agenda item i1 - tampa bay water€¦ · agenda item i1 date: june 2, 2014 to: matt jordan, general...

AGENDA ITEM I1 DATE: June 2, 2014

TO: Matt Jordan, General Manager

FROM: Alison Adams, Chief Technical Officer

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Asset Management Program - Status Report and Presentation

SUMMARY: A comprehensive asset management program is key to maintaining a reliable water supply and delivery system. A status of all program activities underway is provided in this item.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive status report and Presentation

DISCUSSION: Asset management is the systematic integration of sustainable management techniques into a management paradigm that are applied to the entire portfolio of assets at all levels of the agency. In October 2013, staff retained the services of CH2M Hill, Inc. to develop the Asset Management Assessment Report and Implementation Plan and to continue assisting staff in developing maintenance strategies that would be required prior to implementing a new computerized maintenance management system. The Asset Management Assessment Report and Implementation Plan were completed in April 2014 (see attachment). These products detail a five year formal approach to asset management through integrating and enhancing existing data, systems, business processes, and practices into a comprehensive asset management program. The Implementation Plan charts a set of 17 projects beginning January 2014 through December 2018; the majority of costs occur within the first two years of implementation. The current estimated total funding to complete the Asset Management Assessment Report and to implement the Plan is $2,298,257. The FY 2014 budget included $550,000 for procurement of a new computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) software package and professional services for integration of this new software program. The Board approved the use of rate stabilization funds from FY 2013 to provide additional funding in FY 2014 of $300,000 to develop the Assessment Management Program and assist staff in implementing the initial phase of the program. Staff shifted internal priorities to allocate $194,957 of existing FY 2014 funds to support development of maintenance strategies and deployment of new CMMS. Staff will be allocating an additional $127,000 of FY 2014 funds to support implementation of several of the asset management program projects. This results in an estimated total cost for FY 2014 of $1,171,957. This cost includes software purchase, professional services to integrate the new software, and professional services to support staff in the initial steps of Asset Management Implementation Plan. Staff has included an additional $619,050 of funding for this program in the proposed FY 2015 budget, for a total two year projected cost of $1,791,007.

Matt Jordan June 2, 2014

An incremental approach is being used to address completion of the 17 projects with the intent to involve and train staff during the earlier project implementation steps and then transition the work away from consultant services to staff. The completion of the implementation plan is dependent upon staff availability and budget. Staff and consultants will further refine expected implementation costs as the Phase I Maximo implementation reaches the go-live stage in November 2014. Asset Management Plan Development In October 2013, staff retained the services of CH2M Hill, Inc. under contract 2014-007, to assist in the development of an Asset Management Program and support first phase program activities. The scope of services includes three tasks which are program development, first phase program implementation, and support for asset management teams. The Plan was completed in April 2014 and implementation has begun with the formation of cross functional teams. Implementation Phase The Implementation Phase includes development of cross functional teams to complete the 17 projects identified in the Implementation Plan of the Asset Management Assessment Report. Three projects were initiated prior to completion of the Asset Management Assessment Report. These include project 2, (Asset Hierarchy), project 3 (CMMS implementation), and project 5 (maintenance strategies). In October 2013 a second task order was issued to CH2M Hill under contract 2014-007 to assist staff in the procurement of Maximo integration services and to further develop maintenance business practices required to fully implement Maximo. This task order is on schedule and budget. Included in the implementation plan is the purchase and integration of Maximo, the agency’s new computerized maintenance management software system. At the December 2013 Board of Directors meeting, the Board approved procurement of Maximo as the agency’s new Computerized Maintenance Management System software. At the April 2014 Board of Directors meeting, the Board approved contract 2014-044 with EDI, Inc. to implement and integrate Maximo into the agency’s information technology system and work processes. Phase I Maximo implementation is scheduled for completion in November 2014. Completion of this Phase I integration project, which also includes completion of the agency’s asset hierarchy, development of maintenance business practices and job plans and integration of Maximo with the agency’s enterprise data base, GIS, and Munis financial system, is the highest priority in the Asset Management Implementation plan. Table 1 summarizes the current estimate for fiscal year 2014 and the proposed and projected expenditures for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Table 2 summarizes the teams, projects and implementation start year. BACKGROUND: Since Tampa Bay Water’s inception in 1998, its infrastructure has increased dramatically. In April 2011, the Board adopted the 2011 Strategic Plan. In support of the Board’s mission to provide water now and for future generations, the vision to be a


leader in innovation and best practices, the value to strive for continuous improvement in everything we do, the goal to achieve a reliable water supply and delivery system, and the strategy to implement a framework for long term regional system reliability, Tampa Bay Water staff are implementing a comprehensive asset management program, similar to several of our member governments, in accordance with the water utility industry best practices. Asset Management is maintaining a desired level of service at the lowest life cycle cost with limited resources and at an acceptable level of risk. Lowest life cycle cost determines the best appropriate cost for rehabilitating, repairing or replacing an asset. Asset management is implemented through as Asset Management Program which includes a written Asset Management Plan. Implementation of a comprehensive Asset Management Program is the foundation for long-term water supply planning. Attachment available on CD


Table 1. Asset Management Program Asset Management Program Element

2014 Current Budget

Estimate

2015 Proposed Budget

2016 Projected Budget

Total

Plan Development $139,000 $139,000 Maximo Purchase & Maint.

$169,957 $45,000 $50,000 $264,957

Maximo Phase I Integration Services

$395,000 $154,050 $549,050

Implementation Plan Services

$468,000 $350,000 $357,250 $1,175,250

Maximo Phase II $70,000 $100,000 $170,000 Total $1,171,957 $619,050 $507,250 $2,298,257Note: FY 2016 Projected Budget is subject to further refinement following completion of Phase I Maximo integration activities, progress on implementation plan projects, and staff availability.


