Workshop Summary: Effective Utility
Management Benchmarking — Current
Practice and Future Opportunities
Web Report #4630
Subject Area: Management and Customer Relations
Workshop Summary:
Effective Utility Management
Benchmarking — Current Practice
and Future Opportunities
©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
About the Water Research Foundation
The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3
nonprofit organization that sponsors research that enables water utilities, public health
agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to
consumers.
WRF’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve
this mission, WRF sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources,
treatment, and distribution. Nearly 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and
manufacturers in North America and abroad contribute subscription payments to support
WRF’s work. Additional funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national
and international organizations and the U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to
be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and
disseminated.
From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, WRF’s staff directs and supports the efforts of
more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These
volunteers represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to
select and monitor research studies that benefit the entire drinking water community.
Research results are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the
Website, Webcasts, workshops, and periodicals.
WRF serves as a cooperative program providing subscribers the opportunity to pool their
resources and build upon each other’s expertise. By applying WRF research findings,
subscribers can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water
science and technology. Since its inception, WRF has supplied the water community with
more than $460 million in applied research value.
More information about WRF and how to become a subscriber is available at
www.WaterRF.org.
©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Workshop Summary:
Effective Utility Management
Benchmarking — Current Practice
and Future Opportunities
Prepared by:
Michael Matichich and Fair Yeager
CH2MHill, Inc., 901 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1500 W, Washington, D.C. 20001
Sponsored by:
Water Research Foundation
6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235
Published by:
©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
DISCLAIMER
This study was funded by the Water Research Foundation (WRF). WRF assumes no
responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for the
opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for
commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of WRF. This
report is presented solely for informational purposes.
Copyright © 2015
by Water Research Foundation
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced
or otherwise utilized without permission.
Printed in the U.S.A.
©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Water Research Foundation Project 4630
Effective Utility Management Benchmarking: Current Practice and
Future Opportunities
Workshop Summary
An all‐day workshop titled Effective Utility Management (EUM) Benchmarking: Current Practice and Future Opportunities, was held on April 23, 2015 in Cincinnati, Ohio, in conjunction with the week‐long International Water Association (IWA) International Conference on Water Efficiency and Performance Assessment of Water Services. A brief summary for the Water Research Foundation (WRF) sponsored workshop is included as Attachment A. An agenda is included as Attachment B. Speaker presentations from the workshop are posted on the Expert Symposiums page on the WRF website. This workshop was convened to engage water utilities to become more aware of the Tool that was developed (WRF Project #4313, Performance Benchmarking for Effectively Managed Water Utilities) to assist water utilities in conducting a self‐assessment of one or more of the Ten Attributes of Effectively Managed Water Utilities and to better understand the Tool’s capabilities. The use of the Tool was demonstrated at the workshop, and utilities that participated in the original Project #4313 presented their experience using the Tool, including their utility’s drivers, challenges, and outcomes. The workshop provided the utility participants a venue to discuss their different approaches to, drivers for, and outcomes of using the Tool. In addition, industry experts on benchmarking talked about different benchmarking programs and approaches for water utilities, and discussed future directions for Effective Utility Management. Case study presentations of how utilities have used or are using the benchmarking tool were made. The case studies were presented by: 



Frank Roth, Senior Policy Manager, Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority: “Integrating the EUM Benchmarking Tool into Albuquerque’s Strategic Planning Process” Mike Sweeney, Deputy Executive Director, Toho Water Authority: “Toho’s Continuous Improvement Journey” Amber Halloran, Vice President and Treasurer, and Matthew Griffith, Business Development Analyst, Louisville Water Company: “Utilizing a Phased Approach to Implement EUM” Rick Bickerstaff, Charleston Water System: “Charleston Water System Performance Management and Benchmarking” Brief presentations and a facilitated dialogue among utilities that have worked with the WRF EUM benchmarking tool were made, including:  Diane Taniguchi‐Dennis, Deputy General Manager, Clean Water Services: “Does Benchmarking and EUM Matter to an Innovative and Entrepreneurial Utility of the Future?” 1 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.



Greg Heitzman, Executive Director, Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District: “Effective Utility Management: Louisville MSD Stakeholder Engagement Plan” Albert Kramer, Chief of Staff to First Deputy Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection: “New York City Department of Environmental Protection and Benchmarking” Madis Kreem, Business Management Analyst, Toronto Water: “Toronto Water EUM Model Evaluation” The final segment of the workshop included a facilitated dialogue among industry experts on benchmarking, following brief opening remarks. The participants are noted below:  Ken Mercer, Senior Manager of Technical and Research Programs, American Water Works Association (AWWA): “AWWA and Utility Management”  Matt Ries, Managing Director of Technical and Educational Services, Water Environment Federation (WEF)  Jim Horne, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): “Effective Utility Management: All About Sustainability and Still Going Strong”  Greg Ryan, Manager Utility Excellence, Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA): “Water Services Association of Australia Asset Management Improvement Project (Aquamark)”  Scott Haskins, Director of Strategic Consulting, CH2M Representatives of the water utilities (Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, Charleston Water, Clean Water Services, Louisville Water Company, Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Toho Water Authority, and Toronto Water) that participated in the WRF Project 4313, used the WRF Tool to evaluate various attributes for their utility as indicated below. (The attribute is shown in black font.) Customer Satisfaction
Community Sustainability
Financial Viability
Charleston Water
Employee Leadership and Development
Charleston Water
Louisville Water & MSD
Charleston Water
Clean Water Services
Toronto Water
NYC DEP
NYC DEP Infrastructure Stability
Albuquerque‐Bernalillo
Operational Optimization
Clean Water Services
Toronto Water
Operational Resiliency
Clean Water Services
TohoWater Authority
Toho Water Authority
Steakeholder Understanding and Support
Water Resource Adequacy
Louisville Water & MSD
Toho Water Authority
Product Quality
Albuquerque‐Bernalillo
Louisville Water & MSD
NYC DEP Albuquerque‐Bernalillo
2 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Some of the take‐home messages that were distilled from the presentations and discussions during the workshop include: Related to the WRF Tool 


Using the WRF Tool (Performance Benchmarking for Effectively Managed Water Utilities Tool) promotes communication among water utility staff of different departments and different roles and responsibilities. The WRF Tool can be used during strategic planning exercises to help identify gaps in performance (related to an attribute), and to initiate discussions for appropriate utility goals. It is important for water utilities to understand where they are in their journey for continuous improvement, and where they want to go. The WRF Tool can assist utilities in this effort. Related to Continuous Improvement 




Engaging all of water utility staff in effective utility management and continuous improvement efforts is needed for success. It is important to share utility performance information with customers. It is important to share utility performance information with governing bodies (Boards of Directors, City Councils, County Councils, and other executive agencies that oversee utility systems) Develop and use appropriate performance metrics to help measure outcomes. Different approaches, tools, and frameworks are available to use in the continuous improvement journey toward utility performance excellence. Some of the tools and frameworks that were referenced during the workshop include: 

ANSI (American National Standard Institute)/AWWA Standard G400‐09, Utility Management System Standard http://www.awwa.org/store/standards/utility‐management.aspx o G400‐09 describes critical requirements for establishing a utility management system for a water or wastewater utility that will promote continuous improvement. The standard explains seven management system components: commitment to resources; legal, regulatory and other requirements; standard compliance; tracking and measuring improvement; communication; training; and emergency preparedness. AWWA Benchmarking http://www.awwa.org/resources‐tools/water‐and‐wastewater‐utility‐
management/benchmarking.aspx 3 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.



o AWWA administers an annual utility benchmarking survey. Utility managers can evaluate their utility’s performance in five operational areas of: organizational development, customer relations, business operations, water operations, and wastewater operations. AWWA Partnership for Safe Water http://www.awwa.org/resources‐tools/water‐and‐wastewater‐utility‐
management/partnership‐for‐safe‐water.aspx o The Partnership offers self‐assessment and optimization programs so that operators, managers and administrators have the tools to improve performance. Effective Utility Management http://watereum.org/ o In May 2007, six associations representing the U.S. water and wastewater sector, including the American Public Works Association, the American Water Works Association, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the National Association of Water Companies, and the Water Environment Federation, in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), signed an agreement pledging to support effective utility management collectively and individually throughout the water sector and to develop a joint strategy to identify, encourage, and recognize excellence in water and wastewater utility management. o They developed ten Attributes as a basis for promoting improved management within the sector. The Attributes can be viewed as a continuum of, or a set of building blocks for, management improvement opportunities. European Benchmarking Co‐operation https://www.waterbenchmark.org/ o The European Benchmarking Co‐operation (EBC) is an industry‐based, not‐for‐
profit benchmarking initiative for water services. The mission of EBC Foundation is to facilitate water‐ & wastewater utilities in the continuous process of improving & innovating water services and raising transparency. For this, EBC offers an international benchmarking program for water services and provides a platform for exchanging leading/best practices of management and operations. 4 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.



Florida Benchmarking Consortium (FBC) http://www.flbenchmark.org/ o The FBC is an intra‐state local government benchmarking consortium within the United States. There currently are approximately 51 member local governments in the FBC. Each member local government participates across 18 local government performance management‐focused service areas, potentially using a combined total of over 670 performance measures that have been dynamically crafted and improved over time by service area experts from the many industries of Florida's local governments. ISO (International Standards Organization) 9000 Quality Management http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_9000 o The ISO 9000 series form the basis for continual improvement and business excellence and is comprised of:  ISO 9000 provides the fundamentals and vocabulary used in the entire ISO 9000 family of standards. It sets the stage for understanding the basic elements of quality management as described in the ISO standards. ISO 9000 introduces users to the eight Quality Management Principles as well as the use of the process approach to achieve continual improvement.  ISO 9001 is used to establish a quality management system  ISO 9004 is used to extend the benefits obtained from ISO 9001 to all parties that are interested in or affected by your operations. Interested parties include your employees, owners, suppliers, partners and society in general.  ISO 19011 covers the area of auditing of quality management systems and environmental management systems. ISO 14000 Environmental Management http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management‐standards/iso14000.htm o The ISO 14000 series provides practical tools for companies and organizations of all kinds looking to manage their environmental responsibilities. The series is comprised of:  ISO 14001:2004 sets out the criteria for an environmental management system and can be certified to. It maps out a framework that a company or organization can follow to set up an effective environmental management system. 5 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.



ISO 14004:2004 provides guidance on the establishment, implementation, maintenance and improvement of an environmental management system and its coordination with other management systems.  ISO 14006:2011 provides guidelines to assist organizations in establishing, documenting, implementing, maintaining and continually improving their management of eco‐design as part of an environmental management system (EMS).  ISO 14064‐1:2006 specifies principles and requirements at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals. It includes requirements for the design, development, management, reporting and verification of an organization's GHG inventory. ISO 55000 Asset Management http://www.assetmanagementstandards.com/ o The ISO 55000 series comprises three standards:  ISO 55000 provides an overview of the subject of asset management and the standard terms and definitions to be used.  ISO 55001 is the requirements specification for an integrated, effective management system for asset management.  IS0 55002 provides guidance for the implementation of such a system Lean‐Six Sigma o Lean Six Sigma is a methodology that relies on a collaborative team effort to improve performance by systematically removing waste, and by combining lean manufacturing/lean enterprise and Six Sigma to eliminate the eight kinds of waste): defects, overproduction, waiting, non‐utilized talent, transportation, inventory, motion, and extra‐processing. o Six Sigma seeks to improve the quality output of process by identifying and removing the causes of defects (errors) and minimizing variability in manufacturing and business processes. It uses a set of quality management methods, mainly empirical statistical methods and creates a special infrastructure of people within the organization who are experts in these methods 6 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.




Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award http://www.baldrigepe.org/ o An award established by the U.S. Congress in 1987 to raise awareness of quality management and recognize U.S. companies that have implemented successful quality management systems. o The Baldridge Criteria for Performance Excellence include leadership; strategic planning; customer and market focus; measurement, analysis and knowledge management; human resource focus; process management; and business/organizational performance results. North Carolina Benchmarking Project https://www.sog.unc.edu/programs/perfmeas o The North Carolina Benchmarking Project was initiated in September 1995, providing a comparative basis for local governments to assess service delivery and costs. It allows municipalities to compare themselves with other participating units and with their own internal operations over time. PAS‐55 (Publically Available Specification for the optimal management of physical assets) http://www.assetmanagementstandards.com/PAS55.html o PAS ‐ 55 is the British Standards Institution's (BSI) Publicly Available Specification for the optimized management of physical assets ‐ it provides clear definitions and a 28‐point requirements specification for establishing and verifying a joined‐up, optimized and whole‐life management system for all types of physical assets. WEF LIFT Program http://www.wef.org/LIFT/ o The Leaders Innovation Forum for Technology (LIFT) is a multi‐pronged initiative undertaken by WERF and WEF to help bring new water technology to the field quickly and efficiently. Overall, LIFT includes  Technology Evaluations – Facility and industry end users share the cost of conducting demonstrations to accelerate adoption of new technologies (WERF Lead)  People and Policy – Benchmarking how individual utilities accomplish research and development and identification of resources and policies needed to implement effective research and development (WEF Lead)  Communication – Training, education, and outreach (WEF Lead) 7 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


Informal Forum for research and development WSAA Aquamark http://www.iwaponline.com/wami/01004/wami010040003.htm o The Aquamark tool provides a best practice approach to urban water industry asset management. It provides a methodology and approach to asset management procedures and also allows for the assessment of performance metrics around the implementation of the methodology. Recommendations for Future Research
During the course of the workshop and related discussions among participants before and after the event, several gaps in current literature and tools were identified, which could serve as avenues of potential future engagement for research related to EUM by WRF. The identified topics are grouped by broad categories, and described below: Continue Development of an EUM Benchmarking Community of Practice The Cincinnati workshop served as an opportunity for additional utilities to learn about EUM and the EUM Benchmarking Tool and process developed as part of WRF Project 4313. Several speakers suggested there would be strong value in continuing to provide opportunities for utilities to learn about these matters and to continue dialogue. Some specific potential avenues that were suggested include: 
Hold additional workshops in conjunction with national conferences such as AWWA’s Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE), the Water Environment Federation’s annual Technical Exposition and Conference (WEFTEC), and the Utility Management Conference (UMC), which is jointly sponsored by AWWA and WEF; 
Hold regional workshops in conjunction with state section meetings of AWWA and/or WEF; and 
Hold some workshops within metropolitan regions, to provide opportunities for peer‐to‐peer training, insight‐sharing, and advancement. Support Refinements to the EUM Primer During his luncheon address at the workshop, Jim Horne described an effort that EPA and several associations are initiating to “refresh” the EUM Primer/Ten Attributes. WRF could support this effort in several ways, including: 
Technical support to the update – Given the effort that WRF devoted to the literature review and development of practice areas and performance measures during the development of Project 4313, WRF could offer efficient technical support to revisiting how the subject matter within the Ten Attributes is divided, current best thinking on how to measure progress for the attributes, and how the Attributes might be more specifically adapted to meet the needs of utilities of varying size, asset age, and other characteristics. 8 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Post‐Refresh Update to Benchmarking Tool ‐ Following the EUM Primer refresh effort that EPA is sponsoring, there may be a shift in the subject matter for some attributes, new insights defined in terms of how to measure progress, or other such developments, such as the definition of additional attributes. Based on the outcome of the refresh process, refine/update the EUM benchmarking tool. Support Industry Benchmarking Integration Efforts Several of the representatives from industry associations mentioned interest in collaborating more closely on benchmarking approaches and tools, and looking for ways to integrate some of the currently separate tools. Some initial efforts have been undertaken to compare the features and uses of benchmarking tools developed and used by organizations such as AWWA, WEF, WSAA, and WRF (e.g., the Aquamark tools, the WRF‐developed EUM benchmarking tool, the AWWA benchmarking survey, and the WEF benchmarking program, tools developed as part of the EUM.org library of supporting tools and resources). However, a number of the representatives indicated more work needs to be done to assess the common areas of content, functionality, usage and audiences for the various benchmarking tools and approaches, and that WRF could help advance further industry integration/cooperation on benchmarking by supporting the review and evaluation of the various existing resources. Refinements to the Existing EUM Benchmarking Framework and Tool At the time that Project 4313 was developed, approximately 25 utilities completed the test phase for the EUM benchmarking Tool, process, and framework. Recommendations for enhancements were identified as part of the feedback from utilities that tested the Tool. Those of higher priority that could be addressed within the project schedule and budget were incorporated into the “Version 1.0” of the tool that was published and posted as part of the project deliverables. Further refinements to the Tool could be made to address some of the remaining initial recommendations from the project testing phase and additional recommendations from new utilities that have used the Tool and worked more deeply with the current version of the framework and Tool. Some of the specific suggestions that were made by utilities and others have included: 
Revise the embedded performance measures to reflect further advances in industry knowledge, particularly in areas such as Community Sustainability and Stakeholder Understanding and Support, where there continue to be significant advances in the granularity and availability of information and tools. 
Integrate EUM with the “sustainable utility” work and the maturity models; adapt the tool to allow more sophisticated utilities to incorporate functionality related to these concepts. 
Add practice areas and performance measures for storm water, water reuse, and water usage. 
Allow the utility user to rate the quality of the data. This will encourage use of the Tool even if a robust data‐set is not available or if all data is not of equal quality. 
For the tool, consider a page that links to the metrics used in the tool so that the user can record the metric and its source for reference in future years. 9 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Develop a web‐accessible version of the tool. Develop a facility for utilities to make cross‐
utility comparisons, at least for those quantified measures that would lend themselves to such comparisons. Consider linking this to the AWWA Benchmarking Survey for applicable measures, where feasible. 10 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
Water Research Foundation Workshop: Effective Utility
Management (EUM) Benchmarking: Current Practice and
Future Opportunities
PREPARED FOR:
Water Research Foundation COPY TO:
File PREPARED BY:
CH2M DATE:
May 19, 2015 PROJECT NUMBER:
WRF 4630/CH2M 660461 Workshop Summary
An all‐day workshop titled Effective Utility Management (EUM) Benchmarking: Current Practice and Future Opportunities, was held on April 23, 2015 in Cincinnati, Ohio, in conjunction with a week‐long International Water Association (IWA) International Conference on Water Efficiency and Performance Assessment of Water Services. The agenda for the Water Research Foundation (WRF) sponsored workshop is included as Attachment A. Speaker presentations from the workshop are posted under Expert Symposiums on the WRF website. The workshop began with an introduction by Linda Reekie from WRF providing a background on WRF, a brief summary of the WRF Project 4313, Performance Benchmarking for Effectively Managed Utilities, and an introduction to the workshop facilitators from CH2M, Mike Matichich and Fair Yeager, who had served as Principal Investigator and Deputy Project Manager, respectively, for WRF Project 4313. Mike provided an overview of WRF Project 4313, a summary of the deliverables (which are available on the 4313 project page on the WRF website), as well as feedback from the participating utilities. Fair described the recommended process for self‐assessment benchmarking as well as a live demonstration of the benchmarking tool. WRF has separately archived and published the presentations from the workshop, so this summary is intended to focus on the discussion points rather than the presentation content. Individual Case Studies Presentations of How Utilities Have Used or Are Using the Current Tool Case study presentations of how utilities have used or are using the benchmarking tool were made. The case studies were provided by: 
Frank Roth, Senior Policy Manager, Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority 11 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.



Mike Sweeney, Deputy Executive Director, Toho Water Authority Amber Halloran, Vice President and Treasurer, and Matthew Griffith, Business Development Analyst, Louisville Water Company Rick Bickerstaff, Charleston Water System Key points made during the prepared presentations during this session are indicated below. Frank Roth: 






When QualServe was no longer available, Albuquerque Bernalillo looked to EUM, and then the tool to help. The self‐assessment tool is a good tool to assist in communication. Going through the self‐assessment exercise resulted in getting staff from different departments to talk. Sixty employees were involved in all assessments. The three attributes evaluated by Albuquerque Bernalillo using the Tool during the WRF project were product quality, infrastructure stability, and water resource adequacy. Ultimately all ten attributes were evaluated. An EUM retreat was held to do the EUM assessment as outlined in the Primer (Effective Utility Management: A Primer for Water and Wastewater Utilities, 2008.) Strategic improvement teams were established. Q: What is the takeaway that an executive director would discuss with the public?  A: The effort remains an internal conversation for improvement, and it is not released to the public in this form. Some of the information is likely shared via one on one discussions with Board members. The Board is informed via the five goal areas from the strategic plan, which are tied to the Ten Attributes. 
Q: How would you accomplish benchmarking with other utilities (based on maturity level of your organization versus other organizations that are also as mature as yours)?  A: Peer benchmarking can be accomplished through other means such as the AWWA Benchmarking Survey, rather than use of the EUM Tool. Injury rate is an example of an indicator to compare to other utilities’ performance Mike Sweeney: 





This presentation was made in the context of Toho Water Authority’s ongoing continuous improvement effort. Continuous improvement is a journey. The word Toho means “together we gather here.” Toho is part of the Florida Benchmarking Consortium that focuses on 11 performance indicators. Toho started strategic planning in 2007. Toho has done the WSAA Aquamark benchmarking approach twice. The opportunity to participate in using the WRF Project 4313, and to use the Tool came at a good time. 12 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.





The three attributes evaluated by Toho Water Authority using the Tool during the WRF project were infrastructure stability, operational resiliency, and water resource adequacy. Toho liked the flexibility of the tool. The tool resulted in convening subject matter experts to discuss and assess the selected attributes, and conducting facilitated discussion on how to get better information from the field. Continuous improvement is a multi‐year journey: o Are there measures and targets that make sense? o How are they used? o How effectively is performance information shared with customers? o Remember the ‘people part.” Q: Did Toho Water Authority (TWA) develop the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) tool?  A: The KPI Tool is used to report on the level of service of specific key performance indicators for infrastructure reliability, organizational responsiveness, regulatory compliance, customer service performance, financial performance, and workforce initiatives. The Tool was developed by Toho in‐house, using an Excel spreadsheet, and it is updated regularly and used to communicate to the Board. 
Q: Did you consider taking your Board through the higher level EUM assessment as outlined in the Primer?  A: Not yet. Toho would consider a workshop setting at some point as part of a strategic plan update as a potential mechanism for introducing the Board to the process and concepts. Amber Halloran and Matthew Griffith 






Louisville Water Company (LWC) has 240 MGD treatment capacity and 120 MGD consumption. LWC has full cost of service ratemaking yearly/budget yearly/5‐year strategic plan and $160 million annual revenue. A 25‐30% employee turnover is expected in 3‐5 years due to employee retirement. In 2011, a new mayor was elected who had a business orientation and promoted one‐
water with the goal of an increased dividend to the board. This resulted in the need to show success and effective utility management was appealing because it supported accountability, transparency, building relationships and meeting stakeholder expectations. A survey was conducted using Survey Monkey, of the executive leadership team, supervisors and management who all ranked the attributes using the current Primer. A limitation of the survey is that it did not consider attribute interdependence (i.e., an organization has limited resources and there is competition between attributes for resources to advance the attribute.) LWC focused on the highest performing attributes that were ranked of highest importance: product quality, infrastructure stability and customer satisfaction; although they replaced infrastructure stability with stakeholder understanding and support to help with the one‐water focus. 13 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

An attribute champion was appointed for each attribute and consensus was reached on the definition of the level of performance and the level of achievement.  LWC used the tool in parallel with Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD); the tool complements the current strategic plan.  The goal is to have evaluation of the first four attributes completed by May 2015 and the remaining attributes completed by October 2015. Rick Bickerstaff 







It is important for organizations to know: Where have we been? Where are we now? Where do we want to go? What gets measured, gets managed; what gets managed gets done. Charleston Water is certified to the environmental management system standard, ISO 14001. Charleston Water uses the Baldridge criteria for performance excellence. Use of ON‐TRACK by ITWORX software is an important tool that assists Charleston Water reaching goals. Charleston Water participated in the North Carolina Local Performance Benchmarking, they benchmark against other Baldridge Award winners, and in 2012 they participated in the European Benchmarking Co‐operation. The three attributes evaluated by Charleston Water using the Tool during the WRF project were customer satisfaction, employee leadership and development, and financial viability. Q: Data sharing…how do you communicate to all of staff and not just up to leaders?  A: An online dashboard tool is in place for staff to access (IT WORX On‐Track tool), and there are 430 associates on strategic teams who are exposed to performance management. These teams have regular meetings with standard agenda items for all meetings during which the performance indicators must be reported. Enhancing the Existing Tool and Approaches: Facilitated Dialogue among Utilities that Have Worked with the WRF EUM Benchmarking Tool The next segment of the workshop continued with brief presentations and a facilitated dialogue among utilities that have also worked with the WRF EUM benchmarking tool. These included: 



Diane Taniguchi‐Dennis, Deputy General Manager, Clean Water Services Greg Heitzman, Executive Director, Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District Albert Kramer, Chief of Staff to First Deputy Commissioner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection Madis Kreem, Business Management Analyst, Toronto Water Key points made during the prepared presentations during this session are indicated below. 14 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Diane Taniguchi‐Dennis 
Clean Water Services serves 570,000 customers and operates 26 different wastewater treatment plants in the community.  The ten attributes are used by CWS to help integrate thinking about business strategy elements.  Clean Water Services emphasizes linking projects and business strategies with customer values, and developing partnerships with customers and stakeholders to meet customer values.  The WRF Tool could benefit by adding storm water and water reuse. Greg Heitzman 






Louisville MSD embarked on a strategic business plan process. MSD developed business strategies using ISO 9000 (international standard for quality management systems) and ISO 14000 (international standard for environmental management.) At Louisville MSD, the EUM Resourcing and Development Team was sponsored by the Executive Director and the team members were representatives from public relations, customer relations, engineering, finance, operations‐metrics, operations‐treatment, and human resources. Louisville MSD is using the WRF Tool to look at the attributes of product quality, customer satisfaction, financial viability, and stakeholder engagement. In evaluating the stakeholder engagement attribute, MSD identified the major stakeholder groups: mayor and metro agencies, the MSD Board of Directors, elected officials, regulatory agencies, customers, employees, and developers. MSD seeks active engagement with stakeholders as a partner of the sewer district. One measure that is used for the stakeholder engagement attribute is that the utility proposes a project and stakeholders do NOT show up to oppose it. Q: One can measure the number of meetings you attend, but what is it you are looking for in a stakeholder relationship?  A: MSD has a wet weather stakeholder group that it relies upon (includes developers, educators, environmentalists, politicians, etc.) and the group has ultimately become advocates for MSD; has been in place for over 8 years and been working well. Albert Kramer 



NYC DEP supplies one billion gallons of water per day to 8.4 million City residents and one million upstate residents. NYC DEP treats 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater per day using 14 City treatment plants. NYC DEP used the WRF Tool to look at the attributes of product quality, financial viability, and employee leadership and development. Use of the WRF Tool identified potential new performance metrics in the financial viability attribute and engaged senior level management in evaluating top level performance. 15 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Some areas of improvement suggested for the WRF Tool are to allow ability to address combined sewer overflows (CSO) (i.e., the Tool had a lack of emphasis on CSOs and an over emphasis on sanitary sewer overflows) and to provide more direction on how to quantify qualitative metrics (i.e., it was difficult to quantify qualitative metrics.) Madis Kreem 
Data is important; let the data lead you. The goal of the Key Performance Indicator Team at Toronto Water was not to gather data (which they did) but to understand what Toronto was doing in order to do it better.  Toronto Water used the WRF Tool to look at the attributes of customer satisfaction and operational optimization.  To be successful, a utility using the WRF Tool needs engagement, motivation, training and scheduling, then needs to decide what to do with the results.  The Tool helped with validating performance in some areas.  The Tool could be improved by adding water usage. Facilitated Dialogue Portion of this Session Q1: If there was one suggestion you would offer to EPA and the Associations as they take a fresh look at the EUM framework, what would it be? 


DT: Integrate work done on the sustainability roadmap (Moving Toward Sustainability: Sustainable and Effective Practices for Creating Your Water Utility Roadmap. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2014.) Recognize different levels at which a utility is working (compliance vs. optimization vs. utility of the future.) GH: There is not a one size fit all tool for EUM. The current EUM tool can be tailored to fit the specific needs of different organizations. Since there is not a national regulation for effective utility management, creating forums for discussion is a positive step. Get people together to talk about lessons learned. Get the word out on the Tool and its availability. Use webinars and exchanges to share information. Currently a smaller group of cities along the Ohio River is beginning to convene to continue the benchmarking conversation and share practices. Q2: If you were to offer one piece of advice on what to change about EUM, what would that be? 



DT: Folks need to know where their utilities are and where they want to go, even if they are currently dealing with difficult issues like consent decrees, which will eventually have an end. GH: Make the connection for front‐line employees to engage them on how they can help deliver clean, safe water. AK: There is a need for internal buy‐in at the bottom and the top. If all employees don’t understand the strategic vision, there is no buy‐in. MK: There is a need for engagement of utility employees. Share materials and presentations. 16 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Q3: What advice do you have for others that want to start an EUM program? 




MK: Engage the right people; refresh the message, and engage a good facilitator.
AK: Have a strong internal champion. Do not focus on attributes that will give you trouble to set
you up for failure.
GH: Find a peer utility facing similar challenges to transfer knowledge. Have support from the
top and tie the effort to strategy. Sustain the tool with staff support at all levels.
DT: Know where you are as a utility. Know how to measure external outcomes.
Regina Cousar (Charlotte Water, who also tested the EUM tool during WRF Project 4313)
o Embed the attributes into how you do business.
o Involve every level of staff in achieving a target.
o Consider leveraging other tools and frameworks. Charlotte Water is currently using ISO
as the vehicle to achieve an attribute (i.e., ISO 14001, 11000, 9000), and intends to
explore opportunities to use Lean/Six Sigma to achieve the next level of improvement.
Future Directions for EUM Benchmarking: Facilitated Dialogue among Industry Experts on Benchmarking The final segment of the workshop included a facilitated dialogue among industry experts on benchmarking, following brief opening remarks. The participants are noted below: 




Ken Mercer, Senior Manager of Technical and Research Programs, American Water Works
Association (AWWA)
Matt Ries, Managing Director of Technical and Educational Services, Water Environment
Federation (WEF)
Jim Horne, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Greg Ryan, Manager Utility Excellence, Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA)
Scott Haskins, CH2M
Several of the panelists referenced their support for efforts that are underway to foster greater cooperation among organizations on benchmarking. The following provides a summary of the specific brief opening remarks/presentations by members of this panel: 
 AWWA is trying to develop programs in AWWA Sections for benchmarking.  ANSI/AWWA G400‐09 is the utility management system standard that describes critical requirements for establishing a utility management system for a water or wastewater utility that will promote continuous improvement.  Q: What is the partnership for safe water? • A: Partners are still being identified and the program has been in works for a couple
of years. For more information, go to: http://www.awwa.org/resources‐tools/
water‐and‐wastewater‐utility‐management/partnership‐for‐safe‐water.aspx
WEF
 Benchmarking is gaining ground, and WEF is supportive of EUM.
 WEF has been developing "roadmaps" that are maturity models (have borrowed from
electric utilities doing smart cities/grid work.) 17 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
 WEF’s LIFT program (leaders’ innovation forum for technology) provides good potential for measurement.  Q: How do you get in sync with a governing body if you want to be on track with envisioning the future?  Get these folks involved in your activities in the utility and be proactive about it (being out front of the winds of political change); promote the value of water at your facilities. 
EPA  There is an opportunity for AWWA to link more to EUM.  Benchmarking has two aspects: benchmark against yourself and benchmarking against others.  The hard part is going from aspirational to operational. 
WSAA  WSAA represents urban utilities in Australia.  WSAA has embodied PAS‐55 and ISO in their tools.  Q: ISO ‐ There is a difference in the ISO standards (maybe use ISO 14001 for whole utility) and how do you communicate this to others?  A: Read ISO 55000 first (it's only 20 pages), and it links to the other standards. 
CH2M  Get tactical/operational with things moving forward.  Coalesce around EUM/roadmap to the future.  It is a journey and there is human capital involved.  Is it utility specific or is there a collaborative effort that can unfold?  Utility member (staff) engagement is a big key to success. A summary of the facilitated dialogue is below: Q1: What opportunities do you see for your organization to collaborate moving forward? 
WSAA ‐ Aquamark is a way to collaborate; like idea of being able to integrate with EUM tool; interest of medium to small utilities in Australia to gain in sharing; could see some supporting tools that WSAA could provide; potential for additional participants from Australia with EUM. 
EPA ‐ They collaborate now and will continue in the future; more facilitated dialogue in the near future after the EUM fresh look gets started; this is the time for this grand coalition to come together 
WEF – The Utility Management Conference (UMC) is a great collaborative opportunity; in the past WEF had organized the conference around the Attributes and maybe WEF needs to do that again o Q (EPA): Is there flexibility around the UMC program to setup a meeting for the EUM review committee? o A: There could be a knowledge development forum instead of a technical session 18 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

AWWA ‐ How do we get utilities to accept EUM; do we just need to advertise it better? Can we share the data across boundaries to really capture the best practices? Q2 (EPA): From what you are learning and have learned, could you mentor other utilities in your area? 
A: Louisville MSD is starting this with the 5 cities benchmarking group that is getting underway; we are doing this now with technical topics, and don't see why we couldn't do that with EUM. Peer to peer learning is valuable. 
A: Clean Water Services has been discussing this internally and have a venue of existing courses certified by licensing boards that could be built upon. Q3: (workshop participant): Have the associations thought about incorporating “big data” to analyze trends and to predict the future? 
WSAA – There are some issues around data security; have to know why you are doing it (such as improvement to customer service); how do we harness it effectively? 
AWWA – There is a need to determine whether there is transferability and what are you trying to predict? There may be too many caveats. Q4 (Toho): If the customer needs to be at the center since they pay the bills, do we have enough tools already? Can we get the customer part right? Perhaps there is a need for an ISO framework for customer satisfaction and a good stakeholder plan? 
USEPA: There is a broader responsibility to the environment that goes beyond what the customer wants. 
WSAA: What customers want and value is not well understood. It is difficult to have a meaningful dialogue about buried infrastructure. 
CH2M: The concept of data synthesis to support decision making is supported by implementing and evaluating the results of customer surveys? 
Louisville MSD ‐ We as engineers may want to talk about the product; the breakthrough for the industry is when we get past the product (clean, safe water) and connect customers to the service; how do we apply these tools to the customer/stakeholders? It's a trust proposition to tell customers that the water is safe to drink (not that it has less than 2 ppb of some constituent). 
CWS – This topic is worthy of convening a conversation at another time; we talk to pollsters about how people value water and where it stacks up; there are different groups with whom utilities must interact (senior citizens, business community); need to talk to sociologists for methods of assessment of stakeholder needs. 
Charleston – The fault of our industry is that we assume too much and our customers expect too much; other utilities are raising the expectations (electric/cable). 19 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Recommendations for Future Research
During the course of the workshop and related discussions among participants before and after the event, several gaps in current literature and tools were identified, which could serve as avenues of potential future engagement for research related to EUM by WRF. The identified topics fall into four broad categories, as described in more detail below: 
Continue development of an EUM Benchmarking Community of Practice; 
Support refinements to the EUM Primer 
Support industry benchmarking Integration efforts; and 
Refinements to the Existing EUM Benchmarking Tool Continue Development of an EUM Benchmarking Community of Practice The Cincinnati workshop served as an opportunity for additional utilities to learn about EUM and the EUM Benchmarking Tool and process developed as part of WRF Project 4313. Several speakers suggested there would be strong value in continuing to provide opportunities for utilities learn about these matters and to continue dialogue. Some specific potential avenues that were suggested include: 
Hold additional workshops in conjunction with national conferences such as AWWA’s Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE), the Water Environment Federation’s annual Technical Exposition and Conference (WEFTEC), and the Utility Management Conference (UMC), which is jointly sponsored by AWWA and WEF; 
Hold regional workshops in conjunction with state section meetings of AWWA and/or WEF; and 
Hold some workshops within metropolitan regions, to provide opportunities for peer‐to‐peer training, insight‐sharing, and advancement. Support Refinements to the EUM Primer During his luncheon address at the workshop, Jim Horne described an effort that EPA and several associations are initiating to “refresh” the EUM Primer/Ten Attributes. WRF could support this effort in several ways, including: 
Technical support to the update – Given the effort that WRF devoted to the literature review and development of practice areas and performance measures during the development of Project 4313, WRF could offer efficient technical support to revisiting how the subject matter within the Ten Attributes is divided, current best thinking on how to measure progress for the attributes, and how the Attributes might be more specifically adapted to meet the needs of utilities of varying size, asset age, and other characteristics. 
Post‐Refresh Update to Benchmarking Tool ‐ Following the EUM Primer refresh effort that EPA is sponsoring, there may be a shift in the subject matter for some attributes, new insights defined in terms of how to measure progress, or other such developments, such as the definition of additional attributes. Based on the outcome of the refresh process, refine/update the EUM benchmarking tool. 20 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Support Industry Benchmarking Integration Efforts Several of the representatives from industry associations mentioned interest in collaborating more closely on benchmarking approaches and tools, and looking for ways to integrate some of the currently separate tools. Some initial efforts have been undertaken to compare the features and uses of benchmarking tools developed and used by organizations such as AWWA, WEF, WSAA, and WRF (e.g., the Aquamark tools, the WRF‐developed EUM benchmarking tool, the AWWA benchmarking survey, and the WEF benchmarking program, tools developed as part of the EUM.org library of supporting tools and resources). However, a number of the representatives indicated more work needs to be done to assess the common areas of content, functionality, usage and audiences for the various benchmarking tools and approaches, and that WRF could help advance further industry integration/cooperation on benchmarking by supporting the review and evaluation of the various existing resources. Refinements to the Existing EUM Benchmarking Framework and Tool At the time that Project 4313 was developed, approximately 25 utilities completed the test phase for the EUM benchmarking Tool, process, and framework. Recommendations for enhancements were identified as part of the feedback from utilities that tested the Tool. Those of higher priority that could be addressed within the project schedule and budget were incorporated into the “Version 1.0” of the tool that was published and posted as part of the project deliverables. Further refinements to the Tool could be made to address some of the remaining initial recommendations from the project testing phase and additional recommendations from new utilities that have used the Tool and worked more deeply with the current version of the framework and Tool. Some of the specific suggestions that were made by utilities and others have included: 
Revise the embedded performance measures to reflect further advances in industry knowledge, particularly in areas such as Community Sustainability and Stakeholder Understanding and Support, where there continue to be significant advances in the granularity and availability of information and tools. 
Integrate EUM with the “sustainable utility” work and the maturity models; adapt the tool to allow more sophisticated utilities to incorporate functionality related to these concepts. 
Allow the utility user to rate the quality of the data. This will encourage use of the Tool even if a robust data‐set is not available or if all data is not of equal quality. 
For the tool, consider a page that links to the metrics used in the tool so that the user can record the metric and its source for reference in future years. 
Develop a web‐accessible version of the tool. Develop a facility for utilities to make cross‐
utility comparisons, at least for those quantified measures that would lend themselves to such comparisons. Consider linking this to the AWWA Benchmarking Survey for applicable measures, where feasible. 21 ©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ATTACHMENT B
Workshop Agenda Time
Subject and Purpose
Speaker
9:30 – 9:40
am
Introduction and Background to Workshop
Linda Reekie
9:40 – 10:00
am
Overview of Project 4313, Products and Feedback from Utilities
Mike Matichich
10:00 –
10:20 am
Recommended Process for Self-Assessment Benchmarking &
Demonstration of Tool
Fair Yeager
10:20
Break
10:35 am –
12:15 pm
Individual Case Studies Presentations of How Utilities Have Used or Are Using the
Current Tool
12:15 – 1:30
 Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority
 Toho Water Authority
 Louisville Water Company
 Charleston Water System
Lunch with speaker Jim Horne, U. S. EPA
Effective Utility Management: Past, Present and Future—The Journey
the Destination?
Enhancing the Existing Tool and Approaches: Facilitated Dialogue Among
Utilities that have Worked with the WRF EUM Benchmarking Tool
(Discussion facilitated by Mike and Fair)
1:30 – 3:10





Jim Horne
or
What benefits have been achieved using the tool?
What unexpected challenges have been encountered?
What attributes/measures have been most/least useful why?
What changes to the contents or functionality of the tool would make it
more useful?
What other approaches have been developed?
Diane
TaniguchiDennis, Greg
Heitzman,
Albert Kramer,
Madis Kreem
3:10 – 3:25
Break
3:25 – 4:45
Future Directions for EUM Benchmarking: Facilitated Dialogue among industry
experts on Benchmarking (Scott Haskins, CH2M HILL; Jim Horne, USEPA; Matt
Ries, WEF; Ken Mercer, AWWA; Greg Ryan, WSAA)
(facilitated by Mike and Linda)
Scott Haskins;
Jim Horne, Ken
Mercer, Greg
Ryan, Matt Ries
4:45 – 5:00
Wrap up and closing thoughts
Mike
Matichich;
Linda Reekie
22 Frank Roth,
Mike Sweeney,
Matthew
Griffith, Rick
Bickerstaff
©2015 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.