Level of Progress in Utility Asset Management v4.0

2015 ESTABLISHING THE LEVEL OF
PROGRESS IN UTILITY ASSET MANAGEMENT

SURVEY RESULTS
The 2015 Establishing the Level of Progress in Utility Asset Management survey project was commissioned by the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) Asset Management Committee (AMC) Project Team and funded by
the AWWA Technical & Educational Council.
December 2015
2015 Establishing the Level of Progress in Utility Asset Management Survey Results
What are the benefits of asset management? Implementing the concepts of asset management means
making more informed, better decisions in order to sustain the desired level of customer service in the
most efficient and effective way possible. Beginning or implementing an asset management program
involves many different concepts, which can be daunting for a utility. In order to provide assistance to
utilities at any stage in the development of an asset management program, AWWA has developed a
number of resources available on the Asset Management Resource Community web page and presented
at various conferences and webinars throughout the year.
In order to better understand the need for additional resources to better serve those wanting to begin
or advance their implementation of asset management programs, AWWA conducted a survey in early
2015 to collect information on the level of progress in utility asset management. This survey covers
general asset management, current state of assets, levels of service, risk management, maintenance and
reliability, and asset planning.
Readers will find this report on the survey findings a useful source of information when trying to
understand the current state of the industry for asset management best practices and how asset
management programs help utilities. AWWA received complete responses to the survey from 545
utilities (i.e., respondents answered all or most of the survey questions). This report includes aggregated
summaries and analyses of the reported utility practices and policies as collected through this survey
from those 545 utilities.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) Asset Management Survey Subcommittee, which
developed this survey and results, included the following personnel:
Kevin Campanella, Chair, Utilities Planning Leader, Burgess & Niple, Inc., Columbus, OH
Christian Andreasen, Director of Engineering, Middlesex Water Company, Iselin, NJ

