Get documents about "11 July 3 Will Porter
Shared by: HC120704074749
-
Stats
- views:
- 2
- posted:
- 7/4/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 27
Document Sample
UK UTILITY VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKING:
WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU
WILL PORTER
CN UTILITY CONSULTING
JUNE 2011
BENCHMARKING: WHAT IT
MEANS TO YOU
OVERVIEW
I. WHY BENCHMARK? A BRIEF HISTORY OF BENCHMARKING
II. HOW REGULATORS CAN BENEFIT
III. HOW DNOs CAN BENEFIT
IV. HOW VENDORS CAN BENEFIT
V. HOW FIELD PERSONNEL CAN BENEFIT
VI. HOW THE PUBLIC CAN BENEFIT
VII. CNUC ‘S ROLE
WHY BENCHMARK?
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BENCHMARKING
• “Those who always go it alone are doomed to perennially
reinvent the wheel, for they do not learn and benefit from others’
progress.” Bogan, CEO of Benchmarking Co., and English, Quality Manager of GTE
• In 1970’s the word “Benchmark” (surveying term for reference
point) moved into the business lexicon meaning the
measurement process for making comparisons.
• “[Benchmarking is] a process for rigorously measuring your
performance versus the best-in-class companies and for using the
analysis to meet and surpass the best-in class.” Kaiser Associates
• “Benchmarking is the search for industry best practices that lead
to superior performance.” Robert Camp, Xerox Corp.
WHY BENCHMARKING?
ALLOW INNOVATION TO REALIZE ITS FULL POTENTIAL
Communication of Research and Development in 2009
Sponsors Have Exclusive Rights to Publication of
Results 0%
Published in a Journal, Periodical or Trade
Publication 0%
Research Was Inconclusive
Presentation at an Industry Meeting
Results Were Used to Change Company UVM
Practices
Informally Shared with Peers at Other Companies
Research Is Still in Progress
Communicated Internally
WHY BENCHMARKING? OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS
Benchmarking is an on-going process to promote
continuous improvement and adaptive innovation.
Benefits Gleaned from Practitioners of Benchmarking:
• Paradigmatic Shifts or Buy-ins to Change
• Teaches New Lessons in Competitiveness
• Catalyst for Learning
• Raises Level of Maximum Potential Performance
• Creates a Culture Open to Change
• Exposes People to New ideas
• Improves Organizational Quality
• Leads to Lower Costs
Bogan and English
Major Focus of Benchmarking for all entities will be to
Identify Best Practices and Continuous Improvement
HOW REGULATORS CAN
BENEFIT
• Equips Subject Experts with Industry
Knowledge for Crafting Regulations
• Measure Effectiveness of Regulations and
Standards
• Understand Individual DNOs Budget Issues
and Reasons for Variations in the Industry
• Develop Public Awareness as to Why Utility
Vegetation Management is Important to
Safety, Reliability and Compliance to
Regulations--Makes Regulations Defensible
MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS OF STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
Effect of FAC-003-1 on Changes in UVM Program Due to
Reliability Adoption of FAC-003-1
Record Keeping
Outages
Increased Large
0% Decrease in Field Audits
Outages
8% Minimum Clearance
Small
Decrease in Requirement (Clearance 2)
No Effect Outages
Because No 20% Ground Inspections
Outages Outages
56% Stayed the Clearances at the Time of
Same Maintenance (Clearance 1)
16%
Aerial Inspections
Herbicide Usage
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Not Applicable New Program Made Revisions Unchanged
WHAT IS THE COST OF UVM TO THE CUSTOMER?
Cost per Customer Calculated on Average for 2006 - 2008
Average : £24 per Year XYZ Reporting 2007 - 2009 Data
£60
£52
£50
Cost per Customer in GBP
£41
£40 £37
£33 £34
£28
£30 £27
£20
£20
£13 £14
£10 £11
£7 £9
£10
£0
33 45 32 XYZ 77 3 75 80 78 72 79 76 74 73
Companies Represented Have
Company Code
Low Density Customer Bases
SIGNIFICANT VARIATION IN COST PER OUTAGE:
ALWAYS EXPENSIVE
Average UVM Restoration Cost per Sustained Outage for 2006-2008
Average: £1,076.09
£7,000.00
£5,782
£6,000.00
Average Cost per Outage in GBP
£5,000.00
£4,000.00 £3,635
£3,000.00
£2,145
£2,000.00 £1,648
£1,498
£1,327
£1,078
£940
£1,000.00 £607 £540
£307 £249 £210 £185
£157 £70 £28 £25 £14
£0.00
3 76 13 81 80 77 78 79 41 75 72 12 74 73 18 32 31 33 36
Company Code
HOW DNOS CAN BENEFIT
• Measures UVM Program Success in Achieving
Objectives
• Provides Support for Budget Allocations Necessary for
DNOs to Meet Objectives
• Analyzes the Rationale for Rate Increases
• Explains Variations in Production Between DNOs and
Between Internal Regions or Districts
• Continuous Improvement by Identifying Best Practices
and Communicating New Developments in the Industry
• Designing and Establishing Defensible UVM Programs
UTILITY OBJECTIVES FOR PERFORMING UVM RANKED
IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE
Six Reasons for Performing UVM, Ranked in Order of
Importance
SAFETY ISSUES - Prevent Accidents,Property
Damage or Electrocutions Due to Tree-Powerline
Proximity
ELECTRIC RELIABILITY
6
COMPLY WITH SPECIFIC LAWS
5
4
PREVENT FIRES DUE TO TREE-WIRE CONFLICTS 3
2
LOWER COSTS 1
CUSTOMER/PROPERTY OWNER SERVICE
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
CAN THIS COMPANY CONTINUE TO MEET THEIR
OBJECTIVES?