Table 2. AM Implementation Plan Teams, Projects and Implementation Start Year

Cross Functional Teams Projects

Implementation

Fiscal Year

Asset Management

Advisory Team

Asset Management Program Review (Project 1) and

Plan Development 2014

Asset Hierarchy Team Asset Registry and Inventory (Project 2) 2014

Phases 2/3 Maximo Implementation (Project 4) 2015

Maintenance Workflows and SOPs (Project 5) 2014

Maintenance Strategies, FEMA, and PMs (project 6) 2014

Condition Assessment Process for Renewal and

Replacement (project 7) 2015

Condition Assessment Process for Renewal and

Replacement (project 8) 2016

Maintenance Strategies Implement Maintenance Strategies (project 9) 2015

Development of LOS (project 10) 2014

Risk Model development and implementation

(project 11) 2015

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement/Performance Measures

(project 12) 2014

Financial Forecasting

Review of Financial Forecasting tools, review of

Renewal and Replacement model, CMMS data

extraction for R/R model (project 13 & 14) 2015

Development training programs related to asset

management (project 15) 2015

Incorporate Asset Management into Agency

Strategic Plan and Update Strategic Plan (project 16) 2014

Develop internal communication strategies specific

to asset management program (project 17) 2015

2014CMMS Implementation

Maintenance Strategies

Condition Assessment

Level of Service/Risk

Organizational, Cultural and

Development

Phase I Maximo Implementation / EDI contract

(Project 3)

F i na l Repo r t

Asset Management Assessment Report

and Implementation Plan

Prepared for

Tampa Bay Water

April 2014

3120 Highwoods Blvd

Suite 214 Raleigh, NC 27604 P: (919) 875-4311 F: (919) 875-8491

I

Executive Summary

Having gone through nearly a decade of new capital project construction, Tampa Bay Water (Agency) is now concentrating on optimizing existing supplies and facilities, and there is a desire to focus more on enhancement of core operations. The transition from large‐scale construction activities to a focus on renewal and replacement (R&R) is allowing the Agency to consider ways to become more efficient and effective. Tampa Bay Water has formalized the implementation of its Asset Management (AM) Program. CH2M HILL was retained to develop the Asset Management Implementation Plan.

“Asset Management is an integrated set of processes to minimize the life‐cycle costs of infrastructure, at an acceptable level of risk, while continuously delivering established levels of service” (CH2M HILL, 2002). It involves simultaneously improving the combined effectiveness and efficiency of an organization’s assets – its physical assets, its financial assets, its information assets, and its human assets. While AM principles can be applied to any dimension of the Agency, comprehensive AM recognizes the synergies created from looking at the Agency holistically across all business units. Tampa Bay Water is a sophisticated organization that invests heavily in advanced management and decision support practices.

This assessment identified a number of discrete activities that are needed to improve the current asset management practices to a level commensurate with the Agency’s industry‐leading status. At the same time, the assessment recognized the relative size of the Agency and its local operating environment to assure that the proposed activities were both relevant and scaled to the Agency’s specific needs. Implementation of a new computerized maintenance management system (CMMS), IBM Maximo, is beginning in April 2014. It is a foundational change that is key to developing an effective AM Program at this point in time for Tampa Bay Water.

Three broad categories of needed activity were determined:

Improvements to the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) data collection, management, business processes, and reporting system.

- This includes the implementation of asset inventory, asset hierarchy (functional structure able to “roll‐up” or “roll down” to levels that meet the needs of a variety of users), data modification and input of new data, work order tracking, closure and predictive use, and management reporting using Maximo. Enhancement of CMMS use is anticipated to provide the single greatest impact on improving operational efficiencies.

Improvements to asset management practices.

- This category includes such activities as level of service, risk analysis, review of maintenance strategies, use of O&M failure codes, condition assessment and use of predictive tools for the renewal and replacement of assets. The Agency has a high degree of focus on reliability and, at a planning and management level, understands and values the balance and tradeoffs that are needed among the effects of life‐cycle costs and risk on system reliability. Improvement in O&M data will support true life‐cycle cost analysis decisions.

Improvements to performance communication and change management processes

- This category includes the communication of priorities and performance to allow for transparency and to assist in building a team‐based approach across the organization. Establishing clear, quantifiable, documented performance targets with a clear line of sight to the organization’s Strategic Plan allows staff to track and measure successes, as well as providing guidance for where improvement is needed, and avoiding confusion about job priorities and goals.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONTINUED

II

The implementation framework developed for Tampa Bay Water includes a list of tasks, timelines, critical path, responsible parties, and budget estimates. The ultimate goal of implementing an AM Program is to augment existing business processes to allow the Agency to make informed decisions about maintaining its assets. An effective and sustainable program can provide improved financial modeling, accurate O&M cost predictions, and decision‐making tools for balancing R&R; this program must be embraced organization‐wide and adopted as part of the culture and may take years to reach maturity and yield maximum benefit.

Contents Section Page

III

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... i

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ v

1 Organizational Context ............................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Agency History .............................................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Strategic Plan ................................................................................................................................ 1‐2

1.2.1 Goal 1 ‐ Reliability ............................................................................................................ 1‐3 1.2.2 Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency ............................................................................................................. 1‐3 1.2.3 Goal 3 ‐ Financial Stability and Sustainability .................................................................. 1‐3 1.2.4 Goal 4 – Relationships with Stakeholders ........................................................................ 1‐4