Ali Diba, President/CEO, Spatial Wave, Inc., Laguna Hills, CA
Heather Himmelberger, Director, Southwest Environmental Finance Center, Albuquerque, NM
Jeffrey Leighton, Senior Engineer Asset Management, Portland Water Bureau, Portland, OR
Jennifer Santini, AWWA Engineer, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO
Kurt Vause, Director of Engineering, Anchorage Water Wastewater Utility, Anchorage, AK
2015 Establishing the Level of Progress in Utility Asset Management Survey Results 2
Copyright © 2015 American Water Works Association
ABOUT AWWA
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is an international, nonprofit, scientific and
educational society dedicated to providing total water solutions assuring the effective management of
water. Founded in 1881, the Association is the largest organization of water professionals in the world.
Our membership includes over 3,900 utilities that supply roughly 80 percent of the nation’s drinking
water and treat almost half of the nation’s wastewater. Our nearly 50,000 members represent the full
spectrum of the water community: public water and wastewater systems, environmental advocates,
scientists, academicians, engineers, manufacturers, and others who hold a genuine interest in water,
our most important resource. AWWA unites the diverse water community to advance public health,
safety, the economy, and the environment.
BACKGROUND
Increasingly, utilities around the world are adopting asset management approaches to more effectively
and affordably manage their infrastructure. Many funding agencies incentivize or require components of
asset management because they understand that applying advanced asset management principles at a
water utility will provide a degree of confidence to the lending agency that the investment of funds will
be properly managed over time. Some states go further, allowing some SRF loans to be applied to the
development of asset management plans, not just their implementation, and some states are providing
grant funds for asset management plan development. Additionally, utilities across the United States
applying for Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans (for wastewater projects) in many cases
are required to provide evidence that elements of an asset management program are in place to qualify.
To support utilities seeking to advance their asset management practices, AWWA collected data and
information from utility personnel through a survey to establish the level of progress in asset
management. The survey covered a broad range of asset management practices and policies, including
overall asset management planning, asset knowledge, service levels, capital project review, risk
management, maintenance and reliability planning, and replacement planning. This report summarizes
those results and presents findings based on subsequent analyses. It should be recognized upfront that
there is no one-size-fits-all solution for water suppliers when it comes to managing their individual water
infrastructure systems, and ultimately it is important to develop an asset management approach that fits
with each utility’s available resources, priorities, and relevant challenges.
METHODOLOGY
Throughout the survey collection process, AWWA made deliberate efforts to anticipate and minimize
errors; however, respondents ultimately self-selected to participate in this survey. Survey participation
was requested of all AWWA utility members as well as individuals who specifically expressed an interest
in asset management. Because the bulk of AWWA contacts reside in North America, the survey generally
reflects the policies and practices of water professionals in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
On April 28, 2015 through May 4th, email invitations were delivered to approximately 30,000 email
addresses in the AWWA network. Additional survey invitation messages were independently delivered
through multiple channels, including notably large email pushes from the Environmental Finance Center
Network and Pure Technologies. AWWA issued reminder emails at the end of May. The open period for
the survey closed on May 28, 2015.
After removing wholly incomplete and overlapping responses from employees of the same utility, 545
utilities completed the “Level of Progress in Asset Management” survey. A summary of the number of
responses by utility location is provided in Appendix 1. The results presented in the following sections
have not been weighted to reflect the demographic composition of any target population. Because the
amount of self-selection bias is unknown, no estimates of error have been determined. The full survey
questionnaire is presented in Appendix 2.
RESULTS
Survey responses were received from utilities of all sizes. In the figures presented in this section, the
number of responses received for a given question is referred to as “n”. Results are shown in terms of
the percentage of utilities that chose a given response.
Figure 1 shows the breakdown of respondents based on the size of population served by the reporting
utility. The largest group of utility respondents is serving 50,000-499,999 people (36%), while the
smallest group of utility respondents (7%) are those serving 500,000-999,999 people.
8%
7%
36%
23%
26%
Figure 1. (Q6 2015) Survey respondents grouped by size of population served (n=543)
As shown in Figure 2, 91% of the utilities that responded are public utilities, while 9% are private
utilities.
9%
Publicly owned
Private/Investor owned
91%
Figure 2. (Q3 2015) Survey respondents grouped by utility ownership. (n=537)
Similar to the breakdown of systems by population, responses were received from systems providing all
demand levels, with the largest group of respondents (38%) having a system demand of less than 5
million gallons per day (MGD). Figure 3 provides an overview of the utility respondents based on their
average system demand.
10%
10%
38%
19%
23%
Figure 3. (Q5 2015) Survey respondents grouped by average daily system demand (n=541)
The majority of responding utilities provide retail potable water services (86%), with 94% providing
either water retail or wholesale water service. The remaining 6% had wastewater service in some
combination with water reuse and stormwater without water service. Overall, 65% of respondents
provided wastewater services. Figure 4 presents the various services provided by the respondents, who
could choose all the services that applied. Based on the responses, 2% provide all 5 services, 15%
provide 4 services, 3% provide 3 services, 29% provide 2 services, and 26% provide only 1 service.
100%
90%
80%
70%
% of Utilities
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Water - retail Water - Wastewater Water reuse Stormwater
wholesale
Figure 4. (Q4 2015) Types of services provided by the Survey respondents; 74% of utilities provide
multiple services (n=543)
The first question regarding asset management progress is whether a utility has dedicated staff to the
effort. The results (Figure 5) indicate that a majority of utilities do not have a dedicated coordinator and
staff (71%), although many of those recognize the need for it. 29% have full or part time staff dedicated
to asset management, and 15% do have full time staff dedicated to this effort.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
No, the
organization The
has adequate organization
staff for asset recognizes the
No, the The The
management need for an
organization The organization organization
but does not asset
does not see organization has a full time has a full time
have a management
the need for has a part time asset asset
I don’t know. dedicated coordinator
dedicated asset management management
asset and/or
asset management coordinator coordinator
management focused staff,
management coordinator. but no other and additional
coordinator but has not
staff. staff. staff support.
and/or group yet created
of asset the
management position(s).
focused staff.
All % 2% 12% 32% 25% 8% 6% 15%
Figure 5. (Q8 2015) Does the organization have a dedicated asset management coordinator or asset
manager and/or group of asset management focused staff? (n=541)
Although there may not be staff specifically dedicated for asset management at the majority of utilities,
a much higher percentage of utilities have a work plan for doing asset management (Figure 6). Half of
the responses indicate there is a work plan to implement Asset Management, but with only 12% of the
responses reported having most of the work plan tasks implemented. This suggests that while progress
is being made, there is much yet to be done.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
No, and there
Yes, it has Yes, and some Yes, and most
is no concept Yes, but it is
been approved of the tasks of the tasks
I don’t know. of what the still
but not have been have been
plan would conceptual.
implemented. implemented. implemented.
include.
All % 4% 18% 28% 3% 35% 12%
Figure 6. (Q9 2015) Is there a formal work plan to implement Asset Management within the
organization? (n=543)
There seems to be support within the utility staff and management for advancing asset management
practice, with 76% indicating some level of support (Figure 7). Over half of the responses indicate both
management and staff support for asset management, which is a good sign for continued progress.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Majority staff Little staff
Majority of staff
support, little support, majority
I don’t know. No. and management
management management
support
support support
All % 12% 13% 5% 19% 51%
Figure 7. (Q10 2015) Is asset management embraced by staff throughout the organization? (n=542)
Is it worthwhile to pursue asset management, as defined by the practices in this survey? One way to
interpret that question is to consider whether organizations can, or have, realized benefits from asset
management (Figure 8). Over two thirds of the respondents either expect benefits or believe they have
already achieved them. Of the nearly half of the responses that support the conclusion that benefits
have been achieved, 34% state that benefits have been achieved, although they are not well
documented, while another 13% have stated that benefits are well documented. The remaining 22% of