Percentage of Trees in Contact with Distribution Lines at Time of Pruning
Average: 25% Companies with No Bar Reported 0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
20
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
27
29
30
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Company Code
ANALYSIS OF VARIATION AT COMPANY Q
Average for Total UVM Costs per System Number of Customers per
Kilometre for Distribution Without
Emergency Storm Costs for 2006 - 2008
Managed Kilometre
13.5
£700
Number of Customers per Circuit Kilometer
£617 12.96
13
£600 £580
£558
12.5
£500
Cost per Kilometre
12
£400 11.68
£400
11.5
11.04
£300 10.92
11
£200 10.5
£100 10
9.5
£0
Company Q: Southern Northern Eastern
Company Q: All Southern Northern Eastern
All Territories Territory Territory Territory
Territories Territory Territory Territory
The Northern Territory Has the Lowest Customer Density
The Northern Territory Has the Highest Cost per Managed Kilometre
Labour Hours per Managed Kilometre Follow Same Trends as Cost
The Southern Territory Has the Lowest Cost per Kilometre
ANALYSIS OF VARIATION AT COMPANY Q
Average Labour Hours per Tree Density
Tree for 2006 - 2008 Trees per Managed Kilometre
100
1.2
Trees per Managed Kilometre
90
80 87
Labour Hours per Tree
1 1.06
70
0.8 0.88 0.90
60
63
0.74 50 57
0.6
40
43
0.4 30
20
0.2
10
0 0
Company Q: Southern Northern Eastern Company Q: Southern Northern Eastern
All Territories Territory Territory Territory All Territories Territory Territory Territory
The Northern Territory Has the Highest Tree Density
The Northern Territory Has the Lowest Labour Hours per Tree
The Southern Territory Has the Highest Labour hours per Tree
The Southern Territory Has the Lowest Tree Density
DEFENSIBLE UVM PROGRAMS
Defense of UVM Programs Using Evidence Derived from Benchmarking
“The PUD’s expert, Mr. Stephen Cieslewicz, …a national consultant on vegetation
management practices for utility companies. …stated that the vast majority of
companies, with the exception of some in California near fire areas, do not routinely
inspect trees outside the clearance zone simply because the tree is tall enough to fall
on the line.”
[He further stated that], “ . . . the objective of line clearance inspections is to review
the air space between the lines and along the lines for trees or limbs, and that
unless the company knew of a problem tree, by direct observation or otherwise, it
would have no duty to undertake tree inspection.” Connelly vs. PUD Summary Decisions
•In 2006, only 31% of Surveyed Utilities Had a Hazard Tree Program
•In 2009, 56% of the Utilities Had a Hazard Tree Program
•In 2006, 29% Developed Specific Processes and Procedures for Hazard Tree
Evaluations
•In 2006, 56% of Companies Had Pre-Inspection and Planning in their
Contracts, But Only 27% Hired Vendors Specifically for Pre-Inspection
HOW VENDORS CAN
BENEFIT
• Getting Safety Data Analyzed by Impartial
Third Party to Maintain Confidentiality
• Safety Measurements Can Be Correlated with
UVM Program Attributes
• Discovering Variables that Lead to
Improvements in Safety
• Measuring and Understanding the
Correlations Between Methodology and
Contract Structures
SAFETY STATISTICS
OSHA Recordable Incident Rates for Companies: 3 Year Average 2006 - 2008
Average: 6.77
25
# of OSHA recordable injuries with or without lost time multiplied
by 200,000 and divided by total of worker hours for the year
OSHA Recordable Incident Rate
20
15
Only 13 Out of 25 Had Data for This Question
Questionable Responses
10
5
0
12 18 31 32 33 36 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
Company Code
Comments by Participants About Safety Statistics:
•Contractor unwilling to share safety stats
•Vehicle accident rate & outages per crew hour
•Contractor lost time incidents [only]
•[Statistics] Not Available
TREE PRUNING AND TREE REMOVAL
CONTRACT STRUCTURES
Contract Structure in 2006
Typical Unit of Work
Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Lump
8%
Sum
Grid
17%
T&M
Other
Unit 53%
Price
Circuit
22%
Mile of Line
Tree
Used for Contract Reviews and Could be Correlated to Discover Best Practices
HOW FIELD PERSONNEL
MIGHT BENEFIT
• Provide Best Practices for Performing UVM
• Benchmark Discoveries that Could Lead to
Improvement in Safety
• Review New Technology and Equipment for
Performance in the Field
FIELD PERSONNEL ESSENTIAL TO PROCESS