1.3 Existing Practices ........................................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.3.1 Governance Documents ................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.3.2 Strategic Plan ................................................................................................................... 1‐5 1.3.3 Financial ........................................................................................................................... 1‐5 1.3.4 Long‐Term Demand Forecasting Model .......................................................................... 1‐5 1.3.5 2035 System Hydraulic Analysis Update Project ............................................................. 1‐6 1.3.6 Long‐Term Master Water Plan (December 2013) ............................................................ 1‐6 1.3.7 Optimized Regional Operations Plan ............................................................................... 1‐7 1.3.8 Well Mitigation Program .................................................................................................. 1‐7 1.3.9 CIP Prioritization .............................................................................................................. 1‐8 1.3.10 Renewal and Replacement Program ................................................................................ 1‐8 1.3.11 Safety Policy and Procedures Manual .............................................................................. 1‐9 1.3.12 Security Policy and Procedures Manual ........................................................................... 1‐9 1.3.13 Energy Management Program ......................................................................................... 1‐9 1.3.14 Management and Performance Audit ........................................................................... 1‐10 1.3.15 Customer Survey ............................................................................................................ 1‐10 1.3.16 Maintenance Strategies Evaluation ............................................................................... 1‐11 1.3.17 CMMS Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 1‐11 1.3.18 Data Management and Information Technology (IT) Systems ...................................... 1‐11

2 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 2‐1

3 Project Approach & Findings .................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Methodology and Approach ......................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Evaluation of Current Practices ..................................................................................................... 3‐1

3.2.1 Data Review ..................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.3 Benchmarking with Similar Organizations .................................................................................... 3‐2 3.4 Mission, Vision, and Values Workshop ......................................................................................... 3‐2 3.5 Data Management and Storage .................................................................................................... 3‐2

3.5.1 Maximo Integration with Existing Systems ...................................................................... 3‐3 3.6 Safety Program .............................................................................................................................. 3‐4 3.7 Asset Management Practices Evaluation ...................................................................................... 3‐4

3.7.1 Preparatory Agency Staff Interviews ............................................................................... 3‐5 3.7.2 Gap Analysis Workshop ................................................................................................... 3‐6 3.7.3 Most Important Assets (“Dot”) Exercise ........................................................................ 3‐14 3.7.4 Data Analysis and Briefing ............................................................................................. 3‐15

4 Primary Assessment Observations & Conclusions .................................................................................... 4‐1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IV

4.1 Organization Strengths ................................................................................................................. 4‐1 4.2 Opportunities for Improvement ................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.3 Asset Management ....................................................................................................................... 4‐3

5 Implementation Focus Areas & Recommendations .................................................................................. 5‐1 5.1 Computerized Maintenance Management System ...................................................................... 5‐3

5.1.1 The Value of a CMMS ....................................................................................................... 5‐3 5.1.2 CMMS Recommendations ............................................................................................... 5‐4

5.2 Maintenance Strategies ................................................................................................................ 5‐5 5.2.1 Maintenance Strategies Recommendations .................................................................... 5‐5 5.2.2 Additional Comments on Condition Assessment ............................................................. 5‐5

5.3 Level of Service and Risk ............................................................................................................... 5‐6 5.3.1 Level of Service (LR‐1) ...................................................................................................... 5‐6 5.3.2 Risk (LR‐2) ......................................................................................................................... 5‐7

5.4 Continuous Improvement ............................................................................................................. 5‐7 5.4.1 Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement (CI‐1) ...................................... 5‐10

5.5 Financial Forecasting ................................................................................................................... 5‐10 5.5.1 Financial Forecasting Recommendations ...................................................................... 5‐10

5.6 Organizational and Cultural Development ................................................................................. 5‐11 5.6.1 Organizational and Cultural Development Recommendations ..................................... 5‐11

5.7 Timing, Urgency, and Priorities ................................................................................................... 5‐12

6 Assessment Report and Implementation Plan .......................................................................................... 6‐1 6.1 Draft Asset Management Assessment Report .............................................................................. 6‐1 6.2 Project Chartering and Implementation Roll‐Out ......................................................................... 6‐2

7 References ............................................................................................................................................... 7‐1

Appendices

Appendix A: Gap Analysis Detail Appendix B: Most Important Assets Exercise Appendix C: Project Descriptions Appendix D: Preliminary Schedule Appendix E: Link to 2010 Management and Performance Audit

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Summary of Tampa Bay Water’s System Exhibit 2: Tampa Bay Water Regional Water Supply and Delivery System Exhibit 3: Potential System Interfaces/Integrations with Maximo Exhibit 4: Examples of Gap Assessment Scoring Result Examples Exhibit 5: Differing Sample Scoring Histograms and Importance Intensity Scale by Subgroup Exhibit 6: Similar Sample Scoring Histograms and Importance Intensity Scale by Subgroup Exhibit 7: “Box & Whisker” Diagram of All Gap Survey Responses Exhibit 8: Implementation Funding Summary Exhibit 9: Maintenance Strategies vs. Cost Exhibit 10: Practice Area 8c

V

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Agency Tampa Bay Water AM Asset Management AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies AUTHORITY West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

BUDW Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells

CIP Capital Improvement Program CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System

DSS Decision Support System

EMMS Enterprise Maintenance Management System EMS Environmental Management System

FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

FTE full‐time equivalent

GIS geographic information system

GNP Good Neighbor Policy

HR Human Resources

ILA Interlocal Agreement ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT Information Technology

KDR Kerr & Downs Research KPI key performance indicator

LIMS Laboratory Information Management System LOS level of service LTDFS long‐term demand forecasting system

MCDA multi‐criteria decision analysis

mgd million gallons per day

NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies

O&M Operations and Maintenance OROP Optimized Regional Operations Plan

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PM preventative maintenance psig pounds per square inch gauge

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance RPM Replacement Planning Model R&R Renewal and Replacement

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SOP Standard Operating Procedure SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District

Team Asset Management Advisory Team

WEF Water Environment Foundation WUP Water Use Permit

1-1

SECTION 1

Organizational Context

1.1 Agency History Tampa Bay Water (the Agency) was created by an Interlocal Agreement in 1998 to supply wholesale water to its six member governments: Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, and the cities of New Port Richey, St. Petersburg, and Tampa. Under the terms of the Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement (ILA), it is the Agency’s responsibility to provide quality water “for county and municipal purposes in such a manner as will give priority to reducing adverse environmental effects of excessive or improper withdrawals of Water from concentrated areas” (West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, 1998b).