utilities are expecting benefits in the future.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Yes, benefits
have been
achieved and
Not yet, but
they are well
the future
documented.
No, asset benefits are
Costs and
There are no management expected Yes, benefits
Yes, benefits benefits of
asset efforts are (asset have been
have been the asset
management active but reliability, achieved,
I don’t know. achieved and management
efforts have not improved although they
they are well program/effo
underway as produced any service levels, are not well
documented. rts are
of yet. tangible cost savings, documented.
quantified
benefits. and/or future
such that a
cost
return on
avoidance).
investment
can be
calculated.
All% 6% 20% 5% 22% 34% 10% 3%
Figure 8. (Q11 2015) Has the organization realized a benefit from its asset management program
and/or efforts? (n= 542)
One of the first places to start with managing assets is to know what assets are owned by the utility.
Eventually, information about the assets should be placed within an asset register, as an asset inventory,
and organized in an asset hierarchy. Key asset data such as material type, install date or asset condition
are included. This question asked the respondents to indicate progress in these areas (Figure 9). Half of
responses (49%) indicated that at least basic asset and attribute data were being stored. It was not yet
common to see advanced data recorded, such as condition (12%), or a well-defined asset hierarchy
(10%).
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Advanced
attribute data
is largely
Basic attribute
populated for
data is largely
There is a the assets in
populated for
specific the inventory /
the assets in Assets in the
definition of The inventory / register, such
The asset the inventory / inventory /
assets versus registry as asset
inventory / register, such registry are
non-assets for contains condition
I don’t know. register is not as asset ID, organized as
a majority of greater than and/or
substantially description, part of a well-
asset classes 75-percent of probability of
developed. location, install defined asset
that governs assets. failure rating,
date, and hierarchy.
the inventory / criticality,
physical
registry. useful life,
attributes (e.g.
replacement
size, material).
value, and
energy usage
(if any).
All% 3% 26% 14% 19% 49% 12% 10%
Figure 9. (Q12 2015) Which of the following describes your organization’s asset inventory /
asset register? (Choose all that apply) (n=542)
Assets can be mapped or included in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to facilitate asset
management. There are both linear assets, especially pipes, to be tracked, as well as the distribution of
vertical assets, such as pump stations and treatment facilities. The next question asked about the level
of progress with mapping or use of GIS for linear and vertical assets (Figure 10). 90% of responses
indicated that some mapping has occurred, with all mapping completed for the majority of utilities
(58%). This is clearly one area where much progress has been made.
Figure 10. (Q13 2015) Does the organization have a map or a geographic information system (GIS)
with both linear assets (pipes) and vertical asset locations (e.g., booster station and tank locations)?
(n=541)
One of the best practices in asset management is the collection of asset condition data to help with
decision making on asset renewals and replacement. Two questions were asked about a process to
assess condition and maintain data on condition; one for linear assets (distribution system pipes) and
one on vertical assets (Figures 11 and 12). When it comes to assessing pipe condition (Figure 11), 63% of
utilities are at least somewhat engaged in the practices, about half of those are using historic break data
as their basis (33%), but only 13% are to the point where they are using advanced condition assessment
techniques on their critical pipes.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
The
Some
condition The
advanced
of pipes is condition Pipe
condition
assessed of pipes is condition
assessment
A process using a assessed informatio
technology
has been break using a n is in a
is used to
I don’t developed database break database
No. inspect
know. to assess that is less database that is
critical
pipe than 20 that is 20+ linked to
pipes for
condition. years old, years old the asset
more
or is older and register /
detailed
but not comprehen inventory.
condition
comprehen sive.
data.
sive.
All% 6% 31% 27% 21% 12% 16% 13%
Figure 11. (Q14 2015) Does the organization have a process in place to assess the condition of linear
assets (distribution system pipes) and store the condition data in a spreadsheet or database? (Choose
all that apply) (n=541)
Just about half (49%) of utilities are doing something for vertical asset condition assessment (Figure 12).
21% of utilities report the practice of assessing critical vertical assets for intervention.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Condition
assessment
results are
used to
Condition determine
assessment is when long-
Condition Condition
A formal conducted on term
assessment is assessment
process to critical vertical interventions
conducted on results are
assess the assets to should take
I don’t know. No. some non- stored in a
condition of identify defects place.
critical assets database for
vertical assets and trigger Preventive
in addition to future analysis
is developed. immediate maintenance is
critical assets. and trending.
intervention if triggered
necessary. based on
condition
rather than
calendar
intervals.
All% 9% 42% 19% 21% 18% 15% 9%
Figure 12. (Q15 2015) Does the organization have a process in place to assess the condition of vertical
assets (mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and other asset types associated with facilities) and store the
condition data in a spreadsheet or database? (Choose all that apply) (n=541)
At about the same time this survey was being developed, members of the AWWA Asset Management
Committee were asked to identify key concepts that could help advance asset management practice
throughout the water industry. The Committee ranked certain concepts as most important, and many of
the following questions in the survey fit those concepts:
• Establishing and monitoring levels of service (Figures 13, 14; questions 16, and 17)
• Assessing the risks of asset failure (Figures 16, 17 and 18; questions 19, 20 and 21)
• Developing asset management plans (Figure 23; question 26)
• Using business case analysis for investments, considering total life cycle costs and the triple
bottom line (Figure 24; question 27)
Because the mission of the water utility is to provide service to the customers, asset management
includes the practice of setting service level goals and monitoring performance. Two questions (Figures
13 and 14) cover the topic. As shown in Figure 13, levels of service have been developed for most
utilities (57%), but are considered well documented in only 32% of them.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Levels of service
have been
developed for
Some levels of Some levels of
each significant
service have been service have been
aspect of the
I don’t know. No. developed but developed and
utility's business;
these are not well these are
these are
documented. documented.
contained in a
Level of Service
document.
All% 8% 35% 25% 23% 9%
Figure 13. (Q16 2015) Has the organization documented Levels of Service across the organization and
are they contained in a Level of Service agreement or other similar document? (n=532)
Roughly half of utilities (52%) have service level targets, but only 14% of utilities reported that they are
measuring and communicating their progress regularly in relation to those targets (Figure 14), indicating
that there is room for progression in this regard.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Level of Service
targets are
reevaluated and
adjusted on a
The organization Performance is periodic basis
has not measured and (e.g. annually) to
Targets are well
developed levels Some levels of All levels of progress in reflected
known
I don’t know. of service, or service have service have relation targets changes in
throughout the
levels of service targets targets is communicated customer
organization
do not have regularly (e.g. expectations
targets. monthly) and/or the
ability of the
utility to provide
a specific service
level
All% 10% 38% 35% 10% 8% 14% 9%
Figure 14. (Q17 2015) Which of the following apply to the organization’s clearly defined Level of
Service targets? (Choose all that apply) (n=528)
In addition to addressing customer service level expectations, utilities must also anticipate and address
any future changes in system demands, such that the capacity of their infrastructure is sufficient. The
results from Question 18, shown in Figure 15 below, focus on the planning horizon for investment
decisions aimed at addressing future demands. 45% of utilities have a planning horizon for addressing
system demands of 10 years or more; 37% reported planning horizon of less than 10 years.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
The
organization
Yes. Planning
analyzes Yes. Planning Yes. Planning
Yes. Planning is for a 20
current is for less is for a 10 to
I don’t know. No. is for a 5 to 9 year or
demands but than a 5 year 19 year
year horizon. longer
not horizon. horizon.
horizon.
anticipated
demands.
All % 3% 8% 7% 13% 24% 15% 30%
Figure 15. (Q18 2015) Does the organization analyze current and anticipated customer demands,
including planning for future growth or population decline, and plan infrastructure investments to
meet future demands? (n=533)
Risk management has been considered, by many, as the most important concept related to the
management of water utility assets. Risk is made up of two parts: the probability, or likelihood, of failure
of assets, and the consequence of asset failure. The survey asked about the approach to evaluating both
probability and consequence of failure, as well as the ranking of assets based on overall risk.
The evaluation of probability and consequence of failure is not yet common, with about two thirds of