•Ultimately the People in the Field Should Be the Benefactors of a
More Efficient and Safer System that Strives Towards
Constant Improvement
•Field Personnel Are Essential in Collecting Data that ultimately
becomes a part of Benchmarking
•Field Personnel Know More About Specific Conditions Present than
Any Other Entity
•Field Personnel Have More Direct Contact with the Public than
Any Other Entity
•Sharing Strategic Benchmark Knowledge Between Field Personnel,
the DNOs, Regulators, and the Public Is a Strategy to Lead
the Industry in a Direction that Benefits All
HOW THE PUBLIC CAN
BENEFIT
• Statistics that Demonstrate the Importance
of UVM to Public Safety and Electrical
Reliability
• Educate the Public with These Statistics To
Aid in Acceptance of UVM
• Acceptance Could Lead to a Safer and
More Reliable Electrical System
BEST PRACTICES FOR EDUCATING THE PUBLIC
Effective Practice That Is Underused in the Vegetation Management Industry
•The Use of Focus Groups Has Decreased From 35% to 25% From 2002 to 2006
•75% of Companies That Used Focus Groups Resulted in Changes to UVM
Programs
•Changes Included (Comments by Benchmark Participants):
•We were able to remove previously trimmed trees in towns and replace with
low growing species as well.
•We changed our distribution notification process
•Customer survey [of] recent tree trimming projects to get feedback on
contractor performance. Contractors are more PR engaged.
•In the early years of directional pruning a focus group decision process
helped ease our established neighborhood’s [adjustment] to the
new pruning method.
•Only One Company out of 48 Used Customer Focus Groups Routinely
As One Benchmark Participant Said, “. . . our activities directly impact customers more
than any other activity at our utility.”
CNUC’S ROLE
• CNUC’s Background and Use of Benchmarking
in the UVM Industry
• Historical Data with Large Sample Size
• Confidentiality Options
• Survey Design
• Survey Quality Management
• Survey Analysis
• On-Going Program –Continuous Improvement
CONFIDENTIALITY FOR DNOs
CN Utility Consulting has practiced the following Confidentiality Rules in the past
and current North American Benchmarks:
•All participating companies have their name published with the Benchmark
reports and publications.
•The information supplied by the participants is confidential and is
represented in the publications by a coded number.
•Code number for each company is only supplied to that utility.
•Companies can reveal themselves to another company and CNUC will act as
the intermediary.
Confidentiality Options for United Kingdom DNOs:
•Open Benchmarking
•Can divide DNOs into regions, like Company Q in earlier example, to increase
sample set. The regions would be randomly mixed to make DNOs
identities more confidential.
•Mix DNOs with North American companies that compare well geographically,
economically and have similar vegetation densities and customer
densities. Unfortunately, the regulatory drivers will be different.
CONFIDENTIALITY FOR VENDORS
Confidentiality for Vendors :
Safety #1 Objective for UVM in North America
•Need reliable statistics for correlations
•Need standard definitions for safety metrics
•Need access to data from each entity who performs UVM –DNO,
contractor and subcontractor
•Accident data, safety education and safety Initiatives
•Compare elements of different safety cultures
Confidential Collection of Data Options:
•Confidential Data Collection (Preferable)
•Double Blind Collection
•Only Statistical Metrics Will Be Shown, No Raw Data
•Separate Survey for Contractors on Safety
SURVEY DESIGN, QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
•Survey Design is Continually Changing to Meet the Needs of the Participants
•Benchmarking Participants Can Create, Revise, Edit or Comment on Survey
Questions in Development
•Question Development Is a Function of Previous Survey Responses , Previous
Analysis and Changes in the Industry
•Responses are Verified if Data Is Questionable – Survey Follow-ups
•Years of Experience Have Improved Survey Design and Ability to Recognize the
Accuracy of Data
•Continually Discovering New Ways to Correlate Data for Analysis
•New Correlations Help in the Search for Best Practices and Adaptive Improvements
•Shorter In-Depth Surveys Keep Benchmarking an On-Going Process
WORK IS SOMETIMES A
WALK IN THE WOODS
