IUKAN Session 2 Proceedings: Understanding the utility customers - helping the utilities in better roll out of operationalize

With more and more utilities struggling to engage rightly with their customers, IUKAN 2013 was torch bearer in highlighting the best practices in providing insights into the whole customer engagement process. Some of the top leaders in the utility segment presented their views on how the customers form one of the most important, yet not recognized, pillars for the success of the utility operations.

The driving philosophy behind the session was to discuss the key challenges are utilities are facing in engaging with the customers. The session also talked of the vision for the utilities to have for its customer-engagement initiatives, in light of the fast changing nature of the utility customer.

Efficient Billing and Collection - Key to reducing NRW

While exploring the various methodologies used by the water utilities to reduce Non-Revenue-Water (NRW), one of the better avenues available is achieving higher efficiency in the billing and collection processes. This blog explains the ideology behind the principle of higher billing and collection efficiency for reduced NRW.

Now, the main components of losses in the whole water distribution system and the details of the commercial losses are explained in the figure.

Categorization of losses

Billing and Collection efficiency are the customer facing processes of the utilities and are quite independent from the other internal processes. Whatever consumer meter data is read and recorded, is used for billing. Further to that, recoveries from the consumers who are billed, is to be made. And hence, we are talking of Billing & Metering efficiency as a combined package, and area of focus.

Improvements on these parameters are measurable as well as traceable to a bit higher degree than most others. Above all, these are processes which an utility can outsource to a vendor managed process. Optimum service delivery agreements and appropriate process control, guided using a Balanced Scorecard, can be designed and implemented, and therefore, do not burn a hole in the pocket of the operator to set up.

Recommended readings:

• Introduction to The Balanced Scorecard Approach
• Improving revenue cycle efficiency for high performance 
• Improving efficiency in customer service without reducing customer satisfaction

Putting your best foot forward - Best Practices in Consumer Indexing

As the operator tries rolling out the services, the foremost task at-hand is creating the base-line for the utility. This, typically, is collated using a consumer survey called consumer indexing (CI). The operator main aim is to collect the information required for consumer demography and demand estimation.

The figure below shows the variety of data the consumer indexing, if designed properly, can yield:

Consumer Indexing - Why is it important?

Here's the catch though.

Since the consumer indexing process is an extensive full-city activity, our observation has been that it becomes extremely important for the operator to monitor the survey process continuously and ensure data accuracy.

Some of the Critical Factors for Success (CFS) for successful consumer indexing survey are listed below:

1. S.M.A.R.T. Goals: It is very important for the operator to upfront decide the data he wants to collect as a part of the consumer indexing process. The goals need to be identified across the teams which are going to be the users of the data collected. At the same time, the goals need to be clearly defined to the survey vendor so as to apprise him of the data usage. During our engagement with our clients, we have noticed that not much is done in documenting all the teams' requirements right in the beginning. We strongly recommend writing up a  well defined Data Requirement Document (DRD). It not only becomes one of the most important pillars of the CI Process but also avoids endless discussions between teams on what is required, by whom and by when.
2. Data collection methodology and medium: The operator should identify all the options available to select the best suited methodology to collect the data identified in the goals of the CI process. In the same step, the operator should also develop and design the medium, usually a survey form, for the CI process. The "wow" effect of the survey form design changes and improved efficiency of the consumer interview was observed when we re-designed the survey form from a functional flow question to a consumer interaction flow.
3. Well Defined Technical Specifications: The geo-spatial information being collected in the consumer indexing requires high end technical inputs to be ready for the survey before the start of the survey. These specifications include the likes of a high resolution satellite image of the area under survey, clear definitions of boundaries of zones and sub-zones (if any), etc.
4. Appropriate Data Validation Rules (DVR): Once the DRD and Technical spcs are frozen, the operator should identify for itself the validation rules he needs to apply to check the data being collected by the CI vendor. Inappropriate or too rigid validation rules lead either to mass rejection or too poor quality of data being collected.
5. Vendor Selection and Engagement: Identifying a vendor capable of delivering the DRD as per the pre-set data standards becomes the core of the CI project execution. As much important it is to identify the correct vendor, it is also the operator's responsibility to engage the vendor in a manner where the CI process can be handled in a smooth and timely manner.
6. Design and Deployment of Project Management Techniques: The CI activity usually spans a substantial period of time. This necessiates deployment of a Project Management team which is well versed with the DRD and Data Collection methodology. A well formed PM team with participation across stakeholder teams forms one of the important CFS for CI Process. The KRAs of the PM team should include Unitization of Work, Timeline planning, Progress monitoring, etc.
7. Business Process Management: The operator should be engaging in monitoring of not just the data being collected, but also the vendor processes. This, in the long term, helps the operator to achieve more accurate and timely data. Independent audits of internal as well as vendor processes always helps.

The data collected through CI process forms the base-line for the operator to put its plans (CapEx, OpEx, Revenue Planning) in place. Therefore, we believe, the onus of successful execution of the CI process is as much on the operator as it is for the survey vendor.

Challenges in and Levers for success of the 24x7 water supply projects in India

As one wonders what has been holding back the operationalization of the 24x7 water supply projects in India, we thought of penning down our observations around it.

Even before kicking-off the operations, one observes that the long gestation period (5+ years) to engage and realize even first pilot is a show-stopper. This is primarily because of:

• lack of standardization of the model, and various agency issues at Central, State & ULB level
• delays in contract sign-off & getting consensus on SLAs and new Tariff agreement
• Delayed financial closures - constricted investments flow from investors, because of perceived high risk of regulated (& politicised) utility

Levers for Successful Implementation of 24x7 Projects

As the operators take-over and start the operations, the first challenge hitting them in the face is the inaccurate baselines. Revisions in tariff, SLAs, employee deputation follow. The lack of education of customers, employees and local politicians on the PPP models affect all the other stakeholders. 

The nascency of the industry has created an acute shortage of skilled middle management resources that are ready to engage on-ground in Tier-2/3 towns. Further to this, the lack of investment from operators in Strategy, Structure, Systems and Processes, and doing it right from long term perspective creates a totally different shade of problems.

The technological levers of GIS modelling based on low confidence data collection, and fast obsoletion, no useful optimization and design possible. Only static view is captured on GIS and no real  updates happen in the system. Even though water metering (bulk and end-customers) and regular auditing is being stressed upon & invested in, no useful actions are enforced based on analytics. (Power sector has long been metering and doing energy audits, but losses have only increased, because of missing actions. Water is just starting to walk on same trail, and will likely see similar results.)

Finally, there seems to be a total lack of SLAs performance monitoring and enforcement institution. This gives rise to ever-moving targets, and cross blaming.

Overall, currently Management change, and Technology are being stressed upon for the success of 24x7 water supply projects. We believe that there is a need for two additional levers - Performance Monitoring and Customer Engagement, to bring effective Change Management. We strongly believe, that its operationalisation of these models that has to be improved, and rest will follow. 

Existing grid connected Solar PV Plants in India

MNRE has recently released the list of all grid operating solar PV projects in India (latest updated as on July 2011. See the detailed list here and also below).

Real gains for Utility and End-Consumers from Distribution Franchisee business

An obvious question with so much projected on Distribution Franchisee (DF) model is:

What real gains both the utility and end-consumers could expect coming out of the Distribution Franchisee model?

While Bhiwandi implementation of Distribution Franchisee has shown increased consumer satisfaction for improved service levels, but it is yet to be proved conclusively that the model has brought any significant monetary gains to the utility. The slow emergence of a potential impactful model (distribution franchisee) amidst opposition - from utility employees and end-consumers, could be attributed to missing INFORMATION and transparency. Opposition from utility employees is obvious as DF with its flavor of privatization is based upon driving cost efficiency by increasing productivity and hence reducing on numbers of utility employees. But opposition and fear from end-consumers is little less understood, when it doesn't matter that same power at same tariff (decided by State regulators & common to the state) comes from utility or DF. May be this fear from end-consumers has some roots in weaken regulation/enforcement or mis-information or perceived apprehensions.

In any case, going forward there are many questions, that needs clarification to smoothen resistance, but more importantly to engage all stakeholders well to co-create sustainable solutions. A few of importance are:

1. With reduced AT&C losses from 50+% to order of 15% and reduced administrative & operations costs, could it be expected to see decreasing power tariffs (or atleast no changes for 5-10 years inspite of rise in power procurement costs) as realised by end-consumers? If and how does DF monetary gains could be shared with its end-consumers?
   
• Since there is only one state level tariff plan prepared, consolidating audit reports from each circles/zones, the good and bad performances of different circles (including that of Franchisee's) get mixed to create one tariff plan. So in such case unless more decentralization penetrates in distribution, that DF circle end-consumers cannot expect their tariff plan alone to be improved. If however DF model scales all through out the state, then combined benefits could still bring common savings to all state end-consumers.
  
  
• Above would also mean that even if one circle's management did a poor job of cutting its AT&C losses, there is no way of penalizing them independently. The entire state end-consumers get penalized equally. This is one serious missing incentive structure that has plagued utility's performance.
  
  
2. How does exactly DF implementation improves profitability of the utility?
• What are financial calculations that local utility has to consider to make a strong case for bringing in Distribution Franchisee over business-as-usual case? What profits (if any) can utility expect by leasing out its assets for 15 years to Distribution Franchisee?
• How does the effective cost of distribution to local utility is accounted in setting benchmark input rates and its locking for next 15 years? We only hear the price realization terms like ABR (Average Billing Rate) and tariff setting term ARR (Aggregate Revenue Requirements) in RFP, but no comparison of these with actual cost of distribution.
  
• Has post DF termination and appropriate depreciation of assets already being accounted in investment decision making?
  
• Is utility prepared to take charge again post DF tenure or will it re-lease another DF term or there will be full privatization?

Post by: Rahul Bagdia @ pManifold