The Agency has grown from a groundwater only system in 1998 to a much larger regional water delivery system that includes groundwater and surface water sources, an off‐stream storage reservoir, a seawater desalination plant, and a collection of pipes and pumps that distribute quality drinking water to the six member governments. Tampa Bay Water’s regional network of water supply facilities includes the 120‐million‐gallon‐per‐day (mgd) surface water treatment plant, the 25‐mgd Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant, a 15.5‐billion gallon reservoir, and groundwater wellfields with a capacity of 120 mgd (permitted capacity). This use of river water, groundwater, and desalinated seawater makes Tampa Bay Water’s system unique in the nation. The growth in the system is reflected in the data presented in Exhibit 1 and the system diagram presented in Exhibit 2.

EXHIBIT 1 Summary of Tampa Bay Water’s System

1998 2013

Supply Sources Groundwater Groundwater, Surface Water,

Desalinated Seawater

Number of Delivery Points 7 19

Production Wells 207 177

Water Plants 2 12

Pump/Booster Stations 4 14

Transmission Lines – Miles 160 240

Horsepower 28,000 106,025

Pumps 228 259

Chemical Feed Systems 14 37

Ground Storage Tanks 5 10

Reservoir Storage – Billions of Gallons 0 15.5

Monitoring/Control Nodes 92 428

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) I/O Points

1,000 22,500

Communication Lines 20 65

1 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

1-2

The surface water treatment plant, Lithia H2S Removal Facility, and the desalination plant are currently operated by outside contractors, but may revert to Tampa Bay Water operation in the intermediate term (5‐ to 10‐year time frame).

Tampa Bay Water has added additional water treatment facilities, an expanded surface water system, piping, and pumps to form a flexible and adaptable water supply system. These sources are sufficient to meet the region’s drinking water demands over the next decade.

EXHIBIT 2 Tampa Bay Water Regional Water Supply and Delivery System

Source: Tampa Bay Water, 2013b

1.2 Strategic Plan In 2011, Tampa Bay Water adopted a Strategic Plan, which includes four main goals intended to guide the Agency in fulfilling the mission of providing clean, safe, and reliable water. The Asset Management Implementation Plan maintains a line of sight with the Strategic Plan. The plan included new Mission, Vision, and Values statements along with the four major goals:

Goal 1: Achieve a reliable water supply and delivery system

Goal 2: Continue to improve the efficiency of Tampa Bay Water's operations


1-3

Goal 3: Maintain Agency's financial stability and sustainability

Goal 4: Develop, improve, and maintain collaborative relationships with stakeholders

1.2.1 Goal 1 - Reliability The key driver for Tampa Bay Water is its unequivocal obligation to provide quality water to the member governments now and in the future according to Section 3.03 of the Interlocal Agreement. In addition, Section 3.11 of the ILA requires service disruptions be remedied as “quickly as technically feasible” which are being met through the Agency’s dedication to an AM program approach. The strategies set forth in the Strategic Plan under the Reliability goal are aimed towards meeting this obligation. The details of how Tampa Bay Water will meet this obligation are documented in the Agency’s Long‐Term Master Water Plan (Tampa Bay Water, 2014), which is updated every 5 years. The master plan considers: future demands; requirements for capital projects; staffing; and the reliability of present and future supply and treatment facilities.

Other activities that support supply and delivery reliability include the Optimized Regional Operations Plan (OROP). The plan is part of the Tampa Bay Water Decision Support System (CH2M HILL, 2002), which uses forecasted surface water flows, current groundwater level conditions, and rainfall data to determine how to rotate production among available supplies to meet demands in an environmentally sound manner (Tampa Bay Water, 2014).

1.2.2 Goal 2 - Efficiency Tampa Bay Water is a sophisticated organization that invests heavily in advanced management and decision support practices. The Agency has many existing practices and programs which incorporate principles of Asset Management (AM), such as:

A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plan, which incorporates a multi‐criteria evaluation for each proposed project and considers levels of service (LOSs) and life‐cycle cost.

A Renewal and Replacement (R&R) Program, which estimates R&R funding requirements and incorporates risk assessment and condition assessment.

An Energy Management Program, which includes the implementation of energy conservation and alternative/renewable energy capital projects.

A Demand Forecasting system, which incorporates point forecast projections and manages uncertainty by considering probabilistic projections.

These practices and programs support the goal of improving efficiency of operations.

1.2.3 Goal 3 - Financial Stability and Sustainability To meet the financial stability and sustainability goal, Tampa Bay Water looks to develop predictable rates that consider uncertainties, looks for innovative ways to reduce cost, and focuses on developing reliable budget models, which also considers uncertainty.

Several of the programs and plans described above, such as the Long‐Term Master Water Plan, the R&R Program, and the CIP, combine to help meet the Agency’s financial goals. These programs and plans are collectively aimed at understanding the short‐term, intermediate‐term, and long‐term needs of the Agency and its customers, which ultimately lead the Agency to well‐considered financial projections.


1-4

1.2.4 Goal 4 – Relationships with Stakeholders Within the Strategic Plan, Tampa Bay Water considers both internal and external stakeholders. Current practices that support enhancement of relationships with external stakeholders include a public opinion survey, which explores public attitudes toward the Agency and its operations.

Internally, Tampa Bay Water periodically reviews staffing through formal audits and pay plan and benefit package reviews. Tampa Bay Water has an active Communications Department.

1.3 Existing Practices In addition to the practices and programs described in Section 1.2, Tampa Bay Water incorporates many advanced practices into their operation, some of which are described below. These practices are highlighted as they specifically relate to the AM Program.

1.3.1 Governance Documents The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) was created pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement among Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, the city of St. Petersburg, and the city of Tampa dated October 24, 1974. Sections 373.1962 and 163.01, Florida Statutes, authorize the creation of regional water supply authorities. The Authority was created for the purpose of developing, recovering, storing, and supplying water for county and municipal purposes while giving priority to reducing the adverse environment effects of excessive or improper groundwater withdrawals from concentrated areas. New Port Richey was added as a non‐voting member in 1982.

