WATER SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

Transcription

1 WATER SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA USER MANUAL FOR THE AQUAMARK ASSET MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKING SOFTWARE (VERSION 3) JANUARY 2008 JANUARY 2008 WSAA

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER:...4 COPYRIGHT: OVERVIEW: INTRODUCTION: SPONSOR ORGANIZATIONS BACKGROUND: PROJECT OBJECTIVES: BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT: PROCESS BENCHMARKING VS. METRIC RESULTS INTEGRATING ASSET MANAGEMENT INTO THE CORPORATE STRATEGY CHANGES TO THE TOOL: STRUCTURE OF THIS USER MANUAL OVERVIEW OF AQUAMARK: SUMMARY OF THE AQUAMARK TOOL: OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONS AND PROCESSES: Function 1- Corporate Policy and Business Planning: Function 2 Asset Capability Planning Function 3 Asset Acquisition Function 4 Asset Operation Function 5 Asset Maintenance Function 6 Asset Rehabilitation/Replacement Function 7 Business Support Systems THE SCORING PROCESS FUNCTIONS General Overview of Capability Overview of Execution Constraints Scoring Matrix (Functions 1 to 6) Scoring Matrix (Function7) Assessment THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PROFILE General Interpreting the outcomes: Scenario Assessment: SOFTWARE OPERATION: OVERVIEW STEP 1 ADMINISTRATION AND INTRODUCTION: The Welcome Screen: Login Authority Selection: The Aquamark Browser screen STEP 2 MANAGING AN EXISTING DATA SET Measure Selection: Measure Screen Creating new data sets: STEP 3 UNDERTAKING COMPARISONS: Internal Comparisons: External Comparison: Multilingual Support: Industry Reporting and Best Practice: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS GENERAL:...45 JANUARY 2008 WSAA 2

3 5.0 GLOSSARY...47 APPENDIX A SCORING MATRIX FUNCTION JANUARY 2008 WSAA 3

4 Disclaimer: The Asset Management Benchmarking Framework is provided for the sole purpose of benchmarking asset management performance by utilities in the water industry. This benchmarking can then be used to assist in decision-making regarding asset management or risk management by these utilities. However, the Asset Management Benchmarking Framework is provided solely on the basis that users will be responsible for making their own assessment of, and decisions in relation to, any asset management or risk management matters relating to their business. The Asset Management Benchmarking Framework does not have regard to every variable that influences asset risk for utilities in the water industry, as this is not technically feasible. It is for the user of the Asset Management Benchmarking Framework to make an independent assessment and decision on asset management and risk management, having regard to all relevant circumstances. The accuracy, reliability and correctness of performance benchmarks generated by the Asset Management Benchmarking Framework is dependent on both the accuracy of the information input by the user for benchmarking purposes and the skill and judgment of the individual, or consultant, conducting asset management benchmarking using the Asset Management Benchmarking Framework. It is the responsibility of the user to make his or her own decisions about the accuracy, reliability and correctness of asset management performance benchmarks generated using the Asset Management Benchmarking Framework. Neither WSAA, nor any employee or agent of WSAA, shall be responsible or liable for any claim, loss (including economic loss), liability, cost and expense of whatsoever nature or howsoever incurred (whether caused by the negligence of WSAA or any employee or agent or otherwise) arising from the use or reliance on any performance benchmarking generated using the Asset Management Benchmarking Framework or any data included in the Asset Management Benchmarking Framework s database (including incomplete, out-of-date, wrong, inaccurate or misleading information, data or advice). It is the responsibility of the user to make his or their own decisions about the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of information found in the database. Copyright: This document is protected by copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, and except for where provided below, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically or mechanical, for any purpose, without the express written permission of the Water Services Association of Australia Inc. The Water Services Association of Australia will permit copies of parts or all of this publication, without payment of a royalty or advice from the Water Services Association of Australia Inc, where it is used exclusively in house by the Associations full financial members Water Services Association of Australia, 2007 JANUARY 2008 WSAA 4

5 1.0 Overview: 1.1 Introduction: The international water industry 1 is undergoing a period of unprecedented change. New challenges such as climate change, increased regulation, competition for funds, skills shortages, technological development, environmental constraints, increasing customer expectations and ageing infrastructure mean that water businesses need to be more efficient and effective than ever before. This is a time when the industry needs to understand how it can best manage the various (and at time conflicting) expectations required of it. Recognizing the challenges facing the industry and with an appreciation of how modern asset management may assist these businesses meet their various commercial, environmental, social and regulatory obligations, the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) developed a means of benchmarking best practice Asset Management processes within the industry. The objective of this tool is to identify how well a particular participant currently manages its strategy as well as identifying those participants that represent best practice in a range of key process areas. The tool for assessing Asset Management processes (the Aquamark software) was originally developed for the Australian and New Zealand market. The tool was subjected to external third party audit by an international (UK) expert and the practices, terminology, framework and analysis has been refined to ensure that the tool is equally applicable to utilities globally. However, while the structure and content of the tool has been developed to be universal, the project will endeavor to identify and promote regional differences. This will allow participants to identify not only the best reactive utilities from across the globe but also leaders in their domestic markets. 1.2 Sponsor Organizations WSAA is the peak body of the Australian Water Industry and represents the largest water utilities within the country. WSAA has pioneered the development of Asset Management process benchmarking including the development of the Aquamark software. With their recognized standing in the global water industry, WSAA has unparalleled capacity to develop and implement tools such as Aquamark which can benefit the industry. WSAA is committed to providing its members with the tools to adapt to the changing environmental and provide a forum to learn from other industry practitioners. 1.3 Background: The current (2008) AM benchmarking project is part of a rolling program of benchmarking projects that has been developed and undertaken by WSAA. This rolling program has included the following initiatives: 2000 Civil Maintenance metric benchmarking 2001 Mechanical and Electrical metric benchmarking 2002 Customer Service metric benchmarking 2003 Metric benchmarking of Shared services 2004 Asset Management Process Benchmarking (Aquamark) Civil Maintenance metric benchmarking 2006 Mechanical and Electrical metric benchmarking 2007 Customer Service metric benchmarking (IWA/WSAA) 2008 Asset Management Process Benchmarking (Aquamark) (IWA/WSAA) 1 Throughout this manual, the term water industry or water utility should be interpreted as a generic reference to BOTH water and wastewater utilities. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 5

6 What makes the Asset Management Project different from the other projects is its focus on Asset Management processes and functions (i.e. what we do) as distinct from performance metrics which tends to measure how the business has performed after the event (outcomes). Process benchmarking recognizes the fact that, in any large commercial endeavor, sound processes should lead to better outcomes. The Asset Management process benchmarking project was previously undertaken in 2004 and was regarded as one of the most successful of all WSAA projects undertaken to date as part of the rolling program. The 2004 project included a total of 24 water utilities from Australia, New Zealand and the Unites States. The project was subject to peer review by UK based Asset Management Specialists WS Atkins. The objective of this review was to provide an independent expert opinion on the process and assess the frameworks fitness for the purpose for which it was designed. From this review, Atkins advised that they regarded the framework as robust, comprehensive and fit for purpose. Atkins agreed that the outcomes from the project would provide a sound measure of an organizations capability and effectiveness across the whole of the asset management lifecycle Project Objectives: The Aquamark software has been developed by WSAA for the urban water industry. It is not a propriety system of any individual consulting group. The overall objectives of the Asset Management process benchmarking project are to improve the standard of Asset Management performance within the water industry; principally through the identification and promotion of best practice within the industry. In this regard, the Aquamark software is the primary tool used in assessing a participant s process performance. The mechanics of the tool are discussed in greater detail below but the overall objective of the Aquamark software is to: Allow participants to objectively assess their strengths and weaknesses in Asset Management process capacity and execution; Provide a mechanism for participants to assess their performance against their peers in the international urban water industry; and Provide an indication of specific areas of process improvement for consideration by each participant. The purpose of this user manual is to: Provide a resource to guide users through the principles and practical application of the Aquamark software; and Allow participants to address key issues through development of case study examples and providing answers to frequently asked questions. The overall outcome from this process is to encourage a consistent understanding of the project, the Aquamark software and thereby deliver consistent outcomes. 1.5 Benefits of the Project: For those agencies who participate in the project, the outcomes anticipated from the overall program will be to: 2 WS Atkins, Peer Review of the Asset Management Framework June 2004 JANUARY 2008 WSAA 6

