Finn added thatthe new board structure would enable Ofwat totake a fresh look at regulatory issues, thoughthere would be no ‘changes for changes’ sake.’

Ms Finn said: ‘We need to take a long-termapproach to the way we regulate and expect thecompanies to do the same in their planning. Thiswill ensure that we safeguard not only theinterests of today's customers but also those inthe future.’

On competition, Mr Fletcher noted its development had been held back by constraintsin the new water supply licensing regime,including the small size of the market. It was nowtime for a re-think and Ofwat would be raisingwith government the issue of how to encouragecompetition in the water sector.

Ofwat has released a letter from new chiefexecutive Regina Finn to government that warnsof ‘little or no progress’ in the development ofcompetition.

The letter to environment minister Ian Pearsonadds: ‘To date no customer has switched watersupplier and it is our view that the water supplylicensing (WSL) regime as it is currently constructed many not deliver on our promise topromote effective competition.’

The factors identified are first the size of the

open market – with a high threshold level forentry, only around 2300 customers are eligible to switch suppliers.

The second is the very small profit marginavailable as a result of applying the mechanismfor calculating access prices to the incumbent’snetwork.

‘With low volumes of customers and potentially very low margins, new entrants couldargue that it is difficult for them to make a viablebusiness case, even if they are efficient,’ theletter continues.

Other confounding factors include the factthat the regime prevents Ofwat from setting orapproving terms or conditions of access agreements unless a licensee specificallyrequests intervention in relation to a specific case for a specific customer. So far no disputeshave been received.

In addition, Ofwat notes, ‘it is not clear toplayers in the market how the WSL regime and/orthe older ‘inset’ appointment mechanism canfacilitate the effective competition that woulddeliver benefits to customers’.

On these grounds, Ofwat has asked for areview of the regime ahead of the set 2008review date. It warns: ‘We are concerned that the uncertainty and the constraints in the regimewill only add costs for all parties who are trying to make the regime work (new entrants, incumbents and Ofwat) while delivering little inthe way of benefits to customers.’

Ofwat has issued a consultation paper on thereview of its guidelines to water companies onhow to deal with domestic debt.

Debt levels soared after the 1999 WaterIndustry Act banned disconnections in Englandand Wales. ➤ cont:

WATER ASSET MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL • 2.3 - SEPTEMBER 2006 • 2

EDITORIAL

Editors

Steve Allbee [email protected]

Andrew Foley [email protected]

Andrew Smith [email protected]

Water Asset Management International is an international newsletter on assetmanagement in water and wastewaterutilities. The focus of the newsletter is on the strategic aspects of this developingfield, providing utilities with internationalperspectives on infrastructure planning and maintenance as they seek to delivercost-effective services to their customers.

Instructions for authors are available at:www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=iwapwami

Papers for consideration should besubmitted to the editors or to:

Oisin SandsPublishing [email protected]

PUBLISHING

Associate PublisherKeith [email protected]

PublisherMichael Dunn

Water Asset Management International is published four times a year (March,June, September, December) by IWAPublishing. Statements made do notrepresent the views of the InternationalWater Association or its Governing Board.

IWA PublishingAlliance House,12, Caxton Street,London SW1H 0QS, UKTel: +44 (0)20 7654 5500Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 5555Email: [email protected]: www.iwapublishing.com

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Water Asset Management International is available as either a print or an online subscription.

2006 price (4 issues): £165 / €249 / $329 (IWA members: £150 / €225 / $299)

ContactPortland Customer ServicesCommerce Way, Colchester,CO2 8HP, UKFax: +44 (0)1206 79331Email: [email protected]

Or visit: www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=iwapwami

Design & printOriginal design: John BerbutoPrinted by Ashford Overload, UK

ISSN (print): 1814-5434 ISSN (online): 1814-5442

© IWA Publishing 2006

water assetmanagement I N T E R N A T I O N A L

NEWS

The American Water Works Association ResearchFoundation (AwwaRF) has awarded Westin

Engineering and HDR a research project to identify thewater and wastewater industry’s priorities for assetmanagement research.

The project, titled ‘Asset Management ResearchNeeds Roadmap’, will identify the industry’s mostpressing research needs related to asset management,then define a set of comprehensive, cohesive andprioritised research initiatives. The results of this projectwill establish AwwaRF’s asset management researchagenda for the next five to 10 years.

The project team, led by HDR, includes more than 30 water and wastewater utilities and subcontractors including Westin (as co-principalinvestigator), American Water and the Electric PowerResearch Institute.

Westin delivers enterprise solutions that improve the performance of water and wastewater utilities. HDR isan employee-owned architectural, engineering andconsulting firm that specialising in managing complexprojects and solving challenges for clients.

‘Asset management spans many interrelated business and operational strategies and activities,’ saidDoug Harp, Westin CEO and co-principal investigator.‘Moreover, there is no lack of information, opinions,models, “best practices,” software, and experts on thetopic. This project is a critical step to set a unified visionand research roadmap for asset management in thewater industry.’

‘This project and the resulting research will guideutilities toward more effective capital planning andmanagement of their critical infrastructure investment,’said Ed Tenny, HDR senior vice president and co-principal investigator of the project. ‘Ultimately, thatchange will ensure that our nation’s utility infrastructurewill continue to provide reliable drinking water andwastewater treatment for future generations, in the mostcost-effective manner.’

The project will apply a highly collaborative approach to capture ideas and priorities from AwwaRF members. In addition to Westin and HDR, the project team include utilities from across the United States. ●

AwwaRF awards nationwide asset managementresearch project for water and wastewater industry

EIB to finance Mozambique water supply project The European Investment Bank is to provide

funding for a major water project in the Mozambique capital, Maputo.

The Maputo Water Supply serves the Greater Maputoarea, which has 1.7 million inhabitants. Some 48% ofthe city’s population live in absolute poverty and just40% have access to adequate drinking water.

The EIB project will significantly increase the population with access to safe drinking water andtherefore help to move Mozambique closer to achievingits MDGs on water, health and poverty eradication.

The project has four key aims. The first is to increaseinstalled production capacity to ensure a constantsupply to the 730,000 people connected to the existingwater supply system (which does not provide a 24-hoursupply) and increase the population served by theinternational operator by 467,000 people in 2010 and

by an additional 145 000 by 2014.The second goal is to improve the system’s

performance by reducing unaccounted for water from60% to 40%.

Thirdly, the project will expand the water supply inthe poorer peri-urban areas on the outskirts of the citywith the support of small local private operators,extending the services to an additional 110,000 people.

Lastly, the work will also improve the promoter’scapacity and financial sustainability, which will contribute to the improvement of water services in all of the cities under its responsibility.

The loan is provided under the Cotonou agreement,which provides a mandate for the EIB to lend funds for projects that aim to reduce and ultimatelyeradicate poverty in African, Caribbean and Pacific(ACP) states. ●

➤ The key objectives of the review are to ensure thatcurrent guidelines are still relevant, comprehensive, up-to-date and easy to follow; stakeholders have a chanceto contribute to improving them; that the guidelinescontinue to offer a reasonable balance betweencustomer protection and the industry’s ability to collectdebts in a fair manner, and that they are flexible enoughthat the companies’ different approaches to debtrecovery reflect their customers’ circumstances.

A stakeholder workshop in May 2006 addressedmany of these points, including how the guidelinesshould be updated. This suggested that most stakeholders felt the existing guidelines had workedwell, so Ofwat is proposing to build on these, makingchanges only where appropriate.

Stakeholders have only suggested limited changes sofar, Ofwat notes. The consultation questions includecanvassing opinion on whether there is a significantproblem of local authorities evicting customers purelyfor non-payment of water bills. Some stakeholders atthe workshop suggested a ‘no eviction’ clause shouldbe added to local authority agreements.

Ofwat is suggesting a ‘sensible approach’, whereby

companies should make sure that agreements aredrafted so that customers billed by local authorities are treated fairly. Where eviction is a possibility, companies are expected to establish ‘effective lines of communication’

There is also a proposed change to the wordingabout third party debt sale, suggesting that agentsshould be selected with care. There is also a proposalthat companies should do all they can to establishwhether a property is unoccupied before sending voidnotices, and that these should not be used to threatenor imply disconnection.

Stakeholders are also asked whether the guidelinesshould be applied to all indebted customers or just‘vulnerable’ groups, and ask for ideas on how theycould be distinguished. Ofwat favours covering allindebted customers, and also makes clear that the guidelines will not be extended to commercialcustomers.

There are also proposed changes to clarify the way the third party deduction scheme, Water Direct, which takes deductions directly from benefits, is used. ● Lis Stedman


UK report claims lack of demand management

WEF wins funding for infrastructure integration training programme

UK think tank the Institute ofPublic Police Research (IPPR)

has said in a report that the watercompanies of England and Wales arenot doing enough to promotedemand-side water efficiency.

Its own summary of the ‘Everydrop counts – achieving greaterwater efficiency’ report notes that it‘aims to stimulate debate on how toencourage greater water efficiencyand water saving behaviour inexisting homes and to influence theongoing work of the Water SavingGroup. It provides an overview ofthe need to improve water efficien-cy and why the current twin-trackapproach of balancing supply anddemand is currently tilted towardssupply-side measures’.

The report notes: ‘Water compa-nies are expected to balance watersupply and demand following thetwin-track approach, but thecurrent regulatory approach towater resource planning arguablyencourages an ‘either/or’ selectionof demand management or supply-side options.

‘The regulatory system currentlyrewards supply expansion andwater company plans tend to bebiased towards supply-side mea-sures. Yet there is significant scopefor water savings in new and

existing homes. Potential watersavings in the existing housingstock are estimated to range from12 to 30%.’

It goes on to say: ‘On average,water companies in the GreaterSouth East spent 11.5p ($0.21) and saved250ml or the equivalent of a mug ofwater per billed connection per yearthrough household water efficiency(excluding supply pipe leakage)activities between 2002 and 2005.’

The report calls on the govern-ment to enforce a mandatoryrequirement for water companies toencourage their customers to savewater. The report says: ‘Mostcompanies undertake a minimumlevel of water efficiency activity,often entailing cheap (as opposedto cost-effective) measures, whichdeliver small and transient savings.’

The report also suggests thatwater companies should offergrants or incentives to consumerswilling to save water throughmeasures such as low-flow shower-heads, low or dual flush toilets andaerated or spray taps.

It also recommends that thegovernment should provide con-sumers with a more direct incentiveto save water by metering morehouses, particularly in water-

stressed areas, saying: ‘The focuson leakage reduction has overshad-owed other key forms of demandmanagement – metering andpromoting water saving by cus-tomers – which are underdevel-oped.’

The IPPR says that the govern-ment should take forward theproposals of the Water SavingGroup to streamline the waterscarcity status process to make iteasier for water companies to applyin the coming years.

They should also integrate theassessment of metering and otherdemand management proposalsinto the new statutory WaterResource Management Plans to bepublished in 2009.

In tandem with this, theEnvironment Agency shouldpublish a map of England and Wales identifying‘water stressed’ areas. Members ofthe Water Saving Group and otherstakeholders should urge compa-nies in areas that have beenidentified as water stressed to applyfor water scarcity status.

The report also suggests localauthorities could do more, noting:‘Local authorities and other publicbodies also have a duty to take into

account water conservation and arewell placed to work in partnershipwith stakeholders to deliver watersavings.’

Local authorities could considermaking water conservation amaterial consideration in LocalDevelopment Frameworks, andproducing supplementary planning guidanceto encourage water-efficient new homes, it notes.

Central government has a criticalrole to play, the IPPR adds, in usingproduct and building regulations toprevent the installation of the leastefficient products from the market.It could also consider whether allhomes should be graded againstthe forthcoming Code forSustainable Homes.

Water company trade body WaterUK responded to the findings bysaying: ‘To their credit the authorsrecognise that increasing waterefficiency is no simple matter. Someof their ideas make sense, like thecall for more extensive use ofmeters and the need for collabora-tion between many differentpartners.

‘However in their calculation ofwater industry expenditure onhousehold water efficiency and

The Water Environment Federationhas been given a $1.7 million

grant by the US Department ofHomeland Security to implement athree-year comprehensive trainingprogramme addressing ‘interdependencies between thewater sector and other criticalinfrastructures’.

Building on its current watersector security programme, WEF will look at the interdependenciesinside and outside the water sectorto engender and enable effectivepartnerships to advance prevention,protection, response, and recoveryfrom ‘incidents of national significance’.

The training will focus not just onwater and wastewater utilities butalso on managers from other relatedcritical infrastructure sectors andlocal government officials.

WEF executive director BillBertera noted: ‘WEF has been aleader in providing all size water

sector utilities with security andemergency response training andwe are particularly pleased tocooperate with DHS on this innovative programme.

‘Many of the nation’s criticalinfrastructures are dependent onthe water sector, and we are dependent on them. Addressing thisrelationship is key to reducing lossof life as well as minimising theeconomic, social, and other impactson the nation should an incidentoccur.’

The training programme will use aseries of webcasts and otherdistance learning tools, stakeholdersymposiums and regional training sessions/workshops to targetstakeholders across the US.

The training programme will buildpartnerships with, and provideinformation to, water sector utility managers and their counterparts intransport, energy and other keysectors. ●

NEWS

The Water Industry Commissionfor Scotland has released a

report that says that ScottishWater’s customer service is stillworse than the most poorly-performing water company south of the border.

Although the authority hasnarrowed the gap, it is still 39%behind England and Wales’s worstperformer in 2004 to 2005. Thereport notes that this underlines theneed to allow new operators toenter the Scottish market.

The authority had improvedwater quality, unplanned interruption and its writtenresponse time for complaints and inquiries. But sewer floodinghad increased and its customerservice response by phone haddeteriorated. The response tocustomers complaining of lowpressure is described as ‘poor’.

In the first of a series of reportsdue to be issued on the authority,

the regulator voiced concernsabout the quality of managementinformation, which it said may beless reliable or accurate than thatprovided to Ofwat by the privatecompanies south of the border.

Scottish Water improved itscustomer service by 33% between2002 and 2005, but this figure fellin the current year by 7% to give anoverall 24% improvement.

Ex-Ofwat director general Sir IanByatt, now the chairman ofScotland’s Water IndustryCommission, said: ‘This underlinesthe need to allow new retailproviders to enter the market toprovide business in Scotland withthe quality of service that itdeserves.’

The commission added that itexpected new retail licensingarrangements to play an importantrole in focusing the industry onimproving its service to customers. ●

Scottish Water put at foot ofUK customer service league

CONDITION ASSESSMENT: SHOULD YOU RISK IT?

OCSD is a large regionaltreatment agency in Orange

County,California. It serves 22cities, two special districts, andOrange County,with a totalpopulation of 2.4 million within a 470-square-mile area (Figure 1). Ittreats an average daily flow of 243million gallons (920 million litres)and produces over ten milliongallons (37.8 million litres) ofreclaimed water each day.

Among its major assets are two largetreatment plants, 17 pumping stationsof various capacities, 620 miles of bothlarge and small-diameter pipe, and twoocean outfalls, one of which is fivemiles long.

OCSD has been developing an assetmanagement programme for severalyears.The nature of the work describedin this article was strongly influencedby that programme and the continuingefforts within OCSD to identify anddeal with asset risks more effectively.

What does condition assessmenthave to do with risk?Condition assessment costs money –and there’s no point spending thatmoney unless the benefits outweighthe costs.We generally assess our assetsto understand and reduce risks. So aclose look at what those risks really are,and their severity, can tell us how much(if anything) we should invest inassessing our assets.

This paper suggests a simple andeffective approach,based on theknowledge of your best asset experts –your own O&M staff.

OCSD originally asked for a detailedcondition assessment for all digesterassets associated with 11 digesters at thecomplex with risk analyses to follow.

The assessments were to be highlytechnical and would include ultra-sound measurements, infrared analysis,metal loss analysis and so forth.

Structure for the analysisThe consultant, recognising that thisapproach would be quite expensive,proposed an alternative.Each asset typewould be analysed from a risk basisprior to condition assessment,using a process developed to support reliability-centered maintenance calleda failure modes and effects analysis(FMEA).This type of analysis investigates each asset type to determine:● how can the asset fail

(failure mode)?● how often does each failure

mode occur? ● what is the financial impact of such

a failure?

If these are known, then the annual risk cost of ownership can be easilycalculated for each asset type.Risk costis simply the product of the probabilityof an asset failure, expressed as probability of occurrence in any year,and the cost of the failure.This isshown graphically in Figure 2.

Of course, a good understanding offailure modes and their costs can alsolead to strategies to reduce the probabilities or consequences of assetfailure,but that was not the primaryfocus of the work here,which wassimply to identify where detailedcondition assessment made sense.

As an example, a large motor mighttypically suffer a bearing failure everyfive years.The consequences of such afailure, including direct repair orrebuild costs, damage to associated

equipment,process disruption and soon,might be $10,000. In such a case,the risk cost associated with bearingfailure would be 0.2 (the annualfrequency of occurrence) times$10,000 (the consequence of theevent),or $2,000 annually.

The principle here is that we willnot want to spend more than $2,000annually (or its equivalent in a one-time capital investment) to reduce therisk of bearing failure.Within thatconstraint, if we were to look foreconomical ways of reducing the riskof bearing failure,we would carefullyinvestigate two avenues:● reducing the probability of failure,

for instance, improved bearings,more frequent lubrication and so on

● reducing the consequence of failure,for instance, reconfiguring the existing system,contingency plan,cheaper motor rebuild vendor, and so on.

How the project went forwardAs might be imagined,data on failuremodes, failure frequencies and failure

V Kenneth HarlowBrown and CaldwellUSA

Doug Stewart, PEAsset Management ManagerOrange County Sanitation DistictUSA



Condition assessment: should you risk it?

The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) asked for assistance in formulating a

replacement and refurbishment program for a large digester complex. The work was

undertaken in several phases, the first of which was a risk-based approach to

determining which assets were candidates for detailed condition assessment.

This work showed clearly why such assessments are, in many cases, not good

investments. At the same time, the detailed investigation into why assets in the complex

have failed in the past, and the frequency and impacts of those failures, pointed the

way towards improving the overall performance of the digestion process at the complex.

Figure 1OCSD’s service

area

condition assessment would not be useful in forecasting asset failure

● there were only a few asset types where detailed condition assessment was indicated, and the assessments were subsequently performed.

However,most planned assessmentswere completely avoided and themoney earmarked for the assessmentswent unspent.This represented a majorsaving for OCSD and its customers.

We will now look at four exampleswhere FMEAs were undertaken, andthe results of the analyses.

Examples of Failure Modes andEffects Analysis (FMEAs)Sludge mixing pumpThe sludge mixing pump keeps sludgecirculating in the digester.This ensuresgood mixing;good mixing, in turn,promotes effective digestion with thefollowing results:● after the required retention period,

the sludge can be certified as Class A and beneficially disposed of by spreading on agricultural ground.

● generation of methane gas is maximised.This gas is used by OCSD’s cogeneration system and offsets purchases of natural gas that would otherwise be required.The economic value of the gas generated is considerable.

● destruction of volatile solids is maximised, reducing the volume of sludge that must be disposed of.This reduces solids handling,transportation,and other costs incurred as a result of the digestion process.

Figure 3 presents a picture of a typicalmixing pump and associated motor.Staff had identified these pumps asparticularly troublesome.They would

often become jammed due to fibroussubstances and hair in the sludge(ragging). It was sometimes necessaryto disassemble the pumps in order toclear blockages.Upon investigating thecommon failures of these pumps withstaff, a number of failure modes wereidentified (Figure 4).

First, the cost of ragging problemswas not all that high.The only costswere for the labour needed to deal withthe situation, as there was no impact onthe process or other equipment. It islikely that the problem was consideredserious more because pump disassembly and cleaning was anunpleasant task than because of theeconomic impact.

Second, ragging was not associatedwith the condition of the pump. Infact, the pump impellors had beenmodified to reduce ragging; a new,unmodified pump would suffer raggingissues more frequently.

In short, a detailed condition assessment would be of no value.Thepump failures (at least those arisingfrom ragging) were not condition-related and, in any event, the annualcosts were small.

This leaves another more costlyfailure mode: failure of the mechanicalseals.Occurring on average about onceevery four years per digester, a sealfailure requires a pump rebuild estimated at almost $9000.The annualcost per digester is about $2,200,morethan triple the costs arising fromragging.These failures, though,were of less concern to staff, possibly becausethe effort required for the rebuild took place in another portion of theplant, by staff other than line O&M personnel.

Even here, though, the failures werenot condition-related.According tostaff, they arose from the occasionalentry of insufficiently screened waterinto the seal water supply system.Soagain,detailed condition assessmentwould not have been useful to forecastfailure.The conclusion from thisanalysis was that detailed conditionassessment of the mixing pumps wouldhave little or no economic value.Laterin the overall study (see below) theragging problem was addressed in abusiness case evaluation with somewhat surprising results.

Sludge mixing pump motorThe mixing pump motor is a 50-60Hpunit that uses belts to drive the pump. Itcan be seen mounted above the pumpin Figure 3.Four failure modes wereidentified (see Figure 5).

Failure mode 1,burnout,wasassociated somewhat with raggingproblems.Occurring about once everyten years per digester, it had an incidentcost of about $2,500, so the annual cost

costs are not easy to come by.Wepursued three avenues to gather these data:● historical records from OCSD’s

computer maintenance management system (CMMS)

● the consultant’s knowledge of these matters from other treatment plants

● the collective knowledge of senior O&M staff who had worked in the digester complex for many years.

Of these three sources, the third was byfar the most valuable.OCSD staffformed the ‘expert panel’ for this studyand were able to arrive at consensusopinions for very many of the estimates needed in the analysis.Webelieve that these consensus opinionsare very close to reality; the finalnumbers used were satisfactory to theentire panel.

The estimated costs of failuredeserve some mention.Because thedigestion process is slow-paced andmost asset failures do not create anyneed for emergency response, failurecosts generally include only labourhours (both operator and maintainer),parts and materials, and outsourcedrebuild costs.These costs were obtainable and, in fact,CMMS recordswere of some use in the process.

Although not a factor in most caseswith this digester complex, some assetfailures, particularly ‘outside the fence’,incur environmental or social costs.These costs include environmentaldamage from spills, traffic disruptionfrom unplanned (or planned for thatmatter) pipe replacements in the right-of-way, inconvenience to homeowners and businesses fromexcavation, and so forth.Where theseexist, the costs must be fully accountedfor when estimating the consequencesof asset failure.

As a preview to the next section ofthis article,we will take a look at whatthese investigations discovered:● most asset failures had very limited

consequences. In some cases, the only consequence was the need to replace the asset.

● in recognition of this,most of the assets were treated as ‘run to failure’,that is, a proactive replacement would not be considered and the asset would be allowed to fail before replacement (although normal maintenance would continue).This was appropriate strategy for these assets and maximised their useful lives, resulting in the lowest cost of asset ownership. In such cases,detailed condition assessment would obviously have no value.

● many or most asset failures were not related to asset condition,but arose from the operational environment or maintenance practices.Again,


RISK COST =

MEASURE: $/YEAR

XFrequency of Failure

(Projected events per year)Consequence of Failure

(Dollar cost of each event)


Figure 2Calculation of riskcost of assetownership

Figure 3Typical sludgemixing pump andmotor (on top)

initial attempt to break up fibrousmaterials in the sludge and reduceproblems of ragging.A picture of atypical pump is shown in Figure 7.Twofailure modes were identified.

The first failure mode was definitelycondition-related.Grit in the sludgegradually wore away the cutter plate tothe point where further adjustmentwas impossible,meaning that the unithad to be replaced.The units had avery short useful life under the circumstances, about 18 months onaverage. In practice, the unit was left inservice until it could not be used anymore, at which point it was replacedwith a rebuilt unit (which was alwayskept on hand) and the old unit wasreturned to the manufacturer for rebuild.

This was an interesting case.Thefailures were both reasonably expensive and condition-related.Butwhat value would a detailed technicalcondition assessment bring? Staff knewthe condition of the units very well,and failure had no consequencesbeyond the cost of the replacement.Aquantified measurement of seal wear,cutter plate erosion, and so forthwould yield a series of numberswithout relevance to staff,who simply(and wisely) ran the asset to failure andthen replaced it.

The second failure mode, sealfailure,was similar to the mixing pumpin that it resulted not from normalwear but occasional ‘bad’ seal water.Condition assessment would be of nouse in forecasting these failures and,again, the failures had no consequencesto the digestion process or to other assets.

In summary,once again no economic justification for detailedcondition assessment was found.

Sludge heat exchangerThis is possibly the most interesting ofthe four examples.The heat exchanger(HEX) is a large unit consisting of twoparallel but unconnected spiral channels.One channel is for hot water,the other for sludge.The idea is totransfer the heat content of the hotwater to the sludge without allowingthe two liquid streams to come intocontact.Hot water is moved throughthe HEX using a pump; similarly,sludge is moved using the recirculationpump discussed above.Figure 8 showsa picture of a typical HEX.

Some background on the HEXeswill be useful.Apart from one case,OCSD’s digesters are arranged in pairs.If a HEX at one digester fails, theremaining HEX can be ‘flip-flopped’to serve both digesters.While inconvenient, this mode of operation isadequate – except in the coldestweather,when the heat transfer is


was about $250.Even without ragging,the motor would have an expected lifeof only about 20 years, so the best-casesavings from doing anything wouldhave been about $125 per year. In anyevent, this failure mode was notthought to be condition-related.

Failure mode 2,bearing failure,was a20-year event for ‘normal’wear-relatedfailure and a 50-year event for failuredue to improper bearing installation.The annualised costs were so low thatany investment to predict the failure –especially since the only possible actionarising from a prediction would be tospend the money for repair or rebuildanyway – was considered uneconomical.

Failure mode 3,belt failure,was byfar the most expensive failure mode.Although the incident cost was low thefrequency was high,with belts beingreplaced on average every 90 days.These failures, again associated withragging, actually cost more each yearthan motor burnouts, bearing failuresand motor flooding combined.Assessing the condition of the belts didnot appear useful for obvious reasons.

Failure mode 4, flooding,occurredwhen a pump failure released enoughsludge into its immediate environmentthat the motor was damaged.This wasan exceedingly rare event,with a

consequently low annual cost. In anyevent, it was not actually a failure of the motor itself, but a consequence of a rare type of pump failure, so acondition assessment of the motorwould not be relevant.

In summary, the annual costs

associated with motor failures werequite low,with none clearly associatedwith the condition of the motor.Detailed condition assessment wasneither recommended nor performed.

Sludge recirculation pumpThe sludge recirculation pump is usedto extract sludge from the digester andmove it through a heat exchanger(discussed below) to heat it prior toreturn to the digester.This maintainsthe proper sludge temperature in thedigester at about 95ºF. It is important tonote that, even under worst-casecircumstances (during the coldestweather of the year), an interruption tothe heating loop can last up to four daysbefore the sludge in the digester coolsto a critical level.

This has implications for both therecirculation pump and the heatexchanger (the latter is discussedfurther on).The recirculation pumpsused by OCSD were mostly chopperpump/motor combination units, an

Failure mode Effect Frequency per Incident Annual cost perdigester per year cost digester

1. Chokage 1. Pump won't pump, 2 $285 $570(ragging) requires maintenance

staff to correct.2. Pump won't pump 12 $11 $130but operator can fix byreversing pump

2. Mechanical/ 1. Caused by seal 0.25 $8,930 $2,233seal failure failure, rebuild required


Figure 4Failure modes andannualised costs,sludge mixing pump

Figure 5Failure modes andannualised costs,mixing pump motor

Figure 6Failure modes andannualised costs,sludge recirculationpump


1. Burnout, 1. Rebuild required 0.1 $2,505 $251‘smoking the motor’2. Bearing failure 1. Pump out of service 0.05 $2,505 $125

2. Caused by incorrect 0.02 $8,930 $179bearing installation,rebuild required

3. Belt failures 1. Belt replacing 4 $205 $820from ragging4. Motor flooding 1. Rebuild required 0.01 $2,505 $25due to brokenpipe or seal failure


1. Erosion of 1. Failure to recirculate 0.67 $7,130 $4,777cutter plate and sludge. Downtimeinspection plate. 2-3 days.2. Mechanical 1. Failure to recirculate 0.42 $7,130 $2,995seal failure sludge. Downtime

2-3 days.


although in some cases small erosionpits were noted near the entrances to the sludge channels.The recommendation was to fill in theerosion pits by welding when thesewere noted; they were clearly visiblewhen the HEXes were opened for de-ragging,which occurred at leastmonthly for each HEX.

Staff, however, remained concernedabout the impact of a non-repairable

failure,were it to occur.Although theprobability of such a failure seemedquite small, the consequences wereconsidered unacceptable.Therefore, asa follow-on a business case evaluation(BCE) was undertaken to evaluatevarious ways to ameliorate the risk.

During this BCE, staff proposedseveral measures that might be taken.These were:● do nothing, capital cost $0.This was

insufficient to maintain sludge temperatures in both digesters. In thatcase the situation must be remediedwithin four days or there is a risk ofsludge temperature dropping sufficiently for the sludge to fail tomeet Class-A certification,whichwould mean it could not be beneficially used.Even worse, if thiswere to happen at a time of high sludgeloading in the complex (which isexpected to be a common occurrencein a few years), there is no way of isolating the ‘bad’ sludge for dewatering without contaminatingsludge from the other digesters.Thusthe entire process in the complexwould be threatened.

It was this understanding that laybehind the staff ’s concern with HEXfailures.Ragging was a ‘nuisance’problem (see below),but there hadbeen three recent events of weldfailure.While those were repairable,staff feared that not all weld failureswould be.A new HEX is a long lead-time item and a non-repairable failure,or absent spares,would result in a longwait. If the weather were cold, andsludge loading high, the situationmight be serious.

As further background,of the 11digesters studies, seven were small unitswith small HEXes and four were largeunits with large HEXes.The smallerunits were older – 40 to 50 years in age– and the larger units were newer.OCSD had one small HEX in stores toserve small digesters at both of itsregional plants (two more were addedfrom digesters converted to holdingdigesters during the course of thestudy).There were no spare largeHEXes.Discussions with staff identified three failure modes (Figure 9).

Ragging had a significant cost andresulted in the unpleasant task ofhaving to disassemble the heatexchanger and clean it.However, it wasnot a condition-related problem andno condition assessment was indicated.

Weld failures were more problematic.While the annual cost ofthe failures so far was inconsequential,it could potentially be very high if, asdiscussed above, a failure was notrepairable and occurred at a time ofcold weather and high sludge loading.

Because the failures already experienced might be age- (that is,condition) related, a detailed conditionassessment of a sample of the HEXeswas recommended and subsequentlyundertaken.

The condition assessments consistedof teardown, interior inspection byclosed-circuit television, and ultrasound to determine metal loss.The results did not in any case indicateany incipient failures due to wear,


Figure 7Typical sludgerecirculationpump/motorcombination

Figure 8Typical sludge heatexchanger

Figure 9Failure modes andannualised costs,heat exchange


1. Ragging of HE 1. Poor heating. 16 $285 $4,560Downtime three days.

2. Failure of 1. Loss of hot water to 0.18 $1,340 $241welds, repairable the dirty side. High

makeup required bySyngen and boilers.

3. Failure of welds, 1. Loss of hot water to Unknown (has $60,460 Unknownnot repairable the dirty side. Heat not occurred)

exchanger needs replacing, out of service for 14 weeks.



considered unacceptable because it did not address what staff believed was an unacceptable risk.

● add a sludge preheater, capital cost $800,000.This would add heat to the sludge before it arrived at the digesters and allow extended flip-flop operation even during cold weather.

● replace all HEXes with new ones,capital cost $1.7 million.This would (it was felt) reduce the probability of HEX weld failure to nil.

● replace all HEXes with new double capacity units, capital cost $5.2 million.This would reduce the probability of weld failure and also allow flip-flop operation in cold weather,were such a failure to occur.

● procure a portable HEX,capital cost $324,000.This would be a single unit capable of temporarily replacing a failed HEX either large or small.The HEX itself would obviously need to be a large unit.The cost was rather high due to the need to include large hot water and sludge recirculation pumps to use the unit on one of the smaller digesters.

In considering these alternatives, itbecame apparent that the risk reallyonly existed for the four large digesters.As noted above, there were now threeready spares for the smaller HEXes. Inthe event of a non-repairable HEXfailure, it would be a simple matter toinstall one of the spares and restart therecirculation process.

Wouldn’t the same approach workfor the larger HEXes? These HEXeswere newer and of less concern (allprevious weld failures had been at thesmaller units), although in the view ofstaff some risk still existed.

The final recommendation was topurchase a spare large HEX at an all-incost of $114,000.This included anallowance for prefabricating necessaryfittings, since currently-available heatexchangers had changed somewhat inconfiguration, as well as the costs ofpreparing instructions for replacement.If a large HEX failed and could not berepaired, then the spare would be put inplace and a new spare ordered.

A note on raggingThe reader will have noted that ragging problems had consequencesthroughout the digestion processranging from nuisances to significantannual costs.Ragging caused problemswith the mixing pumps and motors,heat exchangers, and to some extentwith the recirculation pumps.Frequentattention was needed to clear problemscaused by ragging; the work was notparticularly expensive but was certainly unpleasant.

Staff undertook yet another BCE toaddress the ragging issue.However itquickly became apparent that allragging costs, taken together, could inno way justify the solution envisioned– replacing the mixing pumps withchopper pumps.These pumps weremore expensive, entailed highermaintenance and refurbishment costs,and probably had shorter useful livesthan the existing operating equipment.The economic justification for thereplacement did not seem to be present.

However, staff also noted that the ragcontent of the sludge resulted in thegradual formation of a thick, fibrous‘scum mat’ that floated atop the sludgein the digester.After this mat formed,the top mixing jets could not be used atall and the digestion process wasdegraded because of poor mixing.

Calculations were made of theamount (and economic value) of gasproduction lost due to poor mixingbecause of the scum mat.Similarcalculations were made of the extrasolids handling and shipping costsincurred because of degraded volatilesolids reduction. In both cases, theeconomic costs of poor mixing werefound to be very high,much higher infact than the extra labour incurredbecause of ragging.

Taken together, the economicadvantages of improved mixing,increased gas production and reducedsolids handling costs, along with theassociated reduction in de-ragginglabour costs,were more than enough tojustify the replacement of the mixingpumps with chopper units.

Therefore a recommendation forreplacement was made, resulting inboth a better economic return forOCSD’s customers and a more pleasantwork life for its employees.

Lessons learnedThe work partially described in thispaper was one of the first undertakings(in this country at least) where risk wasconsidered in a quantitative way inmaking asset decisions.As the readerhas seen, the asset decisions includedcondition assessments, replacements,upgrades, and even spares policy.

In every case, three questions wereasked:How can this asset fail? For eachfailure mode,what is the expectedfrequency of failure? For each failuremode,what are the economic consequences of failure?

Answering these three questions,even where there was uncertainty,illuminated the way forward whenmaking immediate decisions and inmore generally managing the asset in question.

The most important lessons learnedfrom the work described are:

● a close look at asset risk can be a very powerful way of finding optimal solutions and avoiding expensive mistakes.Very often,seriously thinking about risk, even without quantifying it, can lead to wise and perhaps not-so-apparent ways to deal with assets.

● risk needs to be approached for both its parameters: probability and consequence.Measures to reduce each are different! Keeping probability and consequence separate clarifies thinking and leads to a better understanding of ways to reduce risk.

● determining the true costs of failure will help avoid spending more on risk than the risk is worth.This is a true ‘silver bullet’ for utilities that often do not have an objective standard for spending.Risk avoidance means spending every dollar that can be got; risk management means moving toward knowledge of how much money is enough.

● O&M staff often have the asset knowledge needed to help make rational asset decisions.This is an especially important lesson for many utilities in this country,particularly larger utilities,which tend to be vertically split with resulting ‘silos’.

● sound asset decisions consider whole-of-life costs of asset ownership,which cut across the plan/design/operate and maintain organisation of most utilities.As in all aspects of asset management,working together effectively across organisational lines is essential to success and improvement.

The work also resulted in a cleardecision rule about when detailed(and expensive) condition assessmentsof assets are economically soundinvestments of customers’money.Detailed condition assessment isjustified when:● replacement is expensive and

condition assessment can indicate action to extend the asset’s life

● unexpected asset failure has adverse consequences beyond replacement cost and condition assessment can predict the failure

In either case, assessment is likely toreduce costs by more than the cost ofthe assessment.●

ReferencesThe Orange County sanitation districtweb page is at:www.ocwd.com.

Ken Harlow’s asset management web pageis at:www.bcwaternews.com/AssetMgt/


Over 30 years ago, severaljurisdictions embarked on a

journey that was intended to driveimprovements in infrastructureasset management throughoutvarious industries.The practiceswere first seen in Australia andthen New Zealand, and thenaccompanied the privatisation ofwater in England and Wales. Sincethen, other countries have joinedin the strategic pursuit of adopting best and appropriateinfrastructure managementpractices.However most haveproceeded along this pathway ontheir own. In this ‘go it alone’context, a fair few have failed toestablish a forward-looking infrastructure strategy.

The authors have been involved inall or significant parts of this process,which has now spread to cover muchof the developed world.We all agreethat there is an opportunity to bring

about this important transition in amore disciplined and efficient manner.

This discussion paper forms the thirdin a suite of papers on a future vision forinfrastructure asset management.● Asset management worldwide: the

lessons learned (WAMI 1.4,December 2005)

● The AMPLE tool:Asset Management Program Learning Environment (WAMI 2.1,March 2006)

● Taking a global quality framework approach to driving infrastructure asset management improvements (this paper)

It is suggested that readers will have a better understanding of theissues if they read the previous papers.

The vision/premise The idea of creating a global model for infrastructure management seemsdaunting;but, if we can manage our

extensive and valuable communityinfrastructure assets far better than we currently do,we can have a tremendous impact on the standard ofliving for millions of people around theworld.We can have a positive impacton our planet in the context of a triplebottom line (TBL) approach bylooking at our infrastructure management while taking economic,environmental and social factors intoconsideration.

It seems a logical next step that wecome to terms with establishing aforward-looking standard for management of infrastructure assets.As workers and managers or currentstakeholders in the infrastructureindustry,we owe it to our customers,communities of interest, and in particular to future generations.

Should we proceed down this path,it is important to do so using an ISO-type quality framework approach,which ensures that efforts in this area

Taking a global quality framework approachto driving infrastructure asset managementimprovements:A discussion paper designed to promote debate and progress of national and global collaboration

This paper explores the development of a universal global model for infrastructure asset

management. The authors envisage the creation of an ISO-based standard whose

principal intent is to continuously improve the quality of infrastructure asset

management. The way forward is through a global collaborative process focused on the

generation of this ISO-based standard. The examples used are part of the AMPLE/

SIMPLE tool suite being developed in the US for water and wastewater, and they are for

example only in this discussion. This paper is crafted to advance a shared vision of how

to proceed and generate awareness and discussion for the development of a universal

tool suite.

TAKING A GLOBAL QUALITY FRAMEWORK APPROACH TO DRIVING AM IMPROVEMENTS

Blake Anderson Former general manager, Orange CountySanitation District (OCSD), USA

Steve Allbee Project director – funding gap analysisUS EPA, USA

Roger ByrneGHD, Australia

Duncan Rose GHD, USA

Andrew SneesbyGHD, Australia

Doug Stewart Former AM manager, OCSDUSA



they deliver,which result in the need for increased maintenance,rehabilitation and replacement;enhanced performance or quality of outputs to match the demands and increasing levels of service;augmentation of capacity (in linewith the above demands); and theadoption of new practices,technology and support equipmentthat will improve efficiency andreduce the costs of service delivery.

● lack of successful knowledge transfer mechanisms. Infrastructure-rich industries worldwide have recognised the need for better skills and knowledge in the unique area of life cycle infrastructure asset management.Despite this,traditional academic institutions have not moved into the forefront in developing changes in programmes and offerings to meet emerging knowledge needs. To a significant extent, this vacuum in upgrading the knowledge environment has occurred because of the lack of a cohesive understanding of the underlying knowledge requirements.This might be somewhat explained by the ‘everyone go it alone’ attitude found in the infrastructure sectors.Whatever the root causes, the result is somewhat akin to a market failurein the context of educational offerings.

Fully grasping the common elementsof infrastructure knowledge requirements and increasing awarenessof the changing character of theinfrastructure asset workforce would do much to create a betterunderstanding of future humanresource requirements and skilldemands. It has been universally foundacross many continents that agedemographics and changing careerpatterns present an unprecedented setof human resource and knowledgetransfer challenges that must beaddressed. In a nutshell, the conditionsinclude the following:● an ageing workforce,due primarily

to the ‘baby boomers’● greater workforce mobility,both

nationally and now internationally● the shift in attitude from ‘job for life’

to ‘job for now’● demand for skilled workers from

other developing sectors across the world such as those of China and India

● smaller governments and downsized agencies,meaning there are less staff to complete the internal training and mentoring programmes that were the basis of skills transfer in the past

are not wasted and that our scarcecommunity resources are spent in the most effective way,providinginfrastructure services that are effective,efficient and sustainable.

The basic premises for this paper are:● the key issues and drivers relating to

infrastructure portfolio management are the same all over the world

● the best appropriate practice management of infrastructure portfolios and the whole of life cycleprocesses are common for all infrastructure assets

● the practices related to individual asset types do differ, for instance condition assessment practices

● the other key variables involve different regulatory frameworks,national, regional and evenindividual agency issues, but these can be addressed under a common quality based framework

● we can foster broad improvements in how we manage these infrastructure service delivery businesses on a global scale by improving in the way we engage each other and share knowledge and leverage our learning experiences

Basically, the idea is to take theresources that are directed towardreinventing the wheel and simplyredirect them to work towards improving on an accepted version ofthe best currently available ‘wheel’. Acommon framework will always be a work in progress, subject to enhance-ment and improvement as we proceedalong our journey of accumulatingknowledge.Best appropriate practice iscontinuously improving, so the modelneeds to be dynamic and able to accommodate this change.

Fundamentally, the distinctions

found in the current variations arerelatively small points of departure atthe strategic level.These variations inthe best way to conduct the work ofthe business evolved as a function ofour inherent desire to distinguishourselves,our product,or our institutions. In the scheme of things,perhaps some valuable insights andinnovations result. However this modelof ‘everyone doing their own thing’has costs: it inhibits benchmarkingactivities and makes the process ofknowledge transfer,which relies onsimilar vocabulary and shared vision, amuch more complex pursuit.Undoubtedly,universally settling on a mutually understood framework willenhance the collaborative learningprocess.

The needs and drivers Obviously, infrastructure services play asignificant role in modern societies.Because of the environment we live inand our expectations for our standardof living,we will need infrastructure fordecades and possibly centuries tocome.The infrastructure,by definition and as a characteristic of itsfundamental nature,will fail.Manyfactors drive the cause of failure,butthe critical ones are:● the increasing demand for

infrastructure assets due to population growth,demographicchange (shifts of population) andincreased demand for additionalservices and improved levels ofservices, including the TBL issues ofbetter social, environmental andeconomic performance.Thesedemands are in terms of quantity orcapacity and quality of service.

● the rate of decay of our existing infrastructure assets and the services

Figure 1The AMPLE toolmodules


Total Enterprise Asset

Management Quality

Framework

TEAMQF

Worlds Best Practice

Life Cycle AM

Processes (Generic)

Asset Related

Practice

Guidelines

The Gap ToolsBasic

IntermediateAdvanced

WBPBAP

CQR

The Gap ToolsBasic

IntermediateAdvanced

AMIPAM Improvement

Plan

EIPEffective

Imlementation Plan

SpecialistGuidses &

Tools

Pilot ProjectTraining for

Skills Transfer

Case StudiesProofs of

AAM Benefits

AMPLE Product i sbased on allowing agencies to achieve ISO quality accreditation forLife Cycle Infrastructure Asset Management


The skill set associated with long-termstrategic management of these assetsplaces significant demands on ourtraditional skill base, allied to ourknowledge of how to build andoperate these systems.The need forspecialist skills to run the new,complex assets and facilities we arenow expected to manage is evident.There would seem to be a clear needfor a fully-accredited training programme with multiple levels to suitthe new roles and responsibilities thatare needed to properly manage thesevaluablecommunity asset portfolios.There is also an accompanying needfor senior managers to have a broaderrange of skills.

However, in the short term, it isprudent to assume the prerequisiteskills will not be readily available in thecontext of strategies based on thecurrent education system.The distribution of personnel, located overhuge geographic areas,means theycannot easily be trained by the oldmethods that we relied upon.Theprocess of establishing the market inthe context of emerging demands andthen building the new curriculapresents a fairly lengthy timeline anddoes not appear to have much impetus.This means a new way to share knowledge and access learning opportunities is required, and web-based tools offer a great approach whencombined with on-the-job mentoringand support.

A potential global modelWe consider that the common elements for addressing knowledgerequirements would reflect the following: to achieve the objectives, aninfrastructure asset management modelwould be globally coordinated througha collaborative approach,with inputfrom the various national memberbodies.At the national level,outputswould be shared via a commercialbusiness model that has value-basedresearch and development driven byneeds identified by infrastructureagencies. The model itself would be:● a standard basic model – an ISO-

based quality framework so that LCAM can become a fully fledged international standard

● a common framework that covers life cycle processes for sustainable AM covering all (generic) assets

● common ‘best appropriate practice’models developed to cover all individual asset types, for instance all infrastructure assets including roads,water pipes and electricity pylons

One of the significant benefits of thisapproach will be global collaborationand coordination. All stakeholderswould need to be involved, through

national committees or centres ofexcellence,which would ensure themost effective global collaboration.Under the framework, the global

model would be created in threedistinct parts:1) A generic global model.Thiswould be a generic model that reflectsthe world’s best practice information,managed by a global network of national asset management steering (NAMS)-type organisations,whose sole focus would be on the commonframework model.This model wouldinvolve all process aspects related toadvanced life cycle asset managementof entire infrastructure portfolios, thelife cycle functions and the ISO qualityframework that underpins the entiretool set, such as TEAMQF.

The key elements of this versionwould include all the generic supporting modules (see Figure 1):● the quality framework

● the generic best practice processes for portfolio management, covering the entire life cycle of the portfolio (see life cycle wheel)

● the asset-related practices, based on industry models

● the gap analysis tool suites ● the benefit/cost modules ● the asset management improvement

plan module ● the effective implementation

module (change management) ● the learning experience modules –

the eLearning modules that take users through a structured training programme in a step-by-step process

Figure 2Municipal model(US)

Figure 3Roads industrymodel showing allcategories of assetcovered and thenhow each breaks upinto more detail

Roads

Drains

Buildings

Parks

Recreation

Plant & Equip

Education

Police & Fire

Water

Wastewater

AMPLE

GENERIC

All 3

Generic

Levels

Structures

Drainage

Sidewalks

Bridges

Tunnels

Roads

Speed Controls

Traffic LLights

Street Lightinh

Walk/Running

Signs & Markings

Laneways

Cul de Sacs

Residental

Collectors

Main Roads

Arterials

Freeways

Interstates

AMPLE

GENERIC

All 3

Generic

Levels



AMPLE tool to encourage and support asset management across theUS water industry. The key users arethe utilities and agencies that arecharged with managing these hugeportfolios – the staff and managers –the policy makers of water agenciesacross the country.

Potential global collaborationpartnersWho is ready for the development of a global model? We believe that severalcountries are ready to participate in the development of this globalapproach.The national organisationsthat have been working on improvingtheir infrastructure managementtechniques are:● Australia ● New Zealand ● Canada ● the US ● the UK● South Africa ● Malaysia● several European (EU) countries

There may be many other countriesthat the authors are not aware of,though we are very aware of thetremendous work being undertaken in several countries across Europe.We hope that these will be the keyparticipants, though it should beremembered that progress in this areawill help many others,with all developing countries needing basicasset management skills and training.This would also give us the numbers tocomply with ISO standard development.

Where to from here?This paper is intended to raise awareness and to start meaningfuldiscussion on the development of anISO standard for infrastructure portfolio asset management.We are notsure that it will be possible. It willrequire significant collaboration. It willrequire participants to give upparochial attitudes. It will requiregiving up vested interests and thinkingof the bigger picture and the commongood, rather than individual programmes.So, the authors of thispaper are interested to hear from you.● do you think it is possible?● would your organisation like to

be involved? ● how can we get it started and what

should we do next?

The authors thank you for taking thetime to read this paper.●

Please share with us your ideas,viewpoint, feedback to the authorgroup by making comments [email protected]

with generic and industry/asset based training programmes.

2) Generic global industry versions (multiple).These would bethe ones customised to suit the variousindustry models.They would still beglobal, but modified to include all thebest practices and other informationrelated to the individual asset typesassociated with their particular industry, such as potable water,electricity, gas, rail, and seaports.Theseglobal industry models (such as water)would be managed by a global networkof national industry-based NAMS-typeorganisations,whose sole focus wouldbe related to the industry and the assettypes.These industry-based NAMSgroups would be clearly linked withthe industry-type associations on both a national and internationalperspective. (such as AWA and IWA).

These industry-based models woulddevelop best practice in the areas ofdifference from the generic model byincluding key industry issues and casestudies, references and so on.Access tothese industry models would be gained as the user accesses the relevantindustry version of the generic tool.This is best shown by the followingfigures,which demonstrate how thegeneric model expands to a municipalindustry model and then furtherexpands into a roads model.

3) Asset based versions (multiple).These industry modelswould develop best practice in the areasof difference from the generic model.The key areas of difference are:● asset hierarchy and data standards ● condition assessment practices (such

as the SEWERAT rating for CCTV footage of sewers)

● key performance indicators (KPIs)

● performance monitoring equipment ● valuation techniques ● maintenance practices and strategies ● rehabilitation techniques ● non-asset solutions ● specialised support equipment ● specialised information systems ● disposal issues and strategiesThese global models would then formthe basis of the national and regionalmodel in each jurisdiction.The variousmembers of the global managementcommittees would report back to their respective national organisations,which would then decide on what new elements would be added to their model.

They would also decide on issuesthat they believe were required fortheir jurisdiction,but this would bevetted through the global network to ensure that no other jurisdiction has the same issues and might havecompleted work in this area.A decisionwould then be made as to whether this could be adopted,or whether itshould be improved and added to the global suite.

The following figure tries to showhow the roads transport group woulddevelop its products, showing thefurther break for roads only.

Collaboration globally and nationally Involving all stakeholders and coordinating these inputs alongsideyour valuable feedback will be asignificant task.The US EPA initiallybegan this process by holding a nationalcollaboration workshop on assetmanagement in Washington in May 2005.

Where a future ISO-based tool willbe located, and who will manage it,have not been decided.However stepshave already been taken to use the

TAKING A GLOBAL QUALITY FRAMEWORK APPROACH TO DRIVING AM IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS

Figure 4Industry – roadtransport – assettypes

Laneways

Cul de Sacs

Residental

Collectors

Main Roads

Arterials

Freeways

Interstates

AMPLE

GENERIC

All 3

Generic

Levels

Structures

Drainage

Sidewalks

Bridges

Tunnels

Roads

Speed Controls

Traffic Lights

Street Lighting

Walk/Running

Signs & Markings


ASSET MANAGEMENT AND ITS ALIGNMENT WITH EFFECTIVE UTILITY MANAGEMENT

Asset management can bedefined as ‘delivering a

specified level of service to customers and regulators at anoptimal life-cycle cost within astrategy that ensures long termsustainability of public assets’.Beyond the textbook definition,asset management is a focused andstrategic effort by a utility tobetter manage its business andphysical infrastructure with along-term service level and financial perspective.

A solid asset management programme involves the developmentof comprehensive plans to maintainassets over time and ensures that theyperform according to establishedservice levels and design criteriathroughout their useful lives.Assetmanagement takes a systematicapproach,using proven methodologiesand techniques.

For water and wastewater utilities,this process can start with a new orexisting strategic plan (see Figure 1).Anasset management approach can ensurethat a municipality or utility’s strategicplan is fully implemented,goals areachieved, and that the plan effectivelyresponds to the needs and demands ofkey stakeholders including customers,

regulators and elected officials.Asset management starts by assessing

high level strategic goals and furtherdefining these into formal and established service levels that coverreliability, customer service and environmental compliance.A utilitycan then develop infrastructure,business and financial plans that willdeliver these service levels in an effective and efficient way.

Asset management strengthens long

term capital improvement plans andensures that they are integrated withoperation and maintenance strategies.In addition, it addresses a utility’sorganisation,business processes,technology and data, and ensures thatthese can support overarching servicelevel objectives within the availablefinancial resources.

The overall ‘mission’of asset management is to guide the implementation of a strategic plan and

David C SklarRed Oak Consulting, DenverUSA


Asset management and its alignment witheffective utility management

For an asset management programme to be successful, an overall change in thinking,

strategy, and process must be embraced across all departments within a utility’s

organisation. Every department and function has a role to play in an asset management

programme, and must understand their overall impact in order to ensure that the

programme achieves its stated goals and objectives. Success requires a multi-

disciplinary approach that includes engineering, operations, maintenance, financial

and business functions. Because asset management is so all-encompassing, it must

be aligned with overall efforts toward effective utility management. Essentially, asset

management is about ‘businesslike management of assets’, and thus cannot be

considered as a standalone programme that is purely in the realm of engineers,

operators, or maintenance personnel. This is dramatically different to the physical

infrastructure focused approach that many utilities have adopted.

Figure 1Strategic approachto asset management

Strategic Plan

Service Levels

Asset Management Plan

Infrastructure PlanBusiness Plan

Environmental

PolicyRegulatory and

Public Policy

Customers and

StakeholdersElec

ted

and

Appo

inte

d O

fficia

ls

Financial and Funding Plan

Figure 2Key domains of asset management

strengthen capabilities and decision-making throughout an organisation.The mission is all-encompassing andshould align with a utility’s strategicgoals, such as sustainability, efficiency,protecting the environment and publichealth, and good stewardship of public assets.

An organisational approachFor an asset management programmeto be successful, an overall change inthinking, approach, strategy andprocess must be embraced across alldepartments within a utility’s organisation.Every department andfunction has a role to play in an assetmanagement programme, and mustunderstand its overall impact in orderto ensure that the programme achievesits stated goals and objectives.

Success requires a multidisciplinaryapproach that includes engineering,operations,maintenance, financial, andbusiness functions. Because assetmanagement is so all-encompassing, itmust be aligned with overall effortstoward effective utility management.Essentially, asset management is about‘businesslike management of assets’,and thus cannot be considered as astandalone programme purely in therealm of engineers,operators ormaintenance personnel. This is dramatically different to the physicalasset-focused approach that manyutilities have adopted.

At its core, asset management is notjust about condition assessment andrehabilitation programmes,but encompasses everything a utility doesto achieve its service level objectives.This includes its organisational structure, culture,business processes, ITsystems,data and information – all theway down to the day-to-day decisionsmade in the office and in the field.

All of this can only be achieved withtop-down executive and managementsupport and an enabling organisationalstructure. This approach providesgreater sustainability and helps toensure that asset management andutility management have a significantimpact on bottom line results anddeliver quantifiable performanceimprovements.

Defining service levelsService levels are a critical foundationfor an asset management plan, as they identify the ultimate goals andobjectives for the utility. Service levels can be defined as a utility’scommitment to deliver service at aspecified level of quality and reliabilityand can be thought of as a ‘charter’or ‘contract’ between the utility and its customers.

They are also tangible metrics thatare routinely reported and trackedagainst established targets.Generally,service levels can be thought of in fourmajor categories: reliability,quality,

customer service and regulatorymeasures.A comprehensive set ofservice levels should cover each ofthese areas appropriately.

Well-defined service levels provideclarity of focus for an organisation, andare the key link between a utility’sstrategic plan and its asset managementplan.Service levels drive strategicdecision-making down to the day-to-day activities performed in the field,and help to prioritise investmentdecisions.For instance, a 60-minutetarget response time for water mainbreaks will require a utility to invest inthe proper business processes,workstandards and technology to achievethis goal.

In addition, if a utility targets nomore than 10 water main breaks per month, its capital replacement,rehabilitation and renewal programmesmust focus on identifying thosephysical assets that are likely to fail andensure that projects will have a directeffect on meeting this target servicelevel.Employees are a key part of thisprocess, and must also embrace theseservice levels goals.

Utilities are operating underincreased financial constraints, andservice levels provide a focus thatdrives both physical infrastructureinvestments and business investmentstoward those areas that have a directimpact on service level improvement.They can also be used to properlyjustify required investments and rateincreases, and give customers andstakeholders greater confidence thatthey are receiving high value andefficient service delivery.

Developing an infrastructure plan Once service levels have been established, a utility can then develop acomprehensive infrastructure plan thatdelivers target service levels effectivelyand efficiently through well-documented maintenance and operating strategies and capital investments. This requires a well-managed life-cycle plan for all of autility’s major infrastructure includingplants, pumping stations, sewers/mains,valves and so on. Development of thisplan includes an up-front risk andcriticality assessment, conditionassessment and analysis of historicfailures and events.

This is perhaps the most complexphase of asset management,whichinvolves integrating many ongoingactivities including asset inventory and valuation,modeling and capacityanalysis, preventive and correctivemaintenance strategies, renewal andreplacement criteria, rehabilitationprogrammes and decision support tools.

Criticality, capacity, risk and



Business

Asset Management

Financial

Engineering Operations and

Maintenance



condition analysis identify focal areas toward which preventativemaintenance budgets should be targeted. In an environment wherebudgets are limited, available fundsmust be directed towards infrastructurethat has a high probability and/orconsequence of failure.Part of thisstrategy involves accepting that manynon-critical infrastructure componentscan be run to failure, as it is cost-prohibitive and inefficient to try andprevent all failures.

Developing a business plan A sound business plan ensures that autility is able to successfully achieve its overall asset management goalsthrough optimised business processes,information technology and data.Utilities have come to realise thatbusiness and financial skills are just as critical as technical and engineering competencies in managing a utility and undertakingday-to-day operations.They arelikewise, just as critical in an assetmanagement programme.

In order to respond to increasingpressures from stakeholders, electedofficials and the public,utilities mustoperate in an efficient, businesslikemanner with supporting organisationstructures, goals and accountability.

Although many utilities have ongoingbusiness performance improvementinitiatives,not all have successfullyintegrated these into their asset management plans and strategies. It is,however, critically important that theprinciples of asset management filterdown into all areas of an organisationso that everyone is travelling down the same path.

The financial plan – a final componentFinally, an asset management programme must be funded with along-term perspective and in the mostefficient way.This requires detailed and accurate financial forecasts andmodeling tools, updated on a regularbasis. It is critical that O&M and capitalprogrammes are tied into financialmodels and rate/funding projectionson an ongoing basis, to ensure thatplanned rate structures can properlyfinance the asset management plan as itevolves. These should be ‘living’plansand models that are routinely updatedas an organisation’s information anddata improves and as regulations andsituations change. Financial plansshould include debt service coverage,cashflow requirements, reserve requirements, capital funding and newdebt service, and rate impacts.

Critical drivers of success Utilities should strive to create an assetmanagement programme that issustainable and has a long-lastingimpact.This requires building andcommunicating a clear message up front and getting the whole organisation to buy into the effortfrom the beginning.To do this,organisations must create a mandatefor change,define clear objectives,build momentum quickly and leadfrom the top.

More often,however,many utilities get mired in the detail of asset management, including conditionassessments, criticality analysis, datacollection and significant rehabilitation programmes,withoutdefining the need for change andestablishing clear objectives. Somecommon tactics to help ensure thesuccessful genesis of an organisation-wide asset management and utilitymanagement effort include:● create a high level organisational

role ● form cross-functional committees

and identify champions● secure senior level participation and

governance ● engage boards and stakeholders from

the beginning ● perform an overall ‘fitness

assessment’ to determine how best to proceed

● determine what is right for your specific organisation

● conduct extensive training and holdworkshops

● get buy-in early● create early wins

ImplementationDeveloping a clear and overarchingasset management strategy is the firststep in a long journey, and successfulimplementation of that strategy is thetricky part. It doesn’t have to be adaunting task,however, if an assetmanagement plan is implementedusing a structured methodology.Implementation strategies should focus on developing well-defined and specific initiatives carved intosizable chunks that an organisation can handle.

Asset management is a big effort –but it doesn’t have to be undertaken all at once.Utilities can use a stagedand cyclical process through strategy,gap analysis, implementation, andrepeating the cycle on an ongoing basis through specific initiatives andcontinuous improvement.

Successful implementation effortswill yield lasting benefits over time and transform an organisation,turning it towards an asset management culture and ensuringlong-term success.●

Figure 4Asset managementimplementationsteps

Establish Vision,

Mission, Goals

and Objectives

Develop Business

and Financial

Strategy

Develop

Comprehensive

Infrastructure

Strategy

Define Initial

Gaps and Key

Opportunities

Determine

Service Levels

and Performance

Measures

Implementation

and Continuous

Improvement6

5

4

3

2

1

Gap

Analysis

Ong

oing

Initi

ativ

es

Strategy


STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF WATER IN URBAN AREAS

roll all performance metrics into onlyone final performance measure (totalreturn to shareholders as measured byprofit and shareholder equity), publicagencies have always had a muchbroader set of objectives, includingperformance on social and environmental as well as financial matters.

Benchmarking was assumed to be awell-documented process, but in facthad to be redesigned from the groundup in order to develop a managementprocess that reflected the attainmentof goals that by definition will alwayscompete with one another (forexample, improved environmentalperformance will be at the expense ofbottom-line financial results).

In 1997, a group of four municipal wastewater utilities,

Earth Tech Canada and theNational Research Council of Canada met to look for aframework to answer four seemingly simple questions thathad been posed by each of theutility’s boards:● how well are we doing?● how do we compare with

similar organisations?● are we getting value for money?● how can we get better at what

we do?

Benchmarking,defined as ‘the continuous process of measuringproducts, services and practices against

the toughest competitors or thosecompanies recognised as industryleaders’,was pioneered by Robert CCamp at the Xerox Corporation in the1970s.Because of its widespread use inall leading corporations through the1990s, it was agreed that benchmarkingcould be effectively utilised to providethe answer to these important questions.

However,what seemed straight-forward and intuitive through manybest practice publications,was in factvery challenging.The difficultyappeared once the practice was recommended for use in the publicsector. In the private sector,competition results in ruthless selectionof the fittest;whereas virtually allprivate sector corporations ultimately

David MainEarth TechUSA

Leslie NgEarth TechUSA

Andy NorthEarth TechUSA


Strategic management of water in urban areasThe Canadian national water and wastewaterbenchmarking initiative: using process to drive improvement

Earth Tech has been successfully benchmarking Canadian municipal water,

wastewater and stormwater utility operations since 1997. While the fundamental

purpose of this project was metric benchmarking to make performance comparisons

that would guide continuous improvement, the work is now acting as a dynamic

platform for considering, examining and implementing a broad range of utility

best practices that have resulted in superior performance where they have been

put in place.

The keys to success, however, were based more on a process that emphasises

communication, teamwork and collaboration rather than the trend to push

computerised data management systems to their fullest potential, and most importantly

in recognising the importance of hard work. With these success factors now well

understood and documented, it is feasible to benchmark almost any public

infrastructure amongst agencies that are willing, regardless of their level of

technological development.

By sharing this methodology, the performance measure descriptions and

detailed definitions, it is also feasible to make international comparisons in a simple and

cost effective manner, thus opening the door to the broad exchange of international

best practices.



An extensive literature searchshowed that benchmarking in thepublic sector had been conducted inthe past, even within the municipalwater and wastewater utility industry.Further analysis however, showed thatpast exercises tended to be short-lived,usually terminating after one or twoiterations.Only in exceptional caseshas benchmarking appeared to deliverremotely satisfactory results.Weaknesses within all examinedexamples included:● inability to provide accurate and

comparable data● lack of agreement about what

to measure● lack of patience among participants

to optimise the benchmarking process

● few if any tangible improvements in participating organisations

By focusing efforts at the early stage of the project on each of these issues,the national water and wastewaterbenchmarking initiative was able todesign a robust methodology forsuccessfully and continuously undertaking metric benchmarkingwithin the public sector.The projecthas found success not only in itsfundamental purpose of metric benchmarking,but also as a dynamicplatform to consider, examine, andimplement a broad range of utility bestpractices that have brought aboutsuperior performance. In addition, theproject has developed into a highlyeffective peer network from which toshare and exchange ideas about utilitymanagement.

What is benchmarking? (and moreimportantly, what is it not?)In some circumstances, benchmarkinghas become another in a long list ofmanagement buzzwords that havebeen promoted as a single strategicmanagement cure-all. It is not. In fact,if all you do is benchmarking, thenthere is no value to the process whatsoever.Benchmarking must beused in association with a coordinatedseries of management and operationalactions that produce change.

If you agree,however, that youcannot improve what you do notmeasure, then benchmarking is anessential part of a strategic management framework.As shown inFigure 1, this was confirmed byBoston-based Bain Consulting’s annualManagement tools and trends Bain &Co (2003) survey.This highlighted themost effective strategic managementprocesses used by more than 700 globalcompanies over the past nine years.According to Bain & Co, strategicplanning (used by 89% of firms),wasfollowed by benchmarking, (used by

Figure 1 Most effectivemanagementprocesses: 2003

Strategic Planning

Benchmarking

Mission & Vision Statements

Customer Segmentation

Outsourcing

Customer Surveys

Customer Relationship

Management

Corporate Code of Ethics

Growth Strategies

Pay-for-performance

Core Competencies

Contingency Planning

Strategic Alliances

Change management Programs

Knowledge Management

Balanced Scorecard

Downsizing

Total Quality Management

Reengineering

Supply Chain Integration

Economic Value-Added Analysis

Activity Based Management

Merger Integration Teams

Corporate Venturing

Stock Buybacks

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

89%

84%

84%

79%

78%78%

78%

78%76%

76%

75%

70%

69%

64%

62%

62%

59%57%

54%52%

52%

50%37%

32%18%

CC AA NN AA DD AACC AA NN AA DD AABritishBritish

ColombiaColombiaAlberAlber tata

NorNor thwestthwestTTerritorieserritories

ManitobaManitobaACRWC EDMONTON

PRINCE GEORGE

OTTAWA

WINDSOR

LONDON

PEELRICHMOND HILL

DURHAMMARKHAM

TORONTO

YORK

CITY OF WATERLOO

REGION OF WATERLOO

ST CATHARINES

BRANTFORDHAMILTON

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITYOF NIAGARA

HALTON

KELOWNA

VICTORIA

RICHMONDDELTA

SURREY

CHILLIWACK

MAPLE RIDGE

VANCOUVER

ABBOTSFORD

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO

CAPITALREGIONAL DISTRICT GREATER VANCOUVER

REGIONAL DISTRICT

FRASER VALLEYREGIONAL DISTRICT

KAMLOOPS

RED DEER

CALGARY

REGINA

SASKATOON

THUNDER BAY

MONTREAL

HALIFAX

NunavutNunavut

SSaskaskatcheatchewanwan OntarioOntario

NeNeww foundlandfoundland

NeNewwBrunswickBrunswick

NovaNovaScotiaScotia

QuebecQuebec

●● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●●●●●● ●●●●

●●●●●●●●

●●

●●●●

●●●●

●●

●●●●●● ●●●●●●

●●

●●●●●●

●●

●●

Figure 2 Participating cities in the national waterand wastewater benchmarking initiative



84% of firms), as the most effective of all management tools.‘They are yourbasic management tool kit’, the surveynoted.

For the national water and wastewater benchmarking initiative(NWWBI),benchmarking encompasses regular annual comparisons about the attainment of common goals for the purpose ofidentifying performance gaps.Equallyimportant is implementing theimprovements,monitoring progressand reviewing the benefits of theimplemented changes.

What differentiates this programmefrom the traditional consultancy-ledprivate sector programmes aimed atcompetitor analysis is that the NWWBI has been undertaken collaboratively, through the willingsharing of performance data, to learnabout the circumstances and processesthat underpin superior performance. Intandem with this is the realisation thatno single organisation has all theanswers, and that success is measuredthrough a wide range of criteria thatmay include financial, sustainability,reliability, environmental and customerservice measures.

Participation is national in scopeLaunched in 1997 as a pilot project thatincluded four participating cities as wellas team members from Earth Tech (asthe programme Manager) and theNational Research Council for technical advice, the benchmarkinginitiative has grown to the point whereit serves as a national standard.Today,the initiative includes 37 of Canada'sleading municipal and regional utilities.The partnership now represents

Canadian urban centres that accountfor over 60% of the country’s population.

This wide participation base is notwithout its challenges.Canada is thesecond largest country in the world. Itspans four and a half time zones andincludes climates that range from nearMediterranean to Arctic (includingpermafrost).Precipitation ranges fromdesert to temperate rain forest levels. Inthe past, comparisons amongst such adiverse base had been discounted.Butby taking local factors that may affectcost, performance or the selection of practices into account in themethodology,participants are rewardedby being able to evaluate an enormousrange of practices.The fact remains,regardless of where we are located,we are all in the same business ofoperating public water and wastewaterutilities.Figure 2 shows a map of thedistribution of participating utilities.Methodology: it’s not rocket science,but it is hard work

The NWWBI uses a non-proprietary benchmarking methodology that follows a conventional annual cycle as shown inFigure 3.Great emphasis is placed onkeeping the methodology simple andfocusing on the effectiveness of eachtask within the overall process.Themanagement premise is that if even onelink is broken the overall programmehas no chance of success.The followingcontinue to be critical in the programme’s ongoing success:

The utility management model: what shouldwe measure?The first task of the project was to develop a standardised utility

management model that wouldprovide the framework for selectionand definition of performance mea-sures.This single step proved to becritical to the foundation of the entire project.Figure 4 illustrates the utility management model adopted,with theutility goals and the relationship to themany performance measures. Theutility management model defines aframework of high-level goals towhich all water and wastewater utilitiesin Canada aspire to.Success therefore,is literally based on the attainment ofthese goals.The model provides thebasis for selecting practical and relevantperformance measures to measure goal attainment.

Complete utility management goalsare presently stated as:● provide reliable and sustainable

infrastructure● provide accessible and sufficient

infrastructure (capacity)● meet service and performance

requirements at minimum sustainable cost

● protect public health and safety● provide a safe and productive work

environment● have satisfied and informed

customers● protect the environment and

minimise environmental impacts

With the utility management model in place, a comprehensive set ofperformance measures was formulatedto measure a utility’s success in attaining each individual goal.A very detailed definition for eachperformance measure numerator and denominator was also documentedso that comparable data could be

Figure 4Utility managementmodel

Figure 3 Annual methodology

Data collection

Utility management model

Closing workshops

Annual ReviewData analysis

and evaluation

GoalsPerformance

measures

Report and databaseaction plans

National water and wastewater benchmarking initiative utility management model

Utility Goals

Performance Measures (PMs)

Reliability andsustainability

1122 PPMMss eeggCapital reinvestment /

replacement value

1188 PPMMss eeggLength CCTV inspected

/ 100km

33 PPMMss eegg% of design AAF utilised

3377 PPMMss eeggPer-unit biosolids cost

55 PPMMss eeggNumber of reported

surcharges

44 PPMMss eeggNo. of accidents / 1000

labour hours

22 PPMMss eeggNo. of odour

complaints / 1000 customers

33 PPMMss eeggKg BOD discharged toenvironment per capita

44 PPMMss eeggLength of erodedsteam / length of

streams

44 PPMMss eeggStormwater fees /

serviced population

33 PPMMss eeggO&M + indirect costs /

100km length ofdrainage

44PPMMss eeggValue of damage dueto flooding / serviced

population

33 PPMMss eeggNo. of training hoursfor SW employees /

employee

22 PPMMss eeggAre there stormwater

regulations?

33 PPMMss eeggNo. of breach closures

44 PPMMss eeggNo. of hours of storage

capacity at ADD

2233 PPMMss eeggO&M cost / Ml treated

99 PPMMss eeggLength of main cleaned / length

88 PPMMss eeggNo. of sick days

taken per FE

22 PPMMss eeggNo. of water qualitycomplaints per 1000

customers

33 PPMMss eeggVolume of treated

water / volume of rawwater

Infrastructureadequacy Cost efficiency Public health &

safety

Safe & productive work

environment

Customer satisfaction

Environmentalprotection

Data collection

Data analysis &evaluation

Closingworkshops

Report &database

Stor

m

wate

rW

aste

wa

ter

Wat

er

Annualreview



collected to assure valid comparisons.In most cases, each performancemeasure includes a numerator(expressing the level of goal attainment) and a denominator (a normalisation factor to enable comparisons, amongst agencies ofdiffering sizes).Table 1 below shows anexample performance measure and itscorresponding definition:

In all, the NWWBI conductsbenchmarking on about 50 performance measures each for waterand wastewater treatment,waterdistribution and wastewater collection.There are presently about 15 performance measures for stormwaterdrainage. In keeping with our approachto an open methodology, all theNWWBI performance measures andthe definitions are published andavailable to any interested party on theproject website (www.nationalbenchmarking.ca).Other bench-marking practitioners are encouragedto leverage their efforts from NWWBIpublished standards. It is our view thatthe more international agencies thatuse these same measures, the easier it will be to make international comparisons if the parties are interested in doing this.

Data collection: communication and teamwork, not data processingData collection is the most difficult and time-consuming aspect of bench-marking. It is also vitally important, forwithout accurate and reliable data it isimpossible to make performanceobservations.Earth Tech’s earlyresearch into past exercises showed thatthe data collection effort was severelyunderestimated and the resulting datacollection flaws brought about thetermination and/or failure of thebenchmarking examples.Our experience is that no less than 30% ofthe benchmarking effort must bededicated to this single activity, at leastin the early stages, before qualityinformation can be assured.

A key distinguishing factor of thisbenchmarking project when comparedto similar benchmarking efforts is thatdata is collected through on-site datacollection visits with the use of traineddata collection staff from Earth Tech inclose association with key utility staff.

In addition to effort, participantsmust be willing to be patient indeveloping a robust benchmarkingdatabase. Ofwat, the economic regulator for the water industry ofEngland and Wales, predicted that itwould take two years (two completeiterations) before reliable data could beassumed in its benchmarking efforts.1

In our experience, two years hasbeen an optimistic target that onlysome utilities have been able to

achieve.For the NWWBI, it has takenabout five years to develop reliable,usable data that is statistically significant,historically sound andaccurate for historic trending.However, this longer term has allowedthe NWWBI to document bestpractices for the collection and management of utility data. Unlikeother best practice efforts,which relyon computer-based data managementsystems, the key to success is communication and team work withineach utility department.Computerised

data management projects must bedesigned only after business processeshave been developed and installed.

Because of the need for communication and cooperationwithin utility agencies, a people-focused approach to the collection ofinformation has helped to developgreater insight into each utility’s localfactors and operations.The personalinvolvement of Earth Tech staff incollecting the information also helps toensure that quality assured data iscollected and is comparable.

Figure 5 Example of a groupcomparison graph

Figure 6 Continuousimprovementexample of a trendfor energy costsnormalised by totalhorsepower of allpumps in waste-water collectionsystems

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

.5

0

-.5

Field FTEs

Supervisor FTEs

Indirect FTEs

Tech/Eng FTEs

Lab FTEs

2003 Estimate % O&M contracted

Negative Values - no data available

X-axis - in order of increasing flow

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Total PS Horsepower

$1,600,000

$1,400,000

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$800,000

$600,000

$400,000

$200,000

$0

y=69.755x + 262.67

R2 = 0.5359

Denominator Definition

Total length of mains in the distribution/transmission/integrated system (i.e. excludinglength of service connections). For thedistribution system length include all connecting pipes between pump stations,rechlorination facilities and storage facilities ifthese are located within the distributionsystem. For the transmission system lengthinclude all connecting pipes between pumpstations, rechlorination facilities and storagefacilities when located between the sourceand the treatment plant or between thetreatment plant and the distribution system.

Numerator Definition

Sum of the actual O&M costs incurred in the operation of the distribution/ transmission/ integrated system(excludes capital costs, indirect costs,transfers to reserves and debt/interestcharges). Includes O&M costs for bothlinear (pipes, meters etc) and non-linear(pump stations, reservoirs etc) infrastructure. Revenues are onlyincluded where they are recoveries forwork done by water distribution staff thatis extraneous to the utility (for example,lab tests for other utilities).

PerformanceMeasureTotal Operations &Maintenance Cost/ km Length ofDistributionsystem).

Table 1Example ofperformancemeasure anddefinition



The unexpected benefit for many participating agencies is thatbenchmarking may be the first timemany utility staff have been asked forvery specific information. It is not untilthe data collection task begins thatutilities begin to realise both howmuch information they actually haveabout their system,and also whetherthey can locate it.Many utility organisations still rely on the memoriesof veteran utility operators or foremen,who have intimate knowledge of eachvalve,pipe, and pump.This complexknowledge is in danger of disappearingwith the impending retirement oflong-time operators.We try to maintain a personal aspect to the datacollection process to ensure thatsomeone talks to this operator (anddocuments the detail) if the information is not kept elsewhere.

The well-documented and rigidstructure required for the NWWBIdata collection procedure provides adetailed framework for beginning thedifficult process of documentingoperational and management information.The ultimate aim is to getthis information into key managementsystems (such as CMMS and GIS) and therefore, ensure that valuableknowledge will not be lost with theretirement of that one utility operator.

The results are worth the effort andinvestment.Because the participants areable to use the results with confidence,the project has been able to tackle awide range of performance-relateddiscussions productively.Each year,the project has added valuable contentthat makes the results more and more accessible to municipal utilitypractitioners.

Results: from data collection to continuousimprovementThe usefulness of benchmarking data only becomes apparent whencontinuous improvement actions areformulated. To start this process, theNWWBI produces a vast array of

pictorially-based graphs (some 5,000)that depict overall group performance,and personalised historical trendinggraphs.These results are published in anannual report, and are always availableonline through the project website.Earth Tech even provides a help desk service to customers to help incustomising the data to meet a wide

variety of reporting needs.All data isgenerated from a relational databasemanagement system,but the MSAccess-based application tends not tobe that intuitive for the occasional user,therefore assistance is always available.

Group comparison graphs: how do wecompare with similar organisations?First, group graphs are produced whichcompare results within similar groups.Performance measures are calculatedfrom the compiled data in each area:water distribution,water systems,wastewater collection,wastewatertreatment and stormwater. In comparing the data in group graphs,we compare similar systems – forexample,only conventional watertreatment plants of less than 60 MLDare compared for measures such asO&M costs to avoid the large gapcreated by economies of scale andbecause clearly conventional treatmentplants cannot be compared to

unfiltered or even direct or membranefiltration plants.

As we make further comparisonsand interpretations of the graphs,ourpersonal knowledge of the systemshelps to evaluate what local factorsmay be considered as well as regionalissues that may be of importance.Despite these unique characteristics,there are always comparable issues andfactors.This article includes examplegroup performance graphs.

Minimum, maximum and average graphs:how are we doing?One of the other types of graphs thatare produced is the personalisedminimum,maximum and averagetrending graph.The group average,minimum and maximum are shownover three years as well the utility’s owndata for three years. In this way, an easyvisual comparison can be seen foroverall improvement, comparabilityand performance gaps within a comparable group.

For example,utility A is clearlyabove average in terms of pump stationO&M cost per total pump stationhorsepower. To realise the full benefitsin identifying this performance gap, thepeople-focused approach to a utility’sdata collection and operations lendsinsight to the unique local factors thatare affecting the results from this utility.Perhaps energy costs are higher in thisarea,or perhaps they have oversizedpumps.The key to improved performance is understanding what theperformance driver is and then beingable to respond to it.The graphs onlyhelp to identify performance gaps; thepersonal knowledge of the utilityallows the information to be applied ina relevant continuous improvementaction plan.

Radar charts: how are we doing overall?When asked how a utility was doingon a whole,we did not initially have avisual representation of the utility’stotal performance.The radar chart, asseen in the EnvironmentalSustainability Index project (YaleCenter for Environmental Law andPolicy, and the Center for InternationalEarth Science Information Network(CIESIN) at Columbia University),was configured as a roll-up of thevarious goals and performance measures to help utility managers andoperators get a quick view of theirutility’s performance amongst competing goals,where each goalforms its own axis on the radar chart.

Both high and low targets forperformance had to be determined tocalculate a utility’s performance basedon their achievement of the targets.To quantify each utility’s performancefor the goals, representative

Figure 7Example of aminimum/maximum/averagepersonalised graphfor water distributionsystems

Figure 8 Example of a radarchart

Minimum

Maximum

Average

Utility A

$42$39$48

$189$180$169

$244$216$288

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500Negative value - no data available

$456$414$355

Goal 1 - ReliableGroup Average 2003

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Goal 2 - Sufficient

Goal 3 - Sustainable CostGoal 4 - Public Health

Goal 5 - Safe

200320022001



performance measures were used.The logic for quantifying the performance measures for the radar charts is based on discussion,assumptions and conclusions agreedupon at the annual workshop.

A radar chart does not eliminate the need for bar charts, but insteadsummarises the information providedin the bar charts.One benefit of theradar chart is that it identifies where tostart focusing energy on improving theutility’s performance.For example, inFigure 8 it is clear that on goals 3,4 and5 the utility is performing on averagewith the group but on goals 1 and 2work needs to be done. The utilitywould now have to look at the barcharts for the relevant performancemeasures under goals 1 and 2 to assesswhat can be done to improve theirperformance.

Radar charts can provide annualcomparisons for a utility as well ascomparisons to best practices or targetsestablished by the group.They allowutilities to compare their overallmanagement to similar utilities.Radarcharts are very useful as a way toanalyse and summarise large amountsof data.They do not replace theanalysis of each bar chart and thedetails behind each performancemeasure,but will enhance the utility’sability to take a quick snapshot of itsperformance that can be used tocommunicate performance to all thestakeholders in the utility.

Comparing graphs is one thing,butbenchmarking cannot end there. Inorder to improve any function, theinformation must be used to help withthe overall strategic managementprogramme.While this is ultimately the responsibility of each participant,the NWWBI is directly involved in the process,with the creation andfacilitation of an enormous peer-to-peer network, in considering,planning, and executing a wide varietyof continuous improvement initiatives.

Peer to peer network and annual workshopFrom the outset of the NWWBI,each benchmarking iteration wasthoroughly debriefed in a multi-dayworkshop forum dedicated entirely to understanding the results.Earlyworkshops were informal events,usually held in the meeting rooms of a volunteer host utility.But as thepartnership grew, and the cross-departmental interest in the results ofeach participant also increased, thesemodest facilities proved inadequate fora productive workshop.

The summary workshop is now amajor annual event that has a totalattendance of up to 150 staff fromparticipating utilities.The key tosuccess remains the event’s workshop

approach, and it does not duplicate theprofessional association’s conferenceformat. It is also a major networkingopportunity for all participants.

After benchmarking for over fiveyears, the partnership has grown andmade significant strides towardscontinuous improvement throughvarious strategic partnerships and taskforces, by identifying utility gaps and,not least, by developing a network of industry operators and managerscollaborating and sharing their information.The network is unique inthat a similar private sector partnershipcould never be expected to share this type of information with theircompetitors.An atmosphere of familiarity, comradeship and trust hasdeveloped through adherence to thegroup confidentiality protocol2 by allpartners,which encourages individualand organisational learning, andultimately increases public sectorefficiency and accountability. There isno doubt that one of the greatestbenefits and results of the CanadianNational Water and WastewaterBenchmarking initiative is the networkof peer contacts that has emerged.

Effective continuous improvementWhile many of the participants havedeveloped confidence in their data and more accurate methods of datacollection, the NWWBI is nowrecommending the effort and benefitsdiagram as a tool to document continuous improvement priorities.The effort and benefits diagramillustrates a scale of ease-of-

implementation and benefit-of-actionthat helps to prioritise a continuousimprovement programme.

To gain the most benefit for the easeof implementation it is important toundertake an effort and benefitsanalysis for the top five continuousimprovement initiatives, identifiedthrough a high level review.By ratingeach continuous improvement initiative identified for each utilityalong those two scales, the effectivenessof each action can be seen relative tothe others.

Those performance improvementinitiatives in the upper right handcorner are the initiatives that deservemore focus in the next year, as theyhave been identified as being not very complex to implement whileachieving a high level of benefit.

ConclusionsFor organisations that are interested in using benchmarking to help achieve continuous improvement,the methodology outlined above willprovide answers to the first three of thefour questions originally posed in thispaper’s introduction:● how well are we doing?● how do we compare with

similar organisations?● are we getting value for money?

But if you look at benchmarking inisolation,you will not have addressedimprovement.To address the final, andultimately most important question(how can we get better at what wedo?), the organisation must be willing

Figure 9 An example effortand benefitsdiagram



to accept change.Accepting and embracing change is

by far the hardest thing that anyorganisation faces and there are no easyanswers, since human beings arecreatures of habit.But if you approachbenchmarking not as a numericalexercise that relies on data, automation,and computerisation,but rather as aprocess to expand communication,teamwork and collaboration, the doorto performance improvement willsuddenly open, and you will be surprised at the result.

As the National Water andWastewater Initiative matures,we arenow starting to benchmark the finalresult: success in implementing change.To state it another way, the finalquestion becomes ‘Did you do whatyou said you were going to do?’

By answering this question ‘Yes; andhere is the proof ’,we now see organisations focusing their efforts onwhat is truly important.Only now, theleading Canadian municipal utilitiesthat participate in the National Waterand Wastewater BenchmarkingInitiative understand that hard work,communication and teamwork willonce again be the keys to success.●

Footnotes1 International BenchmarkingPresentation by S St Pier (OFWAT) tothe NWWBI,May 2003)2 Un-blinded benchmarking results areconfidential to the partnership

ReferencesAlegre H,Baptista JM,Hinir W andParena R (2000). Performance indicatorsfor water supply services. Published byIWA Publishing in its Manuals of BestPractice series.London,UK.

Arbour R and Kerri K (1998).Collectionsystems: methods for evaluating andimproving performance. Office of WaterPrograms,California State University,Sacramento,US.Bain Consulting’s (2003).Managementtools & trends Published in the Globe andMail, June 2,2003,Toronto,Ontario.

Camp RC (1989).Benchmarking: thesearch for industry best practices that lead tosuperior performance.Manager of bench-marking competence quality and customersatisfaction,Xerox Corporation.

Eisenhardt P and Waltrip GD (1999).

Improving wastewater treatment plantoperations efficiency and effectiveness. WaterEnvironment Research Foundation,US.

Environmental sustainability index: aninitiative of the global leaders for tomorrowenvironment task force,World EconomicForum (2002). Yale Center forEnvironmental Law and Policy and theCenter for International Earth ScienceInformation Network (CIESIN) atColumbia University.http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/esi/

Stahre P and Adamson J (2001).Performance benchmarking: a powerfulmanagement tool for water and wastewaterutilities.Sweden.

Water Environment Federation (1997).Benchmarking wastewater operations:collection, treatment, and biosolids management,US.

Utility management: a framework forintegration (January 2004).Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) /Water Environment Federation (WEF) /Association of Metropolitan SewerageAgencies (AMSA). Washington,US.

waterutility managementI N T E R N A T I O N A L

New from IWA Publishing

Water Utility Management International is a new publication focusing on the needs and interests of senior water utility managers. The aim of thispublication is to provide those heading water and wastewater utilities with an international reference point on the strategic issues affecting theirorganisations. Water Utility Management International will also be of value to consultants and others following developments in this area.

Presented in a newsletter format, Water Utility Management International will contain news, interviews, and in-depth briefings on topical issues.Other articles will take an executive briefing approach or be based on landmark case studies. Regular themes for articles will include financing,investment, regulation and personnel matters. There will also be a central theme of achieving efficiency in water utilities, encompassing topicssuch as benchmarking, billing, tariffs, IT and service standards.

SubscriptionsWater Utility Management International is published four times a year (March, June, September, December) by IWA Publishing and is available as either a print or an online subscription.

Free sample copy of December 2005 issue to be available on IWA Publishing website.

2006 price (4 issues): £165 / €249 / $329 (IWA members: £150 / €225 / $299)

Contact: Portland Customer Services, Commerce Way, Colchester, CO2 8HP, UKFax: +44 (0)1206 79331. Email: [email protected]

ISSN (print): 1747-7751 ISSN (online): 1747-776X


AM UPDATES

European Commission releases manual on wastewater reuse

Asset Management: online training tools and resources

Anew manual on wastewater reuse is now available from the European Commission

Publishing Services.The manual was developed in the frame of the

international project AQUAREC ‘Integratedconcepts for reuse of upgraded wastewater’,which was funded by the Fifth FrameworkProgramme of the European Commission. Itsstrategic aim was to consolidate dispersedknowledge in the area of water reclamation andreuse (www.aquarec.org).

The manual aims at providing a single source of information on commonly used or applicablemanagement practices in implementing andoperating water recycling and reuse schemes.The aim is not to contribute to additional experimental research but to disseminate theknowledge that has accumulated over manyyears, the results of which are often still notreadily accessible (in a single document).

This publication presents practical information

on waste water reuse concepts based on actualand proved management and operationalpractises. The manual comprehensively addresses organisational, economic and financial considerations together with social and environmental aspects. The extensivepresentation of technological issues, such astreatment processes, disinfection, monitoringand distribution, covers many of the end-userequirements and specifications.

The targeted readers are mainly practitionersconcerned with implementation of waste waterreuse schemes, but this publication may alsobecome ‘the wastewater reuse manual’ fordecision makers, local authorities, consultantsand research bodies involved in the area.

This manual can be useful in encouragingbest practice and generating discussion, directing research and deepening understandingin the development of safe and sustainable directnon-potable water reuse schemes. The manual

do not pretend to give the ultimate answers tohow to manage water reuse schemes, but it canbe seen as a milestone to reach internationalconsensus on best practice.

The publication is available as printed or PDFdocument from OPOCE at: http://bookshop.europa.eu/.

Other outputs of the Aquarec and other EUprojects and up-to-date developments in the useand management of reclaimed water at large willbe addressed at the upcoming 6th IWA SpecialtyConference on Water Reclamation and Reuse forSustainability. Some of the issues at the centre ofdebate will be the role of water reuse as a usefulmeasure to reach integrated water managementgoals, to reach the Millennium Development Goaland to provide reliable and sustainable watersupply to agriculture and industry. The upcomingdeadline for submission of abstracts is January12, 2007. More details of the conference can befound at www.wrrs.2007. ●

Bridging the gap – online video resource forasset managersBridging the Gap is dscribed as a ground-breaking online video designed to help elected officials and water and wastewatermanagers make smart choices as they addresswater and wastewater infrastructure issues.

Developed with EPA grant funds, this innovative video and website is a collaborativeundertaking with Penn State’s College ofEngineering, World Campus, and its PublicBroadcasting units. The video outlines the keysteps to developing an asset management planfor both novice and experienced professionals.The hosting website provides an online learningexperience with an extensive array of referencematerials to support the central concepts andreal-world examples of emerging best practicesand innovations in water asset management.

Bridging the Gap provides an overview ofissues to promote municipal infrastructure assetmanagement and it motivates viewers apply theconcepts to their local challenges. The videoincludes interviews with EPA officials andperspectives on water and wastewater fromstakeholder organisations. It also includescommentary from leading local public officials,including the Mayor of Atlanta.

Access to the video and related materials isavailable at: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/public/buried_assets/.

Asset management ‘train the trainer’ courseand TEAMS SoftwareTrain-the-Trainer is an asset management toolkitfrom Maryland Center for Environmental Training(MCET), designed for instructor delivery to agroup of participants, or as a self-pacedinteractive presentation for use by an individual.

The subjects covered in this AssetManagement trainer's course include the

establishment of management teams, developing objectives, conducting asset inventory and condition assessments, developing maintenance and rehabilitationprograms, capital improvement planning andprogram administration. Curriculum, completewith trainers guides, can be downloaded fromthis site. The TEAMS software program isavailable on request.

This toolkit consists of three sections: 1) presentation slides and instructor notescovering asset management principles; 2)presentation slides and instructor notes forTEAMS – Total Electronic Asset ManagementSystem; and 3) an overview and introductionsection, the TEAMS User’s Guide; a Resourcelist, and a copy of TEAMS software.

This information is in Power Point and PDF format. The toolkit is organised to allowinstruction in the principles of asset management and, where applicable, thecorresponding section of TEAMS. The modularformat of the presentation materials allows theprinciples and the corresponding section onTEAMS to be given sequentially or individually astwo distinct offerings.

The toolkit was prepared in this manner toallow flexibility in instruction. The toolkit can bedownloaded and placed in a binder using theTabs to organise the content. Training Medium: This toolkit is designed forinstructor delivery to a group of participants, oras a self-paced interactive presentation for useby an individual. Each module has a Power Pointpresentation and a trainers guide.

MCET provides site-specific environmental,health and safety training and services formunicipalities, private businesses and industry,and state and federal agencies. Its programmesfocus on delivering quality education andassistance to professionals in drinking water and

wastewater operations, areas in health andsafety for employers and employees, technicaloutreach for industry, and compliance assistance services.http://www.mcet.org/am/index.html

Arivu 2006: risk modeling in the facilitiesand infrastructure industriesKnowledge Based Managements’ Releaseof Arivu 2006 signals ‘a step change in the management of risk within asset-intensivecompanies’, claiming to allow for greater results, faster.

KBM released the first production version ofArivu on the 18th of September. An enterpriselevel solution for modeling risk in the facilitiesand infrastructure industries, Arivu uses thelatest in software architecture and design, andhas been deployed for immediate use with theKBAI models (Knowledge Based Asset Integrity)recently implemented by the Royal Mail Group(UK). Arivu will also soon become operationalwithin the CarillionWSP Area 12 lighting assets managed on behalf of the Highways Agency.

Arivu represents a leap forward for managingassets according to risk and has overcome many of the common issues relating to theimplementation of reliability based programmesfor physical assets, providing a unique competitive advantage for clients. Through themodeling methodologies developed by KBM,combined with the depth of industry knowledgeand experience of its parent companies, Arivuaims to provide a powerful means for clients to accelerate the journey to value in the applicationof risk based principles, such as those containedwithin the standard PAS-55, to their physicalasset base.

For further information please contact DarylMather, Business Development Manager KBM,on +44 (0)796 606 9970.


AM UPDATES

Diary

A listing of upcoming asset management-related eventsand conferences. Send eventdetails to WAMI for inclusion.

Asset ManagementExcellence Exchange5–6 March 2007Boston, USAJoin us in Boston for NEWEA’s2007 Asset ManagementExcellence Exchange Event at theNewton Marriott. This first timeevent will bring together many ofthe nation’s public and privatebusinesses to share facility andinfrastructure best managementand cutting edge practicesincluding:● Designing for O&M Readiness● Maintenance Practices

(RCM/FMEA/PdM) ● Autonomous Maintenance ● Root Cause Failure Analysis● Warehousing, Technology

(CMMS/GIS/SCADA) ● Data/Information Management ● Energy Management ● Asset Renewal/Replacement

Strategies ● Finance and Capital Planning● Risk Management ● Performance

Monitoring/Metrics ● Business Process Workflow ● Communication Plans ● Change Management ● Training Programmes and

Sustainability

A special Change Managementworkshop based on the newlyreleased ‘Our Iceberg is Melting’book wil be held on Sunday,March 4th. Training contacthours will be available to attendees. Web: www.newea.org

The Adam Smith Institute’s 12th Annual Conference: The Future of Utilities, featuring the inaugural‘Metering Forum’26–28 March 2007, London, UKIn addition to ‘The Future of Utilities’ conference, The Adam Smith Institute is delighted to announce its new ‘Metering Forum’, taking place on the 28th March 2007, directly after the standard two day conference.

This forum will comprise of an in-depth focus on the metering sector, which has become a key and challenging area that affects the whole of the Utilities industry.

Top-level speakers already confirmed include:● Philip Davies, Director of Retail

Markets and EnvironmentalPolicy, Ofgem

● Nicola Cumner, Director ofMarket Instruments,Department of Trade & Industry

● Tony Smith, Chief Executive,CCWater

● Nick Horler, Managing Director,Retail, E.ON UK

● Mike Pocock, Head of StrategicPlanning, Veolia Water UK

● Michael Rea, Director ofStrategy & Markets, CarbonTrust

● Stephen McCully, GeneralManager, NIE Supply, NorthernIreland Electricity

● Petter Allison, Head ofMetering, British Gas

● Vanessa Clark, Head ofMetering, Thames Water

The 'Metering Forum' will give you the unique opportunity to:● Learn from top-level speakers

about developments in themetering sector

● Debate how smart meteringcan meet the needs of customers, utility companiesand the environment

● Take a detailed look at howcustomer reactions, government policy and otherconsiderations might affect theprovision of services

● Understand the challengesfacing your contemporaries andhear about the possiblesolutions

● Share cross-industry experiences with other participants in our roundtablediscussion groups

Delegate places for this industry leading event are now available. For more information or to book on to the ‘Metering Forum’ or ‘The Future of Utilities’ conference, please call our customer services team on +44 (0) 20 7608 0541,

email: conferences@marketforce. eu.com, or visit the conference website at: www.marketforce.eu.com/utilitiesfor up-to-date conference programmes.

Leading-Edge Strategic AssetManagement17–19 October 2007Lisbon, PortugalWater and Wastewater companies operating all aroundthe world have faced rising assetmanagement and replacementcosts, often to levels that arefinancially unsustainable. LESAM2007 will provide an opportunityto discuss developments at theleading-edge in key fields to anaudience of utility personnel, regulators and consultants.Focus will be on the techniques,technologies and managementapproaches aiming at optimisingthe investment in infrastructurewhile achieving demanded customer service standards.Topics will include:● Global approaches to asset

management ● Target definition and

performance assessment ● Cost and benefit valuation ● Target definition and

assessment of risks● Asset data and information

systems● Financial managementWeb: www.lesam2007.orgEmail: [email protected]

Decentralised Stormwater Controls for UrbanRetrofit and Combined Sewer OverflowReductionWERF Report: Stormwater (03-SW-3)Author: N WeinsteinDecentralised stormwater controls provide asignificant and promising alternative strategy tolimit the number of overflows from combinedsewer systems. This research evaluates thefunctional processes employed by decentralisedcontrols and possible methods of quantifyingstormwater retention and detention mechanisms. Pilot installations and modeling aredemonstrating significant reductions in runoffvolumes especially when targeted at problematiccatchment areas of the collection system. Thetechnical considerations and perceived impediments of urban retrofits are analysed anda methodology for modeling effectiveness isoutlined. The comprehensive benefits gainedfrom decentralised controls, in addition to stormwater volume reductions, are also presented.

The results of this research provide a framework for communities to begin

implementing decentralised controls as acomponent of a combined sewer inflow reduction program. Analytical assessments of categorical controls are provided to aid in the selection of appropriate decentralisedtechniques and strategies.

The title belongs to WERF Report Series. Thispublication can be purchased and downloadedvia Pay Per View on Water Intelligence Online:www.iwapublishing.com.Publication Date: April 2006; 182 pagesISBN: 184339748X

Critical Assessment of StormwaterTreatment and Control Selection Treatment WERF Report: Stormwater (02-SW-1)Author: E StreckerAlthough historically the process of selectingstormwater treatment systems has centered onchoosing categories of treatment systems from amenu of options, the state of the practice allowsfor a more fundamental approach that explicitlyincorporates the concept of unit operations andprocesses (UOPs) in a manner analogous to theconceptual design process for wastewater

treatment systems. The incorporation of one ormore UOPs into specific design elements of astormwater treatment system, or treatmentsystem components (TSCs), places emphasis on the selection of systems that are intended, bydesign, to specifically address project goals and objectives.

The purpose of this guidance document is to provide a framework for applying fundamentalprinciples of UOPs to aid in the evaluation andselection of runoff management and treatmentcontrol systems for urban and urbanising areas.

The steps of the conceptual design processpresented herein include: 1) problem definition,2) site characterisation, 3) identification offundamental process categories, 4) selection oftreatment system components, 5) practicabilityassessment, 6) sizing and development ofconceptual design, and 7) development ofperformance monitoring and evaluation plan.

This publication can be purchased anddownloaded via Pay Per View on WaterIntelligence Online: www.iwapublishing.com.Publication Date: January 2006; 500 PagesISBN: 1843397412

New stormwater management WERF reports from IWA Publishing

Documents

WAMI Sept06 f3 - IWA Publishing€¦ · Doug Harp, Westin CEO and co-principal investigator. ‘Moreover, there is no lack of information, opinions, models, “best practices,”