utilities indicating that they were not doing either, or not yet significantly implementing it (see Figures
16 and 17). Of the third of utilities that are applying this practice, less than 10% have reached a very
advanced practice of using failure data or asset condition to estimate the probability of failure of the
most critical assets, and 11% of utilities report developing monetary or triple bottom line estimates of
the consequences of failure for some critical assets; also, a very advanced practice.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Probability of Probability of
failure is failure is
established for established for
more than 90% more than 90%
Probability of Probability of
of assets using of assets using
A process is asset age and asset age and
developed but expected life expected life
less than 50% of more than 50%
I don’t know. No. has not yet been only, and using only, and using
assets using of assets using
significantly failure data, failure data,
asset age and asset age and
implemented. asset condition asset condition
expected life expected life
or other or other
only. only.
advanced advanced
methods for less methods for
than 50% of more than 50%
critical assets. of critical assets.
All % 5% 38% 21% 11% 10% 9% 6%
Figure 16. (Q19 2015) Does the organization have a process to assess the probability (or likelihood) of
failure of assets? (n=524)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consequence of Consequence of
more than 50% more than 50%
Consequence of Consequence of of assets using a of assets using a
failure is failure is simple, relative simple, relative
A process is established for established for rating system rating system
developed but less than 50% of more than 50% (e.g. a 1 to 5 (e.g. a 1 to 5
I don’t know. No. has not yet been assets using a of assets using a scoring system). scoring system).
significantly simple, relative simple, relative Monetary or Monetary or
implemented. rating system rating system triple-bottom triple-bottom
(e.g. a 1 to 5 (e.g. a 1 to 5 line line
scoring system). scoring system). consequences consequences
have been have been
developed for developed for
less than 50% more than 50%
critical assets. of critical assets.
All % 8% 40% 22% 8% 11% 4% 7%
Figure 17. (Q20 2015) Does the organization have a process to assess the consequence of asset failure?
(n=523)
Although the progress on evaluating the likelihood and consequence of failure is limited, more utilities
report positive steps on risk ranking, as shown in Figure 18. More than half of utilities have some risk
ranking process in place. Still, only 10% of utilities have ranked more than 50% of their assets, including
most of their critical assets, according to risk, and are using this information in operating and managing
the system. This illustrates that there are advancement opportunities in asset risk management.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
The The The
The
The organization organization organization
organization
organization has has has ranked
has ranked
has some developed a developed a more than
more than
limited process to process to 50% of assets
50% of assets
ranking of rank assets rank assets (including
according to
assets according to according to most critical
risk but is not
according to risk and is risk and is assets)
I don’t know. No. yet using this
overall risk working working according to
information
with no plans towards towards risk and uses
in the
to put in ranking all ranking all this
process of
place a assets with assets with information
operating
system for less than 25% 25-50% of in operating
and
ranking all of them them and
managing the
assets. presently presently managing the
system.
ranked. ranked. system.
All % 7% 36% 21% 12% 6% 8% 10%
Figure 18. (Q21 2015) Does the organization have a process to rank assets according to overall risk
(the product of likelihood and consequences of asset failure)? (n=524)
Proactive replacement of water distribution pipes is slowly becoming a more commonly instituted
practice. Among the issues are understanding which pipes to replace and when, such that the
replacement program is cost-effective, keeping healthy pipe in the ground while replacing deteriorating
pipe prior to it causing extensive consequences as the result of significant or repeated breaks. Survey
question 22 focused on pipe replacement methods (Figure 19). The most advanced methods are
practiced by 7 to 10% of the utilities (replacement to stabilize the break rate, or meet a level of service
goal), and about one-third of utilities are proactively replacing water mains based on data related to
break history, also an advance practice.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Proactive
The rate of
pipe
replacement
replacement
is tracked and
is based on an
The rate of designed to
analysis of
Proactive replacement meet the
break history
Proactive pipe is tracked and desired level
Distribution by asset
pipe replacement designed to of service for
pipes are not classes that
I don’t know. replacement is based on stabilize the break rate or
proactively are broken
is taking break history current break break
replaced. down by basic
place. for individual rate or number, and
asset
pipes. number of this rate may
attributes
total breaks. be different
such as
than the
material, size,
current break
and era of
rate.
installation.
All % 5% 25% 30% 35% 31% 10% 7%
Figure 19. (Q22 2015) How advanced is the organization in predicting when water distribution pipe
assets should be proactively replaced? (Choose all that apply) (n=518)
Advanced maintenance practices include finding the right balance between the amount of planned
versus reactive maintenance, and conducting more predictive maintenance on vertical or facility assets.
Because the ability to detect defects and/or predict asset failures based on experience, data, and the
use of predictive technologies has improved with time, improved maintenance for many utilities means
becoming more proactive and less reactive. Many utilities are still developing the ability to track planned
and reactive maintenance, but 37% are to a point now of tracking these maintenance activities, and 9%
report being in line with industry best practice guidelines of approximately 65% planned and 35%
reactive maintenance (Figure 20). According to the survey results, predictive maintenance is performed
on vertical assets by 65% of the utilities, with 31% stating that a considerable amount of predictive
maintenance is occurring (Figure 21).
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Reactive vs.
planned
maintenance is
Reactive versus tracked. Reactive versus
planned Improvement planned
maintenance is in the ratio of maintenance is
A process to currently being reactive to tracked and it
A process to track reactive tracked, but planned is in line with
Reactive versus
track reactive versus planned steps to maintenance the industry
planned
versus planned maintenance is improve the has occurred, best practice of
I don’t know. maintenance is
maintenance is being balance however, it is approximately
not reviewed in
in implemented, between the not yet in line 65% planned
any way.
development. but more data two types of with the maintenance
is needed. maintenance industry best and
have not yet practice of approximately
been approximately 35% reactive
identified. 65% planned maintenance.
and
approximately
35% reactive
All % 5% 22% 20% 16% 16% 12% 9%
Figure 20. (Q23 2015) Is the organization moving from reactive (corrective and emergency)
maintenance to planned (predictive and preventive) maintenance? (n=520)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Predictive
A considerable
maintenance is
amount of
performed and
predictive
A considerable timing of most
maintenance is A limited
amount of A considerable subsequent
performed to amount of
predictive amount of preventive and
inform potential predictive
maintenance is predictive planned/correcti
capital maintenance is
performed and maintenance is ve maintenance
interventions, performed, such
results are used performed and is based on
but much of its as ultrasonics, Predictive
to adjust the results are used results.
preventive and vibration I don’t know. maintenance is
timing of some to time much of Predictive
planned- analysis, not performed.
preventive and its preventive maintenance
corrective thermal
planned- and data is stored
maintenance imaging, oil
corrective work planned/correcti and analyzed for
work is still analysis, and/or
from calendar- ve work based trending to be
based on a motor current
based to on condition. used in
regular calendar analysis.
condition-based. maintenance
interval and not
and
based on
replacement
condition.
planning
All % 9% 6% 14% 34% 10% 25% 2%
Figure 21. (Q24 2015) How advanced has the organization become in applying predictive maintenance
to its vertical assets (mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and other asset types associated with facilities)?
(n=518)
For many utilities, utilizing a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) is a helpful,
foundational tool supporting asset management practices by storing and organizing information to
support data-driven decision making. Even though many other business practices are key to asset
management, the CMMS can play an important role in planning and tracking maintenance activity and
understanding asset performance and reliability. In response to the survey question relating to CMMS, a
majority of utilities have developed a CMMS (54%) with another 11% currently developing one. 21% of
utilities report using the CMMS beyond its basic functionality (Figure 22).
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
The organization
The organization
has developed
has developed a The organization
comprehensive
CMMS for some, has developed a
CMMS including The organization
but not all, of its CMMS for most
all basic asset has developed
facilities. Only or all of its
attribute data, comprehensive
basic facilities. Not all
The organization some software CMMS with all
functionality (i.e. functionality is
is currently functionality asset attribute
I don’t know. No. work utilized, and
developing a beyond basic data for all of its
management) is basic asset data
CMMS. work order facilities and all