7 Provide a means for participants to make improvement to better meet the needs and expectations of their customers and other stakeholders; Compare the quality of the participant s processes with that developed by others within the industry. This may include identifying possible areas of improvement; Identify those agencies which represent best practice in specific areas; Identify and showcase global leaders in Asset Management; Provide greater understanding of business processes (i.e. HOW we do things) and their relationship with metric outcomes (i.e. how performance may be measured using quantitative measures) Provide greater understanding about how the industry is dealing with current challenges (e.g. risk management, sustainability, triple bottom line assessment, change in customer needs, etc) Promote retention of industry learning s and Intellectual Property; For those agencies who participated in the 2004 program, the 2008 project will allow them to review the extent to which their performance has changed over time; and Promote focused networking 1.6 Process Benchmarking vs. Metric Results The Aquamark tool has been developed to examine and compare the process by which organizations delivers their nominated outcomes (i.e. process benchmarking). This differs from the more traditional metric benchmarking which focuses on comparison of quantitative results. This difference between process and metric benchmarking is a key point of differentiation in the WSAA process. Traditional metric benchmarking is useful in assessing quantitative measures of businesses performance (eg breaks per 100km of main; costs per ML produced etc), it does not identify HOW the result was achieved (and how it could therefore be managed or improved). In this sense, metric benchmarking has a tendency to disguise process deficiencies or process excellence (refer case study 1 for example). Case study 1: Process vs. Metric results Utility A has higher water treatment cost as a result of the natural composition of its source water. When compared with its peers (many of whom may draw from pristine water sources), the quantitative measure of cost/ml appears high). Without understanding why this is the case, the organization may be seen by its peers as less efficient. However, it may be the case that the particular issue has led Utility A to develop excellent processes. The very fact that raw water quality is an issue for the utility may have provided the incentive for Utility A to develop best practice processes which minimize cost. Other utilities, who may have better quality source water, don t have the same cost imperative and may have less efficient processes in place. Metric benchmarking does not lend itself well to qualitative assessment of performance. Process benchmarking is designed to focus on the processes used by the business in obtaining predetermined outcomes. At its most comprehensive (such as Aquamark), process benchmarking examines not only the process applied at the operational level but also the relationship between the operational functionality and the strategic objectives of the business. In this way, Aquamark tests the extent to which there is a common thread which connects the businesses overall strategic outcomes with the practices implemented at he workface. Ideally a utilities overall performance should be measured as a combination of the process effectiveness (i.e. what we do) and quantitative information (what was the result). JANUARY 2008 WSAA 7

8 1.7 Integrating Asset Management into the Corporate Strategy Historically, Asset Management has been viewed by water authorities as an asset-centric practice focused on maximizing asset efficiency. In its early stages of its development, AM initiatives were often undertaken without the necessary link to the participant s strategic vision. Often, Asset Management was not integrated into the participant s corporate strategy In contrast, modern Asset Management has evolved into an integrated process for balancing the (at times conflicting) objectives within the business. The key change is in the fact that effective Asset Management processes are those which are fully integrated into the businesses strategy and are regarded as a key process for delivery of the participant s targeted outcomes. This is a fundamental component of WSAAs Asset Management philosophy. Managers in leading water services agencies recognize that Asset Management is now no longer simply a tool for efficiently engineering our environment, but rather the emphasis has changed to one of effectively managing our engineered environment 3. Case Study 2: Linking the Corporate Strategy to the AM strategy: The new CEO of Unique Utility (U2) developed a new corporate plan for the business. The corporate plan outlined the vision for the business and the key strategies which needed to be developed to achieve that vision. However, recognizing the tendency for such corporate strategies to become hollow statements with multiple interpretations, the new CEO went further and developed a corporate wide asset management strategy that clearly allocated responsibility for the delivery of key corporate strategies to specific parts of the business. The management framework linked the objectives in the corporate plan to major initiatives within the business as well as allocating responsibility to specific business managers. These responsibilities were integrated into the position descriptions of line managers. The business monthly reporting was structured around this cascading framework. The annual report provided both a summary of the businesses progress in achieving the corporate objectives as well as the detailed actions which have been implemented to achieve those outcomes. The end result from this process was an organization whose every key action was clearly linked to the overall business strategy. If a proposed initiative did not clearly fit into this framework, it did not proceed. In addition, the discipline of publicly reporting not only the overall progress of the business but also the progress of individual groups within the business in delivering those corporate outcomes ensured that the framework was managed on a day to day basis. By doing this, U2 provided a clear linkage between its corporate strategy and its AM strategy across each of the 6 major operational functions within the Aquamark software. Case Study 3: Structure and Strategy: The regulatory framework which governs the water industry can vary from state to state and country to country. For example, some agencies may be managed by local government, some at the state level, and some may be privately operated. These differences can have an impact on a businesses structure and strategy. In general, government owned authorities may be constrained by a need to focus on a broad range of policy objectives (environmental, social, economic as well as commercial outcomes). The authority may also be constrained by decisions made across the public sector (e.g. an 3 Duncan Rose, Framework- Blueprint-Knowledge Management, AMQI International forum, 19 July 2004 JANUARY 2008 WSAA 8

9 authority may be instructed to use software which does not best suit its particular requirements but is selected on its ability to service a broader range of government agencies). Such differences can make comparison problematic. However, the Aquamark project (with its clear focus on processes more than actual outcomes) and the ability of businesses to compare their outcomes more selectively mean that the outcomes from the process can be more meaningful. This focus on processes can indicate relative strengths (and weaknesses) of the regulatory framework. This information can then be communicated to those who administer the framework. This allows the business to clearly identify where constraints from the businesses regulatory framework may affect the businesses ability to deliver outcomes. 1.8 Changes to the tool: Since its initial development in 2004, WSAA has undertaken a review of the Aquamark tool and some changes have been made to improve its format and structure. Given the positive outcomes from the 2004 project and constructive comments from the international peer review, the structure of the model has not been substantially altered (i.e. only relatively minor improvements have been made). This ensures that the outcomes from the 2008 project will be comparable with the 2004 results (i.e. maintains an effective time series of data). The main changes made to Aquamark have been designed to improve the accessibility of the tool (to ensure consistency of process and review procedures) whilst not compromising the comparability of outcomes between reviews. Some changes in wording has also been undertaken to ensure a consistent context for assessment (i.e. reduced country specific considerations and influences) The key changes made to the tool have included: Some changes in the description and comment associated with key processes and sub processes. These changes are specifically designed to ensure universal terminology and practice; Some changes in the scoring at the process and measure level; Changes to or additional scenarios and typical questions for specific measures; Minor modifications to the wording (specifically wording of the intent of individual measures) to improve the clarify on those measures; and Addition of some new sub processes to the tool. 1.9 Structure of this User Manual The primary objective of this manual is to allow the user to step through the process (Section 2) and become familiar with the software itself (Section 3). However, a secondary objective has been to provide a more general overview of the benchmarking process and associated issues. More detailed guidance on the process itself (including a recommended set of protocols and procedures for both the participating utility and external reviewers) is provided in the complementary Assessment Guideline. To achieve these goals, the manual has been structured in the following manner: Chapter 1 has been developed to provide an introduction to process benchmarking and a general overview of the key issues which drive the project. Further information on the recommended approach for utilities is contained in the Assessment guidelines; Chapter 2 provides an overview of the process benchmarking tool (Aquamark) This chapter has been specifically designed to provide an executive summary of the tool and provide a general overview of key components of Aquamark; Chapter 3 provides a more detailed step by step guide to the operation of the Aquamark software itself ; JANUARY 2008 WSAA 9