During the 1996 session, the Florida Legislature directed the Authority and its member governments to evaluate the Authority’s operations to look for potential improvement opportunities. An independent report, entitled “West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority Governance Study for the Florida Legislature,” prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, analyzed and confirmed the strength of a regional solution.

The Governance Study and its recommendations were approved for submittal to the Florida Legislature by the Authority’s Board of Directors in January 1997. The Florida Legislature recognized the need for coordination between water management districts, regional water supply authorities, and local governments. Therefore, clear direction was provided as to each entity’s respective role in ensuring that sufficient water is available for Tampa Bay area water users to meet reasonable‐beneficial needs and water needs of natural systems. The involved parties, including the Authority, its member governments, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), agreed that it was in their best interest to work together toward accomplishing their respective statutory responsibilities, including the coordination and development of new and additional water supplies to meet existing and future demands.

On May 1, 1998, the Authority reorganized under the Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement among Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg, Tampa, and New Port Richey. The reorganization changed the Authority from operating under an “entitlement” or “subscription” funding approach to operating as a true utility. Wellfields and associated infrastructure owned by the member governments were purchased by the new utility to create a true regional water supply and delivery system. As part of the transition, the utility assumed a new name: Tampa Bay Water (AwwaRF, 2006).

The May 1998 contract documents the Authority’s responsibility to “sell and deliver sufficient Quality Water to the Member Governments to meet their needs…in accordance with the terms of the Contract and the Interlocal Agreement” (West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, 1998a). In June of 1998, an Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement was signed reorganizing the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority “for the purpose of developing, recovering, storing and supplying Quality Water for county and municipal purposes in such a


1-5

manner as will give priority to reducing adverse environmental effects of excessive or improper withdrawals of Water from concentrated areas” (West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, 1998b). Exhibit C in the Contract defines design pressures at points of connection ranging from 20 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 80 psig. Exhibit D in the Contract defines supplemental water quality parameters at points of connection, including sulfides, total hardness, and alkalinity.

The Interlocal Agreement includes three major components related to the reliable and sustainable delivery of finished water:

If demand exceeds permitted capacity by 75% during any 12‐month period – initiate preparation of permit applications.

If demand exceeds permitted capacity by 85% during any 12‐month period – file permit applications.

Production Failure – actual delivery during any 12‐month period exceeds 94% of the aggregate permitted capacity.

The Water Use Permits (WUPs) issued by the SWFWMD establish the maximum withdrawals from the various fresh water sources. Tampa Bay Water’s desalination plant capacity is permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

1.3.2 Strategic Plan In 2011, the Board adopted the 2011 Strategic Plan. The plan included new Mission, Vision, and Values statements, along with four major goals. Each goal included a number of individual strategies to guide efforts in achieving the goals. The strategies were further divided into objectives to support those strategies. In total, there were 65 objectives supporting 19 strategies.

In the first quarter of 2013, the first report of progress against the Strategic Plan was presented to the Board (Tampa Bay Water, 2013a). This document was based on a group meeting where 20‐30 staff members assigned weighting factors to each goal, strategy and objective. A time‐based scoring scale was developed and scores were applied to each weighted strategy. The roll‐up of the scores gave an overall performance score by objective, which showed progress toward implementing the plan. The intent is to create annual updates going forward.

1.3.3 Financial Tampa Bay Water owns assets with a book value of $1.22 billion and has bond ratings of Aa2, AA+, and AA+ from Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch, respectively (Citigroup et al., 2013). In fiscal year 2012, the Agency had an average water production of 164.3 mgd and revenue from sales of $166 million (FY2012) (Citigroup et al., 2013). The fiscal year 2014 budget for the Agency is $168.9 million (Tampa Bay Water, 2013g), which includes a CIP of $89 million.

Overall, perceptions and opinions of staff indicate that the financial situation of the Agency is considered good, and the organization is investing in programs that will save money in the long run. Routine audits support this conclusion.

1.3.4 Long-Term Demand Forecasting Model In 2004, Tampa Bay Water developed a long‐term demand forecasting system (LTDFS) in response to the need to develop new water supply and reduce pumpage from existing wellfields (Hazen and Sawyer, 2004). The LTDFS quantifies how socioeconomic, meteorological, and policy conditions influence potable water demand. The forecasting models were updated to include an additional five years of water use data and to extend the water planning horizon to 2035 (Hazen and Sawyer, 2010).


1-6

The LTDFS incorporates both point forecast projections and probabilistic projections using Monte Carlo techniques to account for uncertainty in variables which influence demand projections.

In 2013, Tampa Bay Water initiated the next update of the long term demand forecasting models to incorporate about five years of additional water use data, evaluate the most appropriate spatial scale for the econometric models, and to incorporate the effects of passive water use efficiency directly into the demand forecasting process.

1.3.5 2035 System Hydraulic Analysis Update Project Tampa Bay Water is currently undertaking a project to update the regional system hydraulic evaluation using 2035 average day water demand projections for the points of connection. . The evaluation includes Emergency Scenario Planning, facility‐level risk assessments and review of operating conditions.

1.3.6 Long-Term Master Water Plan (December 2013) Under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement, Tampa Bay Water is required to update the Master Water Plan every 5 years. The third such update was completed at the end of 2013 (Tampa Bay Water, 2013e). The purpose of the document is to ensure that Tampa Bay Water meets the unequivocal obligation to provide quality water to its member governments both now and in the future.