utilized, and (size, material,
management is software
basic asset data install date) may
being utilized, functionality is
(size, material, not be
such as being utilized
install date) is completely
documentation
not completely populated.
of failures (types
populated.
and modes).
All % 3% 32% 11% 13% 20% 14% 7%
Figure 22. (Q25 2015) Does the organization utilize a computerized maintenance management system
(CMMS)? (n=519)
Two advanced asset management practices, developing asset management plans and requiring formal
business case evaluations (BCE) for major investments, were identified by the AWWA Asset
Management Committee as important asset management concepts. 24% of utilities responded that they
have completed asset management plans with basic information such as inventory and condition of the
asset class, while 12% of utilities have completed asset management plans with documented risks,
maintenance and replacement strategies, and budget forecasts (Figure 23).
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Asset Asset
Asset Asset
managemen managemen
managemen managemen
t plans have t plans have
t plans have t plans have
been been
been been
completed completed
completed completed
for some for most
for some for most
Asset asset asset
asset asset
managemen classes. The classes. The
classes. The classes. The
t plans are plans plans
I don’t plans are at plans are at
No. being include include
know. a basic level a basic level
developed more more
covering covering
but none are advanced advanced
such aspects such aspects
complete. topics such topics such
as asset as asset
as the risk of as the risk of
inventory, inventory,
asset failure, asset failure,
condition condition
strategy strategy
and and
recommend recommend
replacement replacement
ations for ations for
value. value.
maintenan… maintenan…
All % 7% 27% 30% 15% 9% 10% 2%
Figure 23. (Q26 2015) Has the organization developed management plans for its various asset classes
(e.g., water distribution valve management plan), sometimes known as Asset Management Plans, or
AMP’s? (n=517)
Regarding the processes used to make major investment decisions, 34% of utilities are basing them on a
comparison of capital costs only. Another 34% responded that they are basing investment decisions on a
consideration of all financial costs, but it is not a standardized process. A standardized process with all
financial costs is applied by 16% of utilities. Less than 5% of utilities have advanced to the point of also
including the triple bottom line of social and environmental costs that have been monetized.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
A majority of
All financial life
significant asset
cycle costs (e.g.
A BCE or similar investment
capital,
process is decisions are
operations, A BCE or similar
developed to made using a
maintenance, A BCE or similar process to fully
consistently BCE or similar
Only capital residual values, process is being consider all
and fully process that
costs are and risk costs) developed to financial
consider all fully considers
considered are considered consistently aspects of life
financial all aspects of
I don’t know. when making when making consider all cycle costing is
aspects of life life cycle
infrastructure some financial life consistently
cycle costing costing,
investment infrastructure cycle costs but applied on
and has including triple-
decisions. investment it is not yet significant asset
implemented it bottom line
decisions, but implemented. investment
on several asset (financial, social
doing so is not decisions.
investment and
part of a
decisions. environmental)
standard
costs and
process.
benefits.
All % 12% 34% 34% 7% 4% 5% 4%
Figure 24. (Q27 2015) Does the organization require business case evaluations (BCE’s) or have a
program to fully consider all aspects of life cycle costing when making infrastructure investment
decisions? (n=517)
CONCLUSIONS
Several aspects of this survey demonstrate the prominence of asset management in the water industry.
There was a large response to the survey even though it was a long survey that included many detailed
responses. Respondents came from all states but one (Vermont) and covered a wide range of system
sizes. Because this survey was not a random sampling of all water utilities, it is possible that the
respondents were weighted towards systems already engaged in asset management or at least
knowledgeable in asset management. However, when the request to complete the survey was sent out,
systems not engaged in asset management practice were still encouraged to complete the survey as
well. In particular, a request sent out by the Environmental Finance Center Network urged all systems,
including those not engaged in asset management, to complete the survey. There was a base level of
the responses “I don’t know” and “No” of between 10 and 47% on every question, so it is possible that
there was a base level within these responses that included utilities not currently engaged in asset
management.
The survey did include water utilities of all sizes. However, the proportion of systems in the small size
range (less than 10,000 in population) was much lower than the national percentage. In the U.S., 97% of
water utilities serve less than 10,000, but these utilities represented only 26% of the respondents.
Therefore these survey results are skewed towards larger utilities. This factor may be reflective of the
fact that AWWA members tend to be larger utilities or that larger utilities had more staff time to
complete the survey. Additionally, larger utilities may be more likely to be engaged in asset
management than smaller utilities.
The responses that could be selected by respondents can be placed into three broad categories: no
practice or lack of understanding (“I don’t know” or “No” responses), limited practice (all responses in
the middle) or high level of practice (the final response in each question.) If the responses are placed
into these categories, it is evident that there is a high level of at least some asset management practice
over all the questions. The percentage of utilities implementing some level of asset management
approach as part of their practices (though not highly advanced) ranged from 22 to 64% with an average
of 46% across all questions. No practice/lack of understanding was generally lower than limited practice
across the categories of questions, ranging from 10 to 47% with an average of 32% across all questions.
However, the no practice/lack of understanding response was almost always higher than the high level
of practice response. The high level of practice ranged from 2 to 57% with an average of 22%.
The highest levels of practice were seen in the following areas: a formal asset management work plan
with full implementation, asset management embraced by a majority of staff with management
support, benefits realized and documented, and 100% of the assets mapped. The lowest levels of
practice were seen in the following areas: no documented levels of service across the organization, no
process to assess the probability of failure or consequence of failure of assets, no process to rank assets
according to risk, and no business case evaluations required.
It is encouraging to see that systems are attempting to implement asset management across all
categories but it is clear that additional work is needed to assist systems in understanding risk and in
developing levels of service in order to advance the practice and increase the benefits achieved.
The survey was able to point out strengths and weakness in asset management practice across the U.S.
which will be extremely beneficial in designing additional resources and training to assist systems in
advancing their practice.
APPENDIX 1: Responses by Location
Location Responses % of Total Location Responses % of Total
Response Response
United States & Territories OR 10 1.8%
AK 3 0.6% PA 15 2.8%
AL 2 0.4% RI 1 0.2%
AR 7 1.3% SC 11 2.0%
AZ 12 2.2% SD 1 0.2%
CA 57 10.5% TN 12 2.2%
CO 22 4.0% TX 35 6.4%
CT 5 0.9% UT 10 1.8%
DC 1 0.2% VA 22 4.0%
DE 1 0.2% VT 0 0.0%
FL 26 4.8% WA 19 3.5%
GA 15 2.8% WI 39 7.2%
Guam 1 0.2% WV 5 0.9%
HI 2 0.4% WY 1 0.2%
IA 6 1.1% Canada, Provinces &Territories
ID 4 0.7% Alberta 7 1.3%
IL 12 2.2% British Columbia 9 1.7%
IN 10 1.8% Manitoba 0 0.0%
KS 6 1.1% New Brunswick 0 0.0%
KY 4 0.7% Newfoundland & Labrador 0 0.0%
LA 4 0.7% Northwest Territories 0 0.0%
MA 9 1.7% Nova Scotia 2 0.4%
Mariana Islands 1 0.2% Nunavut 0 0.0%
MD 4 0.7% Ontario 4 0.7%
ME 3 0.6% Prince Edward Island 0 0.0%
MI 20 3.7% Quebec 0 0.0%
MN 9 1.7% Saskatchewan 2 0.4%
MO 4 0.7% Yukon 0 0.0%
MS 1 0.2% Other International
MT 1 0.2% Bermuda 1 0.2%
NC 11 2.0% Mexico 0 0.0%
ND 1 0.2% Taiwan 1 0.2%
NE 4 0.7% United Arab Emirates 2 0.4%
NH 2 0.4%
NJ 10 1.8%
NM 14 2.6% TOTAL 545 100.0%
NV 9 1.7%
NY 12 2.2%
OH 16 2.9%
OK 5 0.9%
APPENDIX 2: 2015 Establishing the Level of Progress in Utility Asset
Management Survey Questions
AWWA is committed to helping water utilities effectively manage their infrastructure and provide safe,
reliable drinking water to customers at the lowest possible cost. A growing number of utilities are
implementing asset management solutions to address that goal.
One way AWWA supports utilities in this and other endeavors is to provide information to its members
through conferences, webinars, publications, and the AWWA website and resource pages. To support its
members with their asset management implementations, AWWA wants to keep its shared content on
the leading edge. To that end, the AWWA Asset Management Committee is issuing this survey to collect
information on the current state of asset management progress in the industry.
The survey is 28 questions, and should take ~ 30 minutes to complete; thanks in advance for your
contribution to this collective effort.
SECTION 1: GENERAL UTILITY INFORMATION
1. Respondent Information
Name: Fill in Box
Position/Title: Fill in Box
Email: Fill in Box
2. Utility Information
Name: Fill in Box
Address: Fill in Box
City: Fill in Box
State/Province: Fill in Box
Zip Code: Fill in Box
3. Utility ownership
Publicly owned
Private/Investor owned
4. *Services provided (check all that apply)
Water – retail
Water – wholesale
Wastewater
Water reuse
Stormwater
5. Average system demand

< 5 MGD
5-15 MGD
16-30 MGD
31-50 MGD
> 50 MGD
6. What size of population do you serve?

Less than 10,000
10,000-49,999
50,000-499,999
500,000-999,999
More than 1,000,000
7. What is the size of your overall utility? (Number of full time equivalent staff)
Fill in Box
SECTION 2: GENERAL ASSET MANAGEMENT
8. Does the organization have a dedicated asset management manager and/or a group of
asset management focused staff?
I don’t know.
No, the organization has adequate staff for asset management but does not have a
dedicated asset management coordinator and/or group of asset management focused staff.
No, the organization does not see the need for dedicated asset management staff.
The organization recognizes the need for an asset coordinator and/or focused staff, but has
not yet created the position(s).
The organization has a part time asset management coordinator.
The organization has a full time asset management coordinator but no other staff.
The organization has a full time asset management coordinator and additional staff
support.
9. Is there a formal work plan to implement Asset Management within the

organization?
I don’t know.
No, and there is no concept of what the plan would include.
Yes, but it is still conceptual.
Yes, it has been approved but not implemented.
Yes, and some of the tasks have been implemented.
Yes, and most of the tasks have been implemented.
10. Is Asset Management embraced by staff (other than at the management level) throughout
the organization?
I don’t know.
No.
Majority staff support, little management support
Little staff support, majority management support
Majority of staff and management support
11. Has the organization realized a benefit from its asset management program
and/or efforts?
I don’t know.
There are no asset management efforts underway as of yet.
No, asset management efforts are active but have not produced any tangible benefits.
Not yet, but the future benefits are expected (asset reliability, improved service levels,
and/or future cost avoidance).
Yes, benefits have been achieved, although they are not well documented.
Yes, benefits have been achieved and they are well documented.
Yes, benefits have been achieved and they are well documented. Costs and benefits of the
asset management program/efforts are quantified such that a return on investment can be
calculated.
SECTION 3: CURRENT STATE OF THE ASSETS
12. Which of the following describes your organization’s asset inventory / asset register
(Choose all that apply)?
I don’t know.
The asset inventory / register is not substantially developed.
There is a specific definition of assets versus non-assets for a majority of asset classes that
governs the inventory / registry.
The inventory / registry contains greater than 75-percent of assets.
Basic attribute data is largely populated for the assets in the inventory / register, such as
asset ID, description, location, install date, and physical attributes (e.g. size, material)
Advanced attribute data is largely populated for the assets in the inventory / register, such
as asset condition and/or probability of failure rating, criticality, useful life, replacement
value, and energy usage (if any).
Assets in the inventory / registry are organized as part of a well-defined asset hierarchy.
13. Does the organization have a map or a geographic information system (GIS)
with both linear assets (pipes) and vertical asset locations (e.g., booster
station and tank locations)?
I don’t know.
No.
<50 % of assets are mapped
50 - 75% of assets are mapped
> 75% of assets are mapped
100% of assets are mapped but it is not linked to all asset inventory systems of record, or it
is linked and there are some concerns with accuracy and/or comprehensiveness with data.
100% of assets are mapped in a GIS system that is linked to the asset inventory systems of
record.
14. Does the organization have a process in place to assess the condition of
linear assets (distribution system pipes) and store the condition data in a
spreadsheet or database? (check all that apply)
I don’t know.
No.
A process has been developed to assess pipe condition.
The condition of pipes is assessed using a break database that is less than 20 years old, or is
older but not comprehensive.
The condition of pipes is assessed using a break database that is 20+ years old and
comprehensive.
Pipe condition information is in a database that is linked to the asset register / inventory.
Some advanced condition assessment technology is used to inspect critical pipes for more
detailed condition data.
15. Does the organization have a process in place to assess the condition of
vertical assets (mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and other asset types
associated with facilities) and store the condition data in a spreadsheet or
database? (check all that apply)
I don’t know.
No.
A formal process to assess the condition of vertical assets is developed.
Condition assessment is conducted on critical vertical assets to identify defects and trigger
immediate intervention if necessary.
Condition assessment is conducted on some non-critical assets in addition to critical assets.
Condition assessment results are stored in a database for future analysis and trending.
Condition assessment results are used to determine when long-term interventions should
take place. Preventive maintenance is triggered based on condition rather than calendar
intervals.
SECTION 4: LEVELS OF SERVICE
Levels of Service are measures of the quality of service received by customers. For water customers,
they many include measures such as:
• The number of customers experiencing service disruptions due to water shut-offs

• The number of customers experiencing service disruptions due to water quality events
• The number of customers experiencing service disruptions due to low pressure events
• The number of non-disruption related water quality complains (taste, odor)
16. Has the organization documented Levels of Service across the organization
and are they contained in a Level of Service agreement or other similar
document?
I don’t know.
No.
Some levels of service have been developed but these are not well documented.
Some levels of service have been developed and these are documented.
Levels of service have been developed for each significant aspect of its business; these are
contained in a Level of Service document.
17. Which of the following apply to the organization’s clearly defined

Level of Service targets (choose all that apply)?
I don’t know.
The organization has not developed levels of service or levels of service do not have targets.
Some levels of service have targets
All levels of service have targets
Targets are well known throughout the organization
Performance is measured and progress in relation targets is communicated regularly (e.g.
monthly)
Level of Service targets are reevaluated and adjusted on a periodic basis (e.g. annually) to
reflected changes in customer expectations and/or the ability of the utility to provide a
specific service level
18. Does the organization analyze current and anticipated customer demands,
including planning for future growth or population decline, and plan
infrastructure investments to meet future demands?
I don’t know.
No.
The organization analyzes current demands but not anticipated demands.
Yes. Planning is for less than a 5 year horizon.
Yes. Planning is for a 5 to 9 year horizon.
Yes. Planning is for a 10 to 19 year horizon.
Yes. Planning is for a 20 year or longer horizon.
SECTION 5: RISK MANAGEMENT
19. Does the organization have a process to assess the probability (or likelihood) of
failure of assets?
I don’t know.
No.
A process is developed but has not yet been significantly implemented.
Probability of failure is established for less than 50% of assets using asset age and expected
life only.
Probability of failure is established for more than 50% of assets using asset age and
expected life only.
expected life only, and using failure data, asset condition or other advanced methods for
less than 50% of critical assets.
expected life only, and using failure data, asset condition or other advanced methods for
more than 50% of critical assets.
20. Does the organization have a process to assess the consequence of asset failure?
I don’t know.
No.
A process is developed but has not yet been significantly implemented.
Consequence of failure is established for less than 50% of assets using a simple, relative
rating system (e.g. a 1 to 5 scoring system).
Consequence of failure is established for more than 50% of assets using a simple, relative
rating system (e.g. a 1 to 5 scoring system).
rating system (e.g. a 1 to 5 scoring system). Monetary or triple-bottom line consequences,
including asset replacement costs, have been developed for less than 50% of critical assets.
rating system (e.g. a 1 to 5 scoring system). Monetary or triple-bottom line consequences,
including asset replacement costs, have been developed for more than 50% of critical
assets.
21. Does the organization have a process to rank assets according to overall risk
(the product of likelihood and consequences of asset failure)?
I don’t know.
No.
The organization has some limited ranking of assets according to overall risk with no plans
to put in place a system for ranking all assets.
The organization has developed a process to rank assets according to risk and is working
towards ranking all assets with less than 25% of them presently ranked.
The organization has developed a process to rank assets according to risk and is working
towards ranking all assets with 25-50% of them presently ranked.
The organization has ranked more than 50% of assets according to risk but is not yet using
this information in the process of operating and managing the system.
The organization has ranked more than 50% of assets (including most critical assets)
according to risk and uses this information in operating and managing the system.
22. How advanced is the organization in predicting when water distribution

pipe assets should be proactively replaced? (check all that apply)
I don’t know.
Distribution pipes are not proactively replaced.
Proactive pipe replacement is taking place.
Proactive pipe replacement is based on break history for individual pipes.
Proactive pipe replacement is based on an analysis of break history by asset classes that are
broken down by basic asset attributes such as material, size, and era of installation.
The rate of replacement is tracked and designed to stabilize the current break rate or
number of total breaks.
The rate of replacement is tracked and designed to meet the desired level of service for
break rate or break number, and this rate may be different than the current break rate.
SECTION 6: MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY
23. Is the organization moving from reactive (corrective and emergency)

maintenance to planned (predictive and preventive) maintenance?
I don’t know.
Reactive versus planned maintenance is not reviewed in any way.
A process to track reactive versus planned maintenance is in development.
A process to track reactive versus planned maintenance is being implemented, but more
data is needed.
Reactive versus planned maintenance is currently being tracked, but steps to improve the
balance between the two types of maintenance have not yet been identified.
Reactive versus planned maintenance is tracked. Improvement in the ratio of reactive to
planned maintenance has occurred, however, it is not yet in line with the industry best
practice of approximately 65% planned maintenance and approximately 35% reactive
maintenance.
Reactive versus planned maintenance is tracked and it is in line with the industry best
practice of approximately 65% planned maintenance and approximately 35% reactive
maintenance.
24. How advanced has the organization become in applying predictive

maintenance to its vertical assets (mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and other
asset types associated with facilities)?
I don’t know.
Predictive maintenance is not performed.
A limited amount of predictive maintenance is performed, such as ultrasonics, vibration
analysis, thermal imaging, oil analysis, and/or motor current analysis.
A considerable amount of predictive maintenance is performed to inform potential capital
interventions, but much of its preventive and planned-corrective maintenance work is still
based on a regular calendar interval and not based on condition.
A considerable amount of predictive maintenance is performed and results are used to
adjust the timing of some preventive and planned-corrective work from calendar-based to
condition-based.
A considerable amount of predictive maintenance is performed and results are used to time
much of its preventive and planned/corrective work based on condition.
Predictive maintenance is performed and the timing of most subsequent preventive and
planned/corrective maintenance tasks is based on the results. Predictive maintenance data
is stored and analyzed for asset condition trending to be used in maintenance and
replacement planning.
25. Does the organization use a computerized maintenance
management system (CMMS)?
I don’t know.
No.
The organization is currently developing a CMMS.
The organization has developed a CMMS for some, but not all, of its facilities. Only basic
functionality (i.e. work management) is utilized, and basic asset data (size, material, install
date) is not completely populated.
The organization has developed a CMMS for most or all of its facilities. Not all functionality
is utilized, and basic asset data (size, material, install date) may not be completely
populated.
The organization has developed comprehensive CMMS including all basic asset attribute
data, some software functionality beyond basic work order management is being utilized,
such as documentation of failures (types and modes).
The organization has developed comprehensive CMMS with all basic asset attribute data for
all of its facilities and all necessary software functionality is being utilized, such are ad-hoc
and standard reporting, including failure documentation. Checks on completeness and
quality of data result in a high degree of confidence in reporting outputs.
SECTION 7: ASSET PLANNING
26. Has the organization developed management plans for its various
asset classes (e.g., water distribution valve management plan),
sometimes known as Asset Management Plans, or AMP’s?
I don’t know.
No.
Asset management plans are being developed but none are complete.
Asset management plans have been completed for some asset classes. The plans are at a
basic level covering such aspects as asset inventory, condition and replacement value.
Asset management plans have been completed for most asset classes. The plans are at a
basic level covering such aspects as asset inventory, condition and replacement value.
Asset management plans have been completed for some asset classes. The plans include
more advanced topics such as the risk of asset failure, strategy recommendations for
maintenance, repair and replacement of assets, and forecasted budget needs.
Asset management plans have been completed for most asset classes. The plans include
more advanced topics such as the risk of asset failure, strategy recommendations for
maintenance, repair and replacement of assets, and forecasted budget needs.
27. Does the organization require business case evaluations (BCE’s) or have a
program to fully consider all aspects of life cycle costing when making
infrastructure investment decisions?
I don’t know.
Only capital costs are considered when making infrastructure investment decisions.
All financial life cycle costs (e.g. capital, operations, maintenance, residual values, and risk
costs) are considered when making some infrastructure investment decisions, but doing so
is not part of a standard process.
A BCE or similar process is being developed to consistently consider all financial life cycle
costs but it is not yet implemented.
A BCE or similar process is developed to consistently and fully consider all financial aspects
of life cycle costing and has implemented it on several asset investment decisions.
A BCE or similar process to fully consider all financial aspects of life cycle costing is
consistently applied on significant asset investment decisions.
A majority of significant asset investment decisions are made using a BCE or similar process
that fully considers all aspects of life cycle costing, including triple-bottom line (financial,
social and environmental) costs and benefits.
SECTION 8. WRAP UP.
28. Do you have any final comments or requests for topics or information you would like to see
from AWWA regarding asset management?
Fill in Blank
Thank you for participating in this survey; your results will be submitted to AWWA by clicking the submit
button below. Results and analysis will be made available on AWWA's Asset Management Resource
Community. If you have any questions or are in need of further information, please send a message to
research@awwa.org.
Best regards and much obliged,

Jennifer Santini
Engineer, Technical & Research Programs
American Water Works Association
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
This survey is based on the Asset Management IQ Process developed at the Southwest Environmental
Finance Center for the Kansas Department of Public Health and Environment in consultation with EPA.
Modifications have been made by the AWWA Asset Management Committee.
To reference the original Asset Management IQ survey on-line, visit:
https://southwestefc.unm.edu/AssetManagementIQ/main.php

Level of Progress in Utility Asset Management v4.0

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Level of Progress in Utility Asset Management v4.0

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2015 ESTABLISHING THE LEVEL OF

PROGRESS IN UTILITY ASSET MANAGEMENT

Christian Andreasen, Director of Engineering, Middlesex Water Company, Iselin, NJ

Figure 2. (Q3 2015) Survey respondents grouped by utility ownership. (n=537)

SECTION 1: GENERAL UTILITY INFORMATION

5. Average system demand

6. What size of population do you serve?

SECTION 2: GENERAL ASSET MANAGEMENT

9. Is there a formal work plan to implement Asset Management within the

SECTION 4: LEVELS OF SERVICE

• The number of customers experiencing service disruptions due to water shut-offs

17. Which of the following apply to the organization’s clearly defined

22. How advanced is the organization in predicting when water distribution

23. Is the organization moving from reactive (corrective and emergency)

24. How advanced has the organization become in applying predictive

SECTION 7: ASSET PLANNING

Best regards and much obliged,

Вам также может понравиться