10 Chapter 4 provides a summary of Frequently Asked Questions. This section of the manual has been based on the outcomes and experiences from the 2004 project and initial accreditation sessions. During the project itself, the external reviewers will provide a web based list of responses to frequently asked questions. This will provide a current and interactive list of issues (and recommended solutions) as the project develops; and To ensure that all users have a consistent understanding of key terms, we have provided a glossary in Chapter 5. Case studies have been incorporated throughout the document to provide a context for key issues and assist in further defining key processes, issues and intent of a range of aspects of the tool. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 10

11 2.0 Overview of Aquamark: 2.1 Summary of the Aquamark tool: The Aquamark software is developed from a range of functions, sub functions, processes and measures. At the highest level, the software covers a total of seven (7) functional areas including: o Function 1 - Corporate Policy and Business Planning o Function 2 - Asset Capability Planning o Function 3 - Asset Acquisition; o Function 4- Asset Operation o Function 5 - Asset maintenance; o Function 6 - Asset replacement/rehabilitation; and o Function 7 - Business support systems. Functions 2 to 6 are designed to align with key processes undertaken within all water businesses 4. These functions can be directly associated with the standard asset lifecycle. Figure 2.1 The seven (7) functions in the Aquamark tool Functional areas 1 to 6 are further divided into a total of almost 50 processes which are in turn developed from 350 sub processes and almost 600 individual measures. Function 7 covers 20 different systems which are assessed against a total of 380 measures. Processes as defined are those activities that combine to deliver an outcome within a given function. The process level is the most detailed level at which benchmarking is undertaken (i.e. benchmarking of sub processes is not seen as effective). The individual processes which support the overall functions are summarized below: 4 Participants may choose to undertake a single Integrated assessment of its business or may choose to undertake a separate assessment of components of the business. For example, if a utility has distinctly different water and sewerage subsidiaries, it may consider undertaking a separate assessment. The software allows participants to develop a range of data sets with which it can undertake separate assessment (i.e. scenario assessment). The decision to undertake an integrated or separate assessment has significant implications for the utility (refer section 2.4 below) JANUARY 2008 WSAA 11

12 Figure 2.2 Relationship between Functions, Processes, Sub processes and Measures 2.2 Overview of Functions and Processes: Functions are considered the major, complex activities that comprise asset management. The seven functional areas contained within Aquamark and their component processes are briefly summarized below: Function 1- Corporate Policy and Business Planning: Overview: This function measures the performance of the agency across a number of asset management "umbrella" activities that impact across all of the remaining functions. These are the issues which drive the business and define the corporate objectives. Component processes: This function includes the following key processes: 1.1 Triple Bottom Line Management: Assessing the extent to which decisions are made in a manner which balance social, economic and environmental factors (allowing for tradeoffs between these elements) 1.2 Life Cycle Best Value Decision Making: Examining the processes used to determine best value outcomes including consideration of both direct and intangible costs and benefits. 1.3 Asset Financial Management: processes used to determine asset capital and operational costs (and funding decisions) throughout the asset lifecycle; 1.4 Risk Management: Examines the risk management processes from a whole-of business perspective (i.e. corporate risk profile) JANUARY 2008 WSAA 12

13 1.5 Level of Service, Stakeholder/Regulatory Interface Management: Assesses the process by which service standards are developed (including consideration of customer expectations and regulatory constraints) and achieving a balance between the level of service and cost of provision of the service; 1.6 People: Processes used throughout the organization to ensure that the participants has (and maintains) its skills and capacity to deliver its corporate objectives; 1.7 Asset Management Strategic Plan: The extent to which the participants has developed a whole of business Asset Management Strategic Plan which illustrates how the participants brings together all its resources to deliver its corporate objectives; 1.8 Quality Management: This measures the approach taken at the corporate level to development and application of Quality Management principles (i.e. strategic QA processes). 1.9 Configuration Management: This processes measures how effectively the participants manages changes in its network configuration (refer to case study 4) 1.10 Audit and Review (Governance Audit): this measure assesses the effectiveness of the participants internal audit processes; 1.11 Sponsorship of and Commitment to Innovation: This process is a measure of the extent to which the agency (and its employees) actively purse innovation and improvement. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 13

14 Case Study 4: Configuration Management 5 : Basic Bulk Pty Ltd is responsible for providing bulk treated water to an adjacent city. The business draws its bulk water from three surface water sources. One of these dams is well located, immediately adjacent to both the treatment plant and the city itself. This is the cheapest water source. The second dam is located some distance away and requires pumping to deliver raw water to the plant. However, water from this source is better quality. The third source is also located away from the city and is within a pristine national park. This means that social (recreational) and environmental issues are significant considerations. The fact that two of the water sources are located well away from the treatment plant also means that the business needs to manage the dam levels in a way that largely avoids the operational implications which could result from high detention within the supply mains. As rainfall and consumption progressively raise and lower the water levels within each dam, Basic Bulk (BB)Pty Ltd needs to determine which water source it will draw from. To address this problem, BB has developed a configuration management plan for the network. This includes consideration of: a) The asset and network attributes; b) The process for management and coordinating water delivery (i.e. the current baseline of activities); c) Triggers which identify the need for change (eg increased risk of breach of environmental objectives); d) Initiation and evaluation of changes to the processes e) Management of the changes and verification of the outcome f) Processes for updating the baseline. Without a structured process in place the business may be unaware of looming problems or the increased risk profile associated with its actions. Note on QA Concepts and Practices: The intent of Quality Assurance (QA) within a business is to provide a structured format for development and implementation of business processes The approach promotes a systematic process for planning, executing, checking (including internal audit) and continually improving activities undertaken by the business. It is reasoned that such standardization leads to greater consistency in outcomes and can be used to ensure that work practices are aligned with the strategic objectives of the organization. However, the presence (or lack) of a QA system does not in itself guarantee a consistent outcome. The overall QA process is typically established in national or international standards (eg the ISO 9000 series). These standards are applied more rigorously in some countries than in others. Under these international standards, a utilities QA system is typically subject to regular external audit to ensure that the intent of the standard is being consistently implemented. 5 For further information refer to WSAA Industry Guideline for Asset Configuration Management, WSA , First Edition, Version 1.1 (Nov 2007) JANUARY 2008 WSAA 14

15 Case study 5: The relevance of QA in determining our response MyWater Pty Ltd has developed a comprehensive, corporate wide QA system. Given that the QA system is in place and includes provision for document control and document management, the business generally rates its process documentation as complete. However, when the review is undertaken, the assessor notes that documentation relevant to specific activities is not well always well developed. In contrast, YourWater Pty Ltd does not have a third party accredited QA system. However, its process documentation is very well developed, including internal testing and validation. In undertaking its self assessment, the business never rates its documentation as complete on the basis that the procedure has not been subject to a third party accredited QA system. If a business has a third party accredited QA system in place then it would typically be ranked highly on the Sub process Quality Management (e.g. MyWater). This sub process measures the standard of quality management within the business as a whole. However, the presence of a third party accredited system does not mean that all subsequent process documentation should be marked higher. The actual application of QA at the measure level may vary for each individual sub process. Subsequently, an agency may be fully compliant in that it may have a whole of business QA system but may be non compliant at the sub process level if the QA processes have not been specifically applied at this level in the business. Conversely, if a business has well developed process documentation (even in the absence of a third party accredited QA system), it can still be assessed as having Complete project documentation (e.g. YourWater). Key Messages: The presence of a third party accredited QA system does not ensure that all subsequent documentation should reach a higher standard. Neither does the lack of a corporate wide QA system limit the businesses ability to score highly in terms of its process documentation. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 15

16 2.2.2 Function 2 Asset Capability Planning Overview: This function measures the agencies performance in planning for the future provision of service to customers. It includes not only planning for asset solutions for future service capability (i.e. new or augmented assets) but also incorporates consideration of non-asset solutions which may be available in providing such capability. The function therefore considers increased technology, changes in customer needs, changing performance standards and identification of non asset solutions such as demand management. Component processes: The processes assessed in this function are: 2.1 Business Objective knowledge: This process assesses the extent to which the participants planning processes are disseminated and how well they relate to the overall corporate objectives: 2.2 Demand Projections: This examines the participants processes for assessing future demand trends (including consideration of re-use, water sensitive urban design or other demand management /mitigation strategy etc) 2.3 Level of Service Projection; Assesses the processes used by the participants to determine future service standard requirements (including the extent to which the participants considers potential legislative or regulatory change, changes in customer requirements, technology etc) 2.4 Planning for Optimized Assets: These are the processes by which the participants determine the need for system development, optimization or reconfiguration to meet projected demand and service levels in a cost effective manner; and 2.5 Review and Improvement: This process focuses on how the participants identifies, prioritizes and systematically addresses shortcomings in its planning processes Function 3 Asset Acquisition Overview: This function measures the agencies performance in acquiring the asset(s) most suitable to meet its current and future needs. Asset acquisition processes should support the achievement of the lowest long run cost per unit of compliant product or service over the whole lifecycle. This function is critical in shaping the participants asset cost structure and its performance over the entire life cycle. Component processes: The processes assessed in this function are: 3.1 Business Objective Knowledge and Input: This process assesses the extent to which the overall corporate objectives influence or are influenced by the asset acquisition process: 3.2 Equipment, Product and Design Standards: Assesses the processes used by the participants to formulate and maintain its standards (including consideration of TBL costs, operational performance history, statutory requirements, technological change etc) in a cost effective manner; 3.3 Concept and Detailed Design: Assesses the processes employed by the participants to ensure best value design outcomes; JANUARY 2008 WSAA 16

17 3.4 Best Value Procurement: Assesses the participant s ability to ensure best practice in procurement of assets; 3.5 Asset Acceptance Procedures: Examines the participants procedures for testing and accepting assets and integrating those assets into the business; and 3.6 Review and Improvement: Assesses the participants processes for reviewing and improving the asset acquisition processes Function 4 Asset Operation Overview: This function measures the performance of the agency in operating its existing assets to achieve the nominated service standards or other business objectives. The function also seeks to identify the extent to which this is achieved at the lowest long run cost per unit of product or service over the whole of the assets life cycle. Component processes: The processes assessed in this function are: 4.1 Business Objective Knowledge: This process assesses the extent to which the participant s operational strategies are related to the corporate goals (and vice versa) 4.2 Asset Knowledge: Assesses the extent to which asset information is reliable, accurate and up to date; 4.3 Operational Strategy Development; Examines the procedures in place to ensure that the operational strategy supports the participant s corporate objectives; 4.4 Operating Procedures Documentation: Addresses the preparation and implementation of procedures for normal (and contingent) operation of the businesses infrastructure; 4.5 Work Practices: Assesses the extent to which work practices comply with relevant legislation/regulation and are configured to provide best value for the business: 4.6 Work Control and Execution: Examines the processes by which operational activities are generated, prioritized, dispatched, closed and recorded; 4.7 Consumable Management: Addresses the procurement of asset related consumables to ensure best value procurement processes; 4.8 Asset Operational Monitoring: Covers the process by which the participants manage the operational status of the asset base. 4.9 Asset Productivity Optimization: Examines the operational processes which have been developed by the participants and applied to optimize the performance of the assets Review and Improvement: The process developed by the participants to assess and address shortcomings in its operational strategy: JANUARY 2008 WSAA 17

18 2.2.5 Function 5 Asset Maintenance Overview: This function measures the performance of the agency in maintaining its existing assets to ensure they are capable of supporting the operations function and achieving the required level of service. The function also seeks to identify the extent to which maintenance should be performed in a manner that deliver the participants objectives at the lowest long run cost. Component processes: The processes assessed in this function are: 5.1 Business Objective Knowledge: The extent to which the elements of the participants maintenance strategy relate to the overall corporate objectives (and vice versa); 5.2 Asset Technical Knowledge: Assesses the extent to which asset information is reliable, relevant to the maintenance process and up to date; 5.3 Business Based Maintenance Strategy: Examines the procedures in place to ensure that the maintenance strategy supports the corporate objectives; 5.4 Maintenance Procedures Documentation: Assesses the extent to which maintenance documentation is up to date, readily available to maintenance personnel, and disseminated to staff; 5.5 Work Practices: Processes used by the participants to ensure that work practices comply with relevant legislation/regulation and the extent to which work groups are configured for greatest efficiency; 5.6 Execution of the Maintenance Strategy: addresses the processes used by the participants to record implementation of the maintenance strategy including management of non conformance and backlog works; 5.7 Consumables and Spares Management: The process applied by the participants to procure asset related consumables in a manner which ensures best value ; 5.8 Review and Improvement: The process developed by the participants to assess and address shortcomings in its maintenance strategy: Function 6 Asset Rehabilitation/Replacement Overview: This function examines the performance of the agency in determining the optimal time to replace or rehabilitate its assets. The function seeks to identify the extent to which the participant s rehabilitation/replacement strategy addresses the agency s business objectives at the lifecycle cost. This function also includes asset disposal procedures covering retired assets. Component processes: The processes assessed in this function are: 6.1 Business Objective Knowledge: assesses the extent to which the elements of the participants asset replacement and rehabilitation strategies relate to the overall corporate objectives (and vice versa); JANUARY 2008 WSAA 18

19 6.2 Asset Risk and Replacement Options: examines the processes used by the participants to manage the risk of asset failure (or non performance) in a cost effective manner; 6.3 Identification of End of Economic Life: Assesses the processes used by the participants to determine how an assets physical or economic life is assessed and how it is utilized in the renewal/rehabilitation decision process; 6.4 Acquisition of Replacement and Rehabilitation Assets: Assesses the participant s processes for procuring asset replacement or renewal in a cost effective manner. Also tests the extent to which this process is similar to that used in the acquisition of new assets; 6.5 End of Economic Life Projection and Replacement and Rehabilitation Capital Expenditure Forecasting: Assesses the process used by the participants for determining the extent to which the renewal capital works program reflects the end of economic life assumptions derived under process 6.3; 6.6 Review and Improvement: The process developed by the participants to assess and address shortcomings in its asset rehabilitation/replacement strategy Function 7 Business Support Systems. Overview: This function measures the performance of the agency in the provision of data, information and management support processes which support the other six asset management functions. The Business Support Systems function is structured differently to Functions 1-6. Assessment of this function consists of a comprehensive list of information systems that are assessed across a total of eighteen (18) considerations (see discussion under Scoring). Component elements: The range of support systems assessed under this function are Water Distribution System Hydraulic Modeling Water Distribution System Real Time modeling Sewer Transportation Network Hydraulic Modeling Water Quality Modeling, modeling and reporting systems Treatment plant modeling Water source modeling Climate modeling Waste receiving environment modeling Drainage modeling Asset/equipment register Geographic Information for linear Assets and Associated Equipment Technical Information Library Customer Service System Asset Condition/Failure Likelihood information systems Risk management information systems SCADA and operational history Maintenance Management Systems Stores and Inventory Management System Energy Accounting System Asset Based Costing System Customer Survey Data Base JANUARY 2008 WSAA 19

20 2.3 The Scoring Process Functions General Scoring of the participant s asset management processes is undertaken at the measures level within the framework. These measures have been designed to collectively define each sub process and, in turn, the process and function. Each of the measures contained within functions one to six are assessed across four parameters. These parameters are: Process development Process documentation Process coverage across the agency; and Frequency of implementation the process. The first two of these parameters are considered to be measures of the participant s capability in developing and documenting appropriate processes. The later two parameters are considered to be measures of the participant s ability to execute its nominated process 6. The approach taken is illustrated in Figure 2.3 with the key components discussed in greater detail below Figure 2.3 Schematic Outline of the Scoring Process The Aquamark software includes supporting text for almost all of the measures. This supporting text provides additional information on the intent of the measure, some scenarios (to put the measure in context) and typical questions that could be considered in determining the participant s response Overview of Capability These measures define the capacity of the participants to deliver a desired outcome. The capability is measured in two parts. The first consideration in measuring the participant s capability is to determine the maturity and robustness of the processes which the participants has identified and developed to deliver the outcome. That is, to what extent has the participants developed a robust process. The extent to which the participants have documented the process to ensure uniform implementation comprises the other half of the assessment. 6 If a process is not undertaken by the business then the user can check the Not Undertaken box and no further assessment is necessary. This is particularly relevant for those businesses which may not undertake the full range of water service activities. In this case, the business will receive a nil score for that sub process. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 20

21 The combination of understanding the processes (or at least the need for processes to be developed) and the extent to which those processes have been documented to ensure consistency in their application determines the organizations overall capability for a given measure. A brief description of the criteria and definition of the participant s capability is provided in the scoring matrix provided below Overview of Execution The objective in assessing the participant s execution is to determine how effectively the participants have put its capability into practice on the ground. The first component of this attribute is an assessment of the process coverage. Coverage includes: Geographic coverage: does it extend across all service areas within the participants scope; and/or Functional coverage: does it extend across all staff linked to the process. The second component in defining execution is a measure of the relative frequency of use of the developed process. This indicates the degree to which the participant s personnel are committed to the process Constraints There are some constraints placed on the scoring within the Aquamark software. These constraints have been applied in recognition of the fact that not all of the possible outcomes from the Capability/Execution matrix are compatible. For example, it is not possible for an organization to rank its process development as informal (i.e. implying that the need for the process is not clearly recognized) and rank its process documentation as Moderate or Advanced. Similarly, process coverage could not be measured as Sparse and yet rank its process frequency as Often. Recognizing these practical limitations, the scoring process is structured to follow a sequential pattern from process development to process documentation then cover and frequency. Constraints are also applied to selections within the execution matrix as a result of nominated selections in the capability matrix Those combinations which are regarded as incompatible selections are illustrated on Figure 2.4 JANUARY 2008 WSAA 21

22 Figure 2.4 Compatible selections. Handy Hint Linkages between Capability and Execution (an alternative approach): The Aquamark tool is designed to work sequentially through the capability/execution matrix. However, an alternative approach is to follow the process from its inception to its successful completion. Under this approach, the utility may consider its performance in the following sequence: Process Development How evolved are our processes Process Coverage How widespread are our processes; and Process Frequency how consistent are we in applying our processes Only then would the utility consider the question of Process Documentation (i.e. how well documented is our process). Under this approach, the process documentation is considered the most refined level of assessment and process development (i.e. the cream ). This alternative approach recognized that many utilities had sound processes in place but lacked the supporting documentation. The approach also removed the tendency for the process documentation selection to cloud the assessment of process execution. There is a risk that this approach leads to an incompatible sequence of outcomes. However, the outcomes of 2004 was that the constraints applied in the model were generally consistent with this alternative approach Scoring Matrix (Functions 1 to 6) JANUARY 2008 WSAA 22

23 The scoring matrix used for function 1 to 6 is summarized in the following table Handy Hint: We recommend that, when undertaking work on Aquamark, users print out a hard copy of the scoring matrix for easy reference JANUARY 2008 WSAA 23

24 Process Development Process Documentation Process Coverage Coverage is assessed on two fronts: a) Geographic across what areas of the participant? b) Functionally across what staff / personnel associated with the process. Process frequency This is a measure of relative frequency of use in those areas using the process. It indicates the degree to which the Participant s personnel are committed to the use of the process. Table 2.5 Capability Matrix Informal Aware Formulated Advanced Robust The need for the process is not clearly recognized within the participants. Little definition of purpose or objective. No formal development. There is no documentation available to describe the process or how it is to be implemented. The need for process is understood within the participants. The purpose and objectives are defined. Development has commenced. Detailed aspects of the process are understood. Development is progressing. Process development is substantially complete and is yet to be tested and verified. The purpose, objective and detail is understood by the persons (s) responsible / accountable for the process Process development has been completed, tested and verified by the persons (s) responsible / accountable for the process None Minimal Moderate Advanced Complete Some brief notes are Documentation is available (although structured but not there is no certainty as comprehensive. to their accuracy, completeness or usefulness.) Documentation is substantially complete but may not yet have been subject to testing and verification by the persons (s) responsible / accountable for the process Documentation is completed, tested and verified by the person (s) responsible / accountable for the process. Table 2.6 Execution Matrix Sparse Limited Moderate Predominant Total The process is in use in very few areas/functions of the participants (i.e. only a few personnel know about the process). Generally this would be less than 25% of relevant areas/functions The process is in use in few areas/functions of the participants (e.g. between 25% and 50% of relevant areas/functions). Significant gaps are readily identified The process is known and in use by personnel in many areas/functions. (e.g. between 50% and 75% of relevant areas/functions) The participant is confident that the process is in use in most areas (i.e. >75% of relevant areas/functions) but cannot demonstrate this with certainty. The participant can demonstrate that the process is in use in all areas. Rarely Occasionally Often Usually Always The process is used intermittently with no systematic management Use of the process is uncommon. The participants can demonstrate that the process is often used and the developed process is generally adhered to. The participant is confident that the process is used consistently by the business (with few deviations from the developed process) but cannot demonstrate this with certainty. The participants can demonstrate that the process is always used as required by the developed process. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 24

25 Case Study 6: Determining a score The Western Water Utility (WWU) has been providing water services to the local region for the past 50 years. The business has reached a high degree of proficiency in many routine activities and is regarded as one of the best in responding to and repairing watermain breaks. The (ageing) workforce within the organization takes a great deal of pride in its ability to respond to these measures. However, while the process is understood among the workforce, it has never been fully documented. How would the business performance be measured using the Aquamark scoring procedure? Clearly the business processes are well developed. All key personnel within the workforce have a clear and consistent understanding of the process for responding to watermain breaks. The business has tested alternative ways of undertaking the work and the current process represents the sum total of all learning s within the business to date (i.e. improvements have been made over time and verbally communicated to ensure that an optimized process is used). Using the Aquamark scoring system, the business would most likely score very highly in terms of its process development (e.g. a Robust process). However, the business has never taken the opportunity to fully document the procedure. While a procedure does exist, it hasn t been updated since the early 1990s and is out of date (i.e. current, more efficient practices are used in the field). To date this has not been seen as an issue for the business as all staff understands the way it s done around here. However, the business is beginning to realize that its workforce is ageing and, as a result, there is a chance that the knowledge could be lost and the process may, over a longer period of time, start to suffer. Given that the business does have a documented process (albeit one that is out of date), the business could be ranked around the moderate level for its process documentation. In terms of execution, the process is consistently used in all of the utilities service areas and hence would most likely be ranked highly in terms of process coverage. As outlined earlier, while the process is not documented, the business is confident that the process is applied consistently. The business may then be able to justify a higher ranked score in terms of process frequency (e.g. Always. Key Message(s): A business does not have to have perfect documentation to score highly across all four facets of the scoring matrix. The Aquamark framework recognizes that processes within many organizations are currently executed at a high standard despite comprehensive documentation (as well as recognizing that processes in some organizations are well documented but executed poorly or inconsistently) Scoring Matrix (Function7) As stated earlier, the scoring matrix for function seven (7) Business Support Systems, is different from that used for all other functions. The scoring matrix used to assess each of the systems included in this function examines a diverse array of measures which are relevant to the development and application of such business systems. This includes the following: System Functionality; System Capacity; Data Capture; Data inputs; Data verification; Data integrity; Data security; Data accessibility; JANUARY 2008 WSAA 25

26 Data format; System interconnectivity; Production of reports; User documentation; Usability; Functional specifically; System maintenance; System reliability; and Processes for review and improvement. The complete scoring matrix for this function is provided in Appendix A Handy Hint Managing Divergent Opinions and/or variable performance There will be many instances where participants will identify significant legitimate interpretations of scoring on individual measures. These may arise through differences between groups (eg the Northern division have sound documentation and consistent processes; the southern division have poor documentation and ad-hoc process execution). In these instances, the suggested process for resolving such questions included the following: a) Objectivity: Are the differences a legitimate reflection of the businesses capacity/execution or are the differences due to more subjective drivers (eg our processes may be well developed, consistently executed and deliver outcomes but I just don t like it ; The processes used by my previous employer suited me better so I marked it down ); b) Interpretation of the Measure: Each measure has its own description which should be read carefully. When confronted with different interpretations, participants should identify (i.e. highlight or underline) the key words or phrases and then test the alternative opinions against those key words/phrases; c) Materiality: Determine how important the difference is to the business. For example, consider the case of asset delivery/project management. Perhaps the Northern division have sound processes in place but the southern division does not. However, we know that all the growth is in the north (with very little growth in the south). In this instance, it would be the opinion of those from the Northern division that would be recorded in preference to the scoring from the south on the basis that the north is where the key outcomes are most important to the business. Alternatively, a business may be more advanced in its consideration of economic life and risk for passive assets (pipes) than it is with its active assets (pump stations etc). As the pipes represent the majority of the businesses asset base (and assuming that the active assets are in good condition) then the scoring which is relevant to the passive assets may prevail. d) Document the logic: In all such instances, we recommend that participants make use of the comments field sin the Aquamark software to outline the rationale used in adopting the scoring. Comments placed within the fields provided will allow a participant to establish a consistent and informed rationale for why a given score was selected Assessment The Aquamark software allows a participant to undertake a comparison at the function and process level. The software does not provide comparisons below the process level. It is considered that the discrete nature of these measures makes reporting (and particularly benchmarking) below the process level largely meaningless. However, the participant can still use the distribution of sub processes and JANUARY 2008 WSAA 26

27 measure scores to undertake a more detailed assessment of its strengths and weaknesses in asset management. Such detailed assessment can be undertaken by cloning the initial data base and using the cloned file to undertake a range of what if scenarios (e.g. what would be the impact if we improved our documentation in key areas?) 2.4 The Asset Management Profile General Once the assessment is complete, the Aquamark tool provides a comprehensive data set for assessment of the participant s asset management process functionality. The primary outcome of the assessment is the development of the organizations Asset Management Profile. The profile will include an overall picture of the participant s performance across each of the seven functions. The participant can then drill down on each function to identify which key processes which influence the outcome. Figure 2.7 Example of an Asset Management Profile (Function Level) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Corporate Policy & Business Planning Asset Capability Planning Asset Acquisition Asset Operation Asset Maintenance Asset Replacement & Rehab. Business Support Systems JANUARY 2008 WSAA 27

28 Figure 2.8 Outcomes at the Process Level The participant may wish to drill down further into the sub processes and measures to establish a detailed business improvement plan. It should be emphasized that the framework does not establish what is appropriate for a given participant (refer Case Study 7). Either the participant itself or a competent third party engaged by the participant, must analyze the outcomes and determine whether any comparatively poorly performing areas require improvement to achieve the agencies business objectives. Likewise, analysis of good performance may highlight that too much emphasis has been placed in a particular area and the participant could reallocate resources elsewhere Interpreting the outcomes: The framework does not provide a single point of reference for generic assessment of organizations. That is, Aquamark does not produce a single number which summarizes the overall performance of the participants across all 7 functions. Instead, the software will produce an overall Asset Management Profile for the participants which can then be assessed at the sub-process level. The overall Asset Management Profile will highlight the participants overall score in each of the 7 key functional areas. From this, the participants can undertake benchmarking of its performance with the participant 7 that performed the best in EACH individual functional area (refer for more detail on how such comparison may be undertaken). To get a complete picture of the participant s performance relative to its peers, the participants will need to examine the benchmarking for EACH function separately. 7 Information provided during the project is considered to be Commercial in confidence, The tool will not allow participants to directly identify other participants (i.e. it will not identify those utilities which are currently assessed at best practice for a given function). Participants may request advice from WSAA on who the best performing utility is. In this instance, WSAA will approach the utility in question and would only reveal the utilities identify if that business provides its consent. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 28

29 The software does not provide the user with a measure of best practice in every function on the one diagram. This reflects that some participants will tend to outperform in some areas and underperforms in others. It is unlikely that a single participant would represent best practice across all 7 functions (refer Case Studies 6 and 7). Once the participant has undertaken the comparison at function level, it may then identify possible areas for improvement for the participants. The choice of which function(s) to focus on will be a decision which is largely unique to each participant and will reflect the businesses drivers (high/low growth; old/new assets etc) and corporate strategies. Undertaking benchmarking of the key functions and at the process level will then provide the participants with an indication of which processes may need to be improved. Figure 2.9 Identifying potential areas of improvement Best Practice Utility Your Business Performance From the above diagram, the water utility may identify that it is well behind best practice in the areas of Level of Service and Planning for Optimised Assets. This suggests that the business has an opportunity to improve in these areas 8. Whether a business decides to pursue such opportunities will depend on its overall corporate strategy and targeted outcomes (refer Case Study 7) Case Study 7 What is an appropriate outcome? Consider two organizations: Silver City Water (SCW) is located in a high growth area. Silver City is also comparatively young with relatively few assets much older than 50 years. The second organization, Downtown Water is one of the oldest developed areas within the state/county and has a large number of ageing assets. Downtown Water also services an area that is comparatively stable (i.e. low growth). Both organizations are of comparable size and undertake the Aquamark 8 In this instance, the business could clone its initial data set and undertake a range of what if scenarios to identify which sub processes and activities would provide the greatest improvement. Refer Section Scenario Assessment for more information. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 29

30 assessment. When compared with its peer group, Silver City Waters assessment shows that the business is rated at or around the mean across all 6 operational functions. Downtowns assessment indicates that it is strongest in functions 4-6 but is lagging its peers when a comparison is done for Functions 2 and 3. In this instance, it could be argued that SCWs asset management processes may need a review and possibly reconsideration of resourcing. While SCW performed at the mean for Asset Capability Planning (Function 2) and Asset Acquisition (Function 3), this may be a poor result for an organization which is subject to significant growth pressures. Similarly, the businesses performance in asset rehabilitation/renewal (while admirable) may indicate that there are some resources available in this area which could be better used in assisting the business lift its asset planning and delivery strategies (i.e. as asset renewal/rehabilitation may not be key business drivers, relative out performance in this function could represent over allocation of resources) In contrast, Downtowns relative underperformance in asset capacity planning and asset acquisition could be simply a reflection of the fact that the business is more focused on managing the existing (ageing) assets rather than planning for new growth. The Aquamark profile for Downtown (with proportional out performance in function 4-6 and relative underperformance in Function 2 and 3) may be entirely consistent with the challenges facing that business and the associated business strategies. Key Messages: The businesses Aquamark profile should be consistent with the businesses overall position in the asset lifecycle and business strategies (i.e. is it in a young/fast growing area where the emphasis should be on Function 2 and 3 or does it have a lot of older assets and should arguably outperform in the asset maintenance and renewal areas) Scenario Assessment: The Aquamark software will allow participants the opportunity to undertake a variety of assessment. First, participants may make a decision as to whether they will undertake an Integrated assessment or separate assessments for the water and sewerage components of the business. Separate assessments can assist those businesses for which the water and sewerage activities are undertaken by completely different sections of the business,. The separate assessment also allows the utility to compare its performance with other similar businesses (i.e. compare with other water only or sewer only businesses). The decision to undertake an integrated or separate assessment is a key strategic decision for the utility and should be made by management well before the commencement of the self assessment. Participants should not underestimate the resource commitment required for a successful outcome. At any stage in the process, (whether the business is undertaking an Integrated or separate assessment), participants can choose to clone (copy) their data set. Participants may choose to undertake such cloning to separate out specific functions of the business (eg separate operations from maintenance) OR to undertake scenario analysis. The decision to clone the data base for specific functions should be made with care as the final assessment needs to include all functions of the business. Cloning the overall completed assessment can allow the business to undertake a range of scenario testing. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 30

31 3.0 Software Operation: 3.1 Overview The above sections of the user manual have been designed to introduce the concepts and mechanisms which underpin the Aquamark software. The purpose of this section of the manual is to provide the user with more specific direction on how to use the software. Hence, this section of the manual provides a succinct step by step guide to using the Aquamark Software as well as providing some tips on how the data may be managed. 3.2 Step 1 Administration and Introduction: The Welcome Screen: The first screen presented to the user is the welcome screen (Figure 3.1). This screen simply welcomes the user to the software. As the software is displayed in a standard internet browser format, clicking anywhere on the screen will take the user to the next step by starting the login screen. The screen can be accessed through the WSAA website or at the following web address: Figure 3.1 The Welcome Screen JANUARY 2008 WSAA 31

32 3.2.2 Login The Login screen is the only entry point to the software. Only those users which have been granted a license by WSAA to use the software will be able to login. The user login will generally be the users address. The user password will initially be allocated by WSAA but users may change this password at any time 9. The login password must be a minimum of 8 characters. While the password is managed by one way encryption (making them quite secure), to ensure data security, complex passwords should be used. To further ensure security, the system will only allow users to make up to three login attempts. After the third unsuccessful login attempt, the user will be locked out. In the event of being locked out of the system, the User will need to phone or WSAA administration in order to have their access renewed and password reset. The first time a user logs in, the user will be presented with a Legal Notice Screen. This will outline the copyright and legal obligations relevant to use of the software. Figure The Login Screen Authority Selection: The software will then ask the user to select their authority before proceeding. The purpose of this screen is to allocate access to the data set to only those users who are authorized to view the data. Participating business will only be able to view their own data sets while the external assessor and WSAA itself will have access to a broader range of information. 9 Changes to password are made at the Browser Screen JANUARY 2008 WSAA 32

33 Figure Authority Selection The Aquamark Browser screen After successfully login in to the software, the user will then arrive at the Browser Screen The browser screen allows the user to navigate to any number of data sets which have been created by the participants. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 33

34 Figure 3.4 Browser Screen From this screen the user can select one of the following operations: Manage an Existing data set: In most cases, the user will identify the data set which they are seeking to further develop or interrogate. By clicking on to the appropriate line within the table, the user will gain access to the specific data set. This screen also provides a useful summary of the scope of data sets available to the user and the statues of each. Create a New Data set The icon at the top left of this window allows the user to create a new data set. This functionality provides the user with a range of options. Users may seek to create a series of separate data sets for discrete functions (e.g. water vs. sewerage or divisions within the business (e.g. Northern division vs. southern division). Handy Hints: To ensure data security, we recommend that agencies create as few data sets as practical. Where businesses are divided into separate functional units (e.g. water vs. sewerage0 or geographical areas, we suggest that the assessment is undertaken using either the Word or excel versions of the tool (refer Section 3.3.1). This version of the database allows the agency to collate the data for the project which can then be incorporated into the database in a controlled manner. Once the initial assessment is largely complete, the agency may consider developing duplicate copies of the base data from which the business could undertake a range of what if assessments. To achieve this, the business should identify the existing data set and, at the Information window, select the clone option (Refer section 3.3.3) JANUARY 2008 WSAA 34

35 After an existing (or new) data set is selected, the software provides the user with the Information sheet. This sheet requires the user to enter basic information including the name, category (water, wastewater or an integrated assessment), the type of data set being created (accredited data, non-accredited, self assessed or test data), the status of the data set (draft, final or void), the draft number and a text description of the data set (i.e. what makes this data set different from the others). Figure 3.5 Information Administration: The Administration screen simply allows the user to change their password JANUARY 2008 WSAA 35

36 Figure 3.6 Administration Screen Internal Comparison: The internal comparison link allows the user to nominate the data sets they may wish to compare. This allows the user to undertake a wide range of what if scenarios with the data sets contained within the software. The internal comparison mechanism can be used to compare a range of alternative data sets which may have been created by individual participants. The functionality can also be used to compare the impact which proposed changes in business strategy or processes may have on its overall asset management capability. 3.3 Step 2 Managing an Existing Data set Measure Selection: The measure selection is a key component of the software s assessment data input. The first screen that the user is presented with is the Function level screen. This screen lists the seven functions described above. Text boxes on the right hand side of the screen provide the user with useful comments on the scope of the particular function including a summary of the component processes which comprise that function. This screen uses an explorer style tree view to allow the user to easily navigate to the desired function, process or measure. Simply clicking on an item expands the screen automatically. By doing so, the software progressively identifies the process, sub process and then the measures which compromise each function within Aquamark. At the measures level, the user has the option of entering the participant s response to each of the fours scoring criteria. Once a given measure is selected, the screen will also provide a current combined score for the item. The score is derived from the responses entered across the four parameters of process development, documentation, coverage and frequency (refer to section 2.3) JANUARY 2008 WSAA 36

37 Figure 3.7 Measure Selection Screen JANUARY 2008 WSAA 37

38 Handy Hint: Managing the collection and collating the data is one of the main challenges in the Aquamark process. This becomes particularly problematic in large organizations where responses are required from multiple business units across a variety of areas within the framework. Issues of data security need to be carefully managed. Problems may arise if more than one person has access to the master data set. Recognizing this issue, WSAA has included some additional functionality which can assist the utility in its data gathering process. One of the processes that worked well in the 2004 project was to limit direct access to the master data base and collate the input data from all users in a form which was compatible with the software and therefore easy to input. This was the process adopted by several agencies to achieve a consistent and controlled outcome: The business nominated a single person as the manager of the Aquamark software and data base. This manager created the master data set ; However, at the information screen (Figure 3.5), the user may click on the Detailed report icon. By doing this, the user is then presented with three options. The report can be downloaded in either Word, PDF or excel format. Many agencies downloaded the report in either a word or excel format. The Detailed Report includes a summary of all of the processes, sub process and measures used within the software. The manager can then select the issues relevant to particular groups within the business (e.g. the Asset Capability and Forward Planning and other relevant sections of the framework may be issued to the person within the business who is responsible for that function. Similarly, only the Asset Operations components of the framework may be issued to the businesses operations manger). By breaking the data set up in this way, the person responsible for ensuring the integrity of the Aquamark data will know what information is being provided by whom within the organization. The relevant information is then entered into the excel or word files and provided back to the manager responsible for the Aquamark database. This person can then examine the data (to ensure that there are no inconsistencies between groups for example we may have sound processes in wastewater for a particular indicator but not as strong in the water area) and enter the responses directly into Aquamark. This approach makes participating in the project less daunting to the specialists within the organization and allows the nominated manager to collate the data in a structured way. This also improves the businesses data security by reducing the number of people who access the live database. Refer to the separate Assessment Guideline for more details JANUARY 2008 WSAA 38

39 Case Study 8: Managing Silos: One of the observations from the 2004 project was the tendency for larger businesses to form silos in the management of their businesses. The nature of effective asset management means that activities undertaken across the organization need to be managed in a cooperative manner. For example, those undertaking the asset planning and design function need to ensure that those responsible for construction can deliver the asset (e.g. is it constructible, do we have the capability to deliver? Is it affordable?) As well as the needs of the operator (e.g. the cheapest capital solution may also be the most expensive to operate; poor design may create workplace safety issues etc). In larger organizations, the tendency seems to be to manage each function as an independent business. Those agencies that were identified as high performers in 2004 were those agencies that could coordinate and manage their performance across the functions Measure Screen The measure screen is where the user enters its response on the participant s capability and execution. The first decision for the user to make at this point is to determine if, in fact, the participants undertakes this particular sub process. If the sub process is not undertaken, then the user should simply tick the appropriate box (labeled not undertaken ) which is located at the top of the screen. For those measures that the user enters a response, the screen provides a cascading choice of four items to complete the composite score. As each item is reviewed and scored the next level is revealed. As discussed in Section 2.0, the software will only allow compatible sections in the Capability and Execution fields. For example, if a participant identifies its process development as informal (i.e. implying that the need for the process is not clearly recognized) it would not make sense for the participants to rank its process documentation as Moderate or Advanced. Similarly, the software would not allow the user to identify process coverage as Sparse and yet rank its process frequency as occurring Often. It is for this reason that the software deliberately guides the user through a logical path of choices. In the event that a user makes a mistake, the software allows the user to simply reset the measure and then re-enter the data. Supporting the text of almost all the measures is a comments field which provides additional direction on what the measure is seeking to assess. This additional text is designed to provide further description on the individual measure and examples to provide a context within which the user can interpret their response. This field may also include typical questions that could be asked as part of the assessment. Using the Measure Selection and Measure Screen, the user can step through the entire Aquamark assessment process. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 39

40 Figure 3.8 Measure Screen Handy Hint: Users should take care not to underestimate the resources required to complete the self assessment. The comprehensive nature of the framework means that participating businesses should consider establishing a project team to mange the project. Establishment of such a team provides a range of advantages, including: Clear accountability for delivery of aspects of the framework; A consistent understanding (and interpretation) of key components of the framework; Consistency in responses during the external review process; and Improved data security Participants in the 2004 project were advised to allow between four (4) and six (6) weeks in which to complete the self assessment. Refer to the separate Assessment Guideline for more details on issues to be considered in managing the process Creating new data sets: Once the user has substantially created a data set they can clone the data set. Cloning of the data set can allow the participants to undertake a range of what if scenarios which can assist the participants develop its business improvement strategies. A data set can be cloned simply by selecting the data set and, at the summary screen, using the button at the bottom left of the screen to provide a complete copy of the data set. JANUARY 2008 WSAA 40

41 3.4 Step 3 Undertaking Comparisons: Internal Comparisons: At any stage in the process, the software will allow the user to undertake comparative analysis of its data sets. Such analysis can be undertaken at the function or process level. Initially, the extent of comparison will be limited to the organizations own data sets. At the completion of the project, the organization will be eligible to undertake comparison with other external data. To undertake a comparison between data sets, the user simply clicks into the internal comparison icon at the Browser Screen (refer Figure 3.4). This icon will then identify those data sets which are available for comparison by the user: The user can then identify the data sets they want to include in the comparison by simply clicking onto the vacant box located to the left of the project name. The software will then present the user with a comparison of the data sets at the function level. Further comparison (as the process level) can be undertaken by first identifying the function of interest. This is done by clicking on to the relevant function in the graphical display. Once this function is identified, it will change from a light/transparent color to a solid color. By then clicking the Processes button at the bottom right hand side of the screen, the software will then display a comparison of the data at the process level. The user can download these comparisons in either a word or pdf format. Figure 3.9 Internal Comparison Screen This internal comparison functionality can be used as a key tool for continuous improvement within the participants. Since the 2004 project, some of the participating agencies have continued to use the tool to undertake ongoing assessments and identify business improvement initiatives JANUARY 2008 WSAA 41

42 3.4.2 External Comparison: Once all data sets have been completed and subject to external review, the participants will be able to undertake a comparison of its performance with a variety of data sets developed as part of the overall project. The score analysis sheet (Figure 3.10) will allow the participants to undertake comparisons against the results provided by comparable organizations including: Those located within a given region (e.g. allowing a comparison of US with US agencies or comparison of US with Australian participants; Those of a given size; and/or Those of a given category (e.g. water only participants) Figure 3.10 Score Analysis Window JANUARY 2008 WSAA 42

43 Figure 3.11 Score Analysis at the Function Level The software will also allow the participants to view its relative performance against its nominated peer group at the process as well as function level. By clicking on to a specific function, the user can view their relative performance by process. Figure 3.12 Score Analysis at the Process Level JANUARY 2008 WSAA 43