According to the Interlocal Agreement, the 5‐year update shall, to the extent deemed necessary or advisable by the Board:

Identify current customers, projects, and future customers

Review and generally inventory existing Tampa Bay Water facilities

Identify a CIP(or a component of overall CIP)

Review current Tampa Bay Water permits along with existing and projected regulations

Identify proposed new water supply facilities

Evaluate staffing

Provide hydraulic analysis of both existing and proposed systems

Evaluate present and future sources and treatment requirements in terms of capacity, reliability, and economy

Update the list of water supply facilities required to meet the anticipated water quality needs of the member governments for the next 20 years

In addition, the Board’s goals for the Master Water Plan projects include: environmental stewardship, cost, and reliability.

With the significant shift toward reliance on surface water, the most recent plan includes details on how the Agency will incorporate/address climate variability into water supply planning. Water demands and the quantity of available surface water supply can vary greatly between wet to normal rainfall years versus drought years and can also be different intra‐annually due to expected seasonal rainfall patterns. Tampa Bay Water has developed a system‐wide model which allows the entire regional supply and delivery system to be analyzed. Quantifying the performance of the regional system under varying demand and weather conditions is accomplished through the use of this simulation model. This approach incorporates both risk‐based decision making and adaptive planning.

The Demand Management Plan, which is prepared as part of the Master Water Plan, investigates the benefits and costs of water demand management as a quantifiable, alternative water supply source. The Demand


1-7

Management Plan is one way to further the Agency’s strategic goal to achieve reliability of its water supply and delivery system.

Tampa Bay Water regularly performs hydraulic analyses for its regional supply and transmission system to study current system operating conditions and to evaluate plans for projected future operating conditions (Section 1.3.5). Tampa Bay Water uses a number of tools to perform modeling and analysis.

1.3.7 Optimized Regional Operations Plan The OROP, developed by Tampa Bay Water in compliance with permit conditions, utilizes an integrated hydrologic simulation model, surface water forecasting tools, and an optimization model to manage pumpage from the 11 wellfields under the Consolidated Permit, the Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells (BUDW), and surface water withdrawals (Hillsborough River/Tampa Bypass Canal system and Alafia River). The result is an interconnected regional water supply system through the development of an optimized production schedule. The hydrologic model, which is based on the physical characteristics of the surface water and groundwater system, simulates changes in water levels resulting from changes in pumpage and rainfall. The optimization model is used to schedule production from the wellfields, based on current hydrologic conditions, forecasted treated surface water available from the regional surface water treatment plant, and available desalinated seawater, to meet member government demands. The optimization model also seeks to maintain groundwater levels as high as possible at a selected set of surficial aquifer and Upper Floridan Aquifer monitoring wells known as control points. The pumpage/water level relationships are based on the hydrologic model providing a unit response for each production/monitoring well combination, which relates incremental pumpage changes to water‐level changes. The output of the optimization routine is a weekly schedule that directs pumpage from production wells (AwwaRF, 2006 and Tampa Bay Water,2011a).

The OROP is part of the Tampa Bay Water Decision Support System (DSS) (Tampa Bay Water and CH2M HILL, 2002) that uses forecasted surface water flows, current groundwater level conditions, and rainfall data to determine how to rotate production among available supplies to meet demands in an environmentally sound manner (Tampa Bay Water, 2014). Tampa Bay Water is currently developing a daily systems operations model that will be integrated with OROP. Hydraulic and mechanical reliability analyses of systems, subsystems, and components are currently being developed through integrated efforts from the planning, engineering, operations, and maintenance groups.

1.3.8 Well Mitigation Program The Tampa Bay region has historically relied on groundwater wells as its major source of drinking water. As early as the 1970s and 1980s, and preceding the formation of Tampa Bay Water, there were increasing community and environmental concerns related to the sustainability and negative impacts of continued sole dependency on groundwater supplies. One of the core objectives of Tampa Bay Water since its inception in 1998 has been to reliably and sustainably diversify the region’s raw water sources for drinking water uses.

From 1979 to November 30, 1992, the Agency followed SWFWMD’s WUP conditions as part of its well investigation and mitigation policy. The WUP conditions required the mitigation of any domestic well that was impacted by wellfield withdrawals. A water well contractor and a consultant investigated each domestic well complaint. A complete investigation and evaluation were conducted on each well to determine if the well was being adversely impacted by wellfield activities.

The Good Neighbor Policy (GNP) for well complaints was approved in November 1992 and provided for domestic well complaints to be addressed with no need to determine the cause of the problem. Prior to this, the permit conditions required the Agency to mitigate any adverse impacts, related to wellfield water withdrawals, to a well owned by an existing legal user. As a result, the Agency would investigate whether or not wellfield activities were the cause of the complaint. This investigation in many cases took several days and often yielded results that were disputed by SWFWMD.


1-8

By implementing the governing board’s GNP, Tampa Bay Water complies with the Florida Well Mitigation Policy. This policy includes investigating and resolving, normally at no expense to the owner, any water level issues regarding domestic wells within the mitigation area established in each wellfield’s current WUP. Well Complaint Summary Reports are compiled and submitted monthly for each of the WUPs (Larson Allen, 2010).

1.3.9 CIP Prioritization Tampa Bay Water’s CIP is a comprehensive 5‐year plan of approved and proposed capital projects. It is updated annually to adjust for need and timing of projects. In developing and updating the plan, Tampa Bay Water staff take several actions to guide decision making and recommendations for projects being considered for inclusion in the CIP. These are:

Identify and prioritize capital projects through a coordinated, Agency‐wide effort that considers planning and development, engineering, construction, financing requirements, and O&M costs.

Develop a schedule for each project.

Develop a funding scenario that identifies funding sources, projected cash flow, and future O&M cost estimates.

The evaluation process includes a multi‐criteria evaluation for each proposed project against each of the following criteria: Compliance, LOS, Contractual Obligations, Security and Safety, Operating Costs, Maintenance Costs and R&R Urgency (Tampa Bay Water, 2013h).

1.3.10 Renewal and Replacement Program The Tampa Bay Water R&R Program estimates annual R&R funding requirements, projects future funding requirements, determines asset condition, and prioritizes R&R projects and activities. The program provides Tampa Bay Water with a way to help manage its assets from installation through disposal. The R&R Program development process follows five steps: Data Collection, Risk Assessment, Sensory Condition Assessment, Desktop Assessment, and Replacement Planning Model.

Risk is calculated by scoring each asset for Vulnerability and Criticality using defined metrics for each. The metrics consider aspects such as useful life of asset, water quality, financial impact, health and safety, and impact on the environment. The sensory condition assessment is completed for Tampa Bay Water facilities approximately every 3 years, and the Desktop Assessment is completed for underground assets, such as pipelines and buried power lines. The Replacement Planning Model (RPM) is a custom application used to forecast asset R&R needs over a given timeframe. The RPM considers type, useful life, renewal activities, probability of failure, condition, and utilization of assets to estimate timing of their renewal and replacement.

The RPM is updated annually as new assets are added and as assets are renewed or replaced. R&R activities or projects arising from the RPM are considered for incorporation into the CIP or for funding through the operating budget R&R Fund.

The RPM is significantly dependent on the internally developed Enterprise Maintenance Management System (EMMS). However, for numerous reasons, the asset lists, asset attributes, and work order histories have not been well maintained over recent years. In the fall of 2013, the decision was made to move to a robust commercially available computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). The new CMMS is currently in the process of being implemented; concurrently, best management practices are being implemented to better assure that the data contained in the CMMS, and which are required for meaningful use of the RPM, are in place.

Not all asset data are currently included in the RPM. Plans for 2014 included continued program refinement, asset evaluation, and data entry into the program.


1-9

1.3.11 Safety Policy and Procedures Manual A draft of the Tampa Bay Water Safety Plan, the Safety Policy and Procedures Manual, is currently in development (Tampa Bay Water, 2013d). This document outlines the Agency’s overall plan for ensuring the safety of its employees and contractors by implementing the best practice of maintaining Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance in all facets of its operations. The objectives of the Safety Plan are to:

Ensure the safety of all Tampa Bay Water employees, contractors, and the general public who come in contact with Agency assets.

Continually monitor, maintain, and periodically update engineering controls and work practices to ensure the safety of Agency employees, contractors, and the general public.

Promptly evaluate and respond to accidents or incidents that endanger Agency employees, contractors, and the general public.

Prioritize safety of Agency employees and contractors to minimize impacts on the ability to provide drinking water.

Regularly communicate with Agency employees and contractors and maintain awareness and priority for safety.

1.3.12 Security Policy and Procedures Manual The Security Manual is a confidential document that outlines the Agency’s overall plan to provide the reasonably necessary physical measures, management systems, security forces, information sharing, and protective measures to secure its facilities (Tampa Bay Water, 2013b). The objectives of the Security Policy and Procedures Manual are to:

Proactively protect the Agency’s facilities, property, and employees from criminal acts.

Continually monitor, maintain, and periodically update physical and operational security systems and procedures.

Promptly evaluate and respond to credible security threats.

Prioritize security for critical assets to minimize impacts on the ability to provide drinking water.

Regularly communicate with employees and maintain awareness and priority for security.

1.3.13 Energy Management Program Tampa Bay Water’s Energy Management Program includes the implementation of energy conservation and alternative/renewable energy capital projects. This programmatic approach to improve energy efficiency through implementation of emerging technology and other opportunities is a top priority for the Agency. The Program follows a 10‐year Energy Roadmap that looks at issues related to energy consumption. The Roadmap aligns with the Agency’s overall Strategic Plan, identifies elements of technology and energy infrastructure to enhance financial stability and sustainability of operations, and identifies gap/key projects necessary to connect capital projects with the goals of the Roadmap (Tampa Bay Water, 2013c and 2013f).


1-10

1.3.14 Management and Performance Audit Every 5 years, the Agency contracts with an independent auditor to assess the Agency as an entity and to report conditions and make recommendations. The two completed since the creation of Tampa Bay Water were published in 2010 (Larson Allen, 2010) and 2005 (KPMG, 2005).

The aim of these management and performance audits is “to review program results and make recommendations regarding its governance, structure and the proper, efficient, and economical operation and maintenance of the Agency’s Water Supply Facilities.” The audits include staff interviews, employee surveys, customer satisfaction surveys for the six member government utility directors, and peer benchmarking. The audits also include a review of relevant Agency policies, procedures, guidelines, plans, and reports.

The Executive Summary of the 2010 performance audit states “this performance audit has found specific areas where the Agency can now concentrate to enhance the services provided, while remaining cost‐effectiveness. Focus should be on (1) comprehensive strategic planning; (2) definition and adoption of a performance measurement and continuous improvement program at all levels of the Agency; (3) completion and implementation of the renew and replace (R&R) program; (4) methodical review of the cost‐effectiveness of the professional services currently outsourced; (5) proper succession planning; (6) strengthening the human resources function; and (7) increasing maintenance and operations field work productivity.”

In the spring of 2013, the Agency implemented a re‐organization that had been formulated over approximately 2 years. A new General Manager was hired in July 2013, and additional modifications to the organization structure are currently underway. Progress was made on the major aspects of the 2010 performance audit, including throughout the re‐organization period. The Human Resources (HR) manager position has been vacant since December 2013, and that position was filled in March 2014.

1.3.15 Customer Survey Tampa Bay Water conducts regular customer surveys, the most recent one being in 2012 (Tampa Bay Water, 2012). For this Public Opinion Survey, Tampa Bay Water contracts with a third party whose personnel conduct telephone and internet surveys of randomly selected households in the Tampa Bay Water service area.

The objective of surveys studies is to explore public attitudes regarding the following:

Regional water supply issues

Tampa Bay Water

Water conservation

Tap water

Information sources for water issues

The most recent report presented results from the 2012 survey aggregated for the entire service area and broken down by county (Kerr & Downs Research [KDR], 2012). Comparisons to results from 2003, 2005, and 2007 were also shown in the survey summary reports when appropriate.

The most recent customer survey included telephone and online surveys of 1,200 randomly selected households in the Tampa Bay Water area, the results of which are statistically valid for both the tri‐county region as a whole, as well as each county individually. Some key findings of the survey included:

One‐half of respondents believe that public officials adequately address water supply issues; the public perception is that the water shortage has improved significantly since the last survey was conducted in 2007.


1-11

Two‐thirds of respondents believe that Tampa Bay Water effectively supplies water to the region and 6 in 10 agree that the Agency is concerned about the environment.

More than 50 percent of respondents think that Tampa Bay Water is concerned about finding new water sources and helps local governments cooperate on water problems.

Half of respondents think that Tampa Bay Water listens to the community and accepts ideas – this is up 16 percentage points since 2007.

Around a third of respondents believe the Agency meets wholesale water needs, advocates for the protection of water sources, and plans, develops, produces, and delivers a high‐quality water supply.

Half of respondents are not aware of where their water comes from. In addition, desalination (both brackish and seawater), as well as surface water, were listed as undesirable water resources.

Water quality remains a priority with the respondents. Forty‐five percent think bottled water is safer to drink than tap water, and the number of respondents who believe tap water is safe to drink has decreased by 5 percentage points since 2007.

Respondents indicated they would be willing to pay an additional $2.81 per month on average to improve water quality.

1.3.16 Maintenance Strategies Evaluation Prior to the AM evaluation project, CH2M HILL worked with Tampa Bay Water to support their current Maintenance System and practices. In the evaluation of the CMMS, it became apparent that a number of workflows, business processes, and preventative maintenance (PM) work orders needed to be improved within the framework of the reorganized Agency. The project introduced the concepts of best industry practices, including Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). In addition, the project included training and defining required roles and responsibilities within work processes and assignments within various departments.

The training series consisted of 10 sessions addressing such topics as Reliability & Failure Modes; FMEA; Operator Driven Reliability/Maintenance; Predictive Maintenance–Applicability; Predictive Maintenance–Data Use/Trending; Development of Workflows; and Development of PM Programs. Staff level evaluation included review of the development of multi‐tier classification for maintenance workers, similar to those used by operators.

1.3.17 CMMS Evaluation Also prior to the AM evaluation project, CH2M HILL assisted Tampa Bay Water in evaluating the existing Enterprise Maintenance Management System (EMMS) and the associated business processes and practices. The evaluation is documented in the Technical Memorandum, Tampa Bay Water CMMS Review (CH2M HILL, 2013).

The evaluation concluded that it was in Tampa Bay Water’s best interest to replace the existing EMMS with a commercially available system. Tampa Bay Water subsequently selected IBM Maximo as the new CMMS, and is currently moving forward with that implementation.

1.3.18 Data Management and Information Technology (IT) Systems The following provides a summary of the major data management and IT systems, as related to the CMMS. A separate IT Master Plan is being developed concurrently with this AM Implementation Plan.

MUNIS – All financial transactions are currently performed in MUNIS. Creation of a Work Order in the existing CMMS creates a duplicate Work Order within MUNIS. This allows for costs from MUNIS to be assigned to Work


1-12

Orders. Open Purchase Orders within MUNIS do not prevent closure of Work Orders within EMMS, and costs from those Purchase Orders can still be charged to a closed Work Order when the Purchase Order is closed. Employee data are also currently pulled from MUNIS into the existing CMMS.

GIS – A GIS Viewer application allows users to see the Agency’s assets geographically but can also show location of work orders and can pull in data from other systems. GIS Viewer pulls data from an ArcSDE geodatabase, which is the primary repository of asset data.

Enterprise Database – The central point of data collection and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for all Agency infrastructure attributes and associated measurements will be the Enterprise Database. Data sources such as SCADA, wireless automated data loggers, manual data readings, and other “devices” will transmit time‐series data to the Agency’s enterprise database at varying frequencies

HP Records Manager – Document management and records retention are performed using TRIM/HP Records Manager. Certain documents (O&M manuals, record drawings, bid/contractor specifications) are linked to an asset or work orders within CMMS, while version control is managed within HP Records Manager.

TrackStar – The Agency has recently begun to track its fleet in a stand‐alone spatial application for the vehicles for which TrackStar is enabled. TrackStar is used for maintenance reminders, such as oil changes, certain vehicles.

R&R Model – RPM is an R&R model that incorporates assets data and projects R&R requirements. The R&R tool incorporates asset data, age, and replacement cost, which are not directly linked to the current CMMS.

CIP – The CIP application is not directly linked to the current CMMS.

Fleet Management – The Agency currently does not have fleet management software.

BEAMEX – This is a stand‐alone application for the calibration of meters.

LIMS – The Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) is a stand‐alone application. Consideration of purchasing a new LIMS software package is ongoing due to the elimination of support for the existing package.

2-1

SECTION 2

Project Overview

2.1 Background Having gone through nearly a decade of new capital project construction, Tampa Bay Water is now concentrating on optimizing existing supplies and facilities, and there is a desire to focus more on enhancement of core operations. The transition from large‐scale construction activities to a focus on R&R is allowing the Agency to consider ways to become more efficient and effective. To better serve its customers and keep track of its assets, Tampa Bay Water has formalized the implementation of its Asset Management (AM) program. CH2M HILL was retained to develop the AM Implementation Plan.

During the second half of 2013, CH2M HILL also supported Tampa Bay Water in evaluating their existing maintenance management system (internally developed and called EMMS), in the selection of a new commercially available CMMS (Maximo), and in reviewing and advising on the Agency’s maintenance strategies and practices. These tasks were performed in advance of the AM Implementation Plan for several reasons. In the case of the EMMS/CMMS, the issue had been debated extensively within the organization for nearly 2 years without consensus; however, the Agency realized that a robust CMMS was needed regardless of the detailed formal AM Program. Consensus was achieved prior to the selection of Maximo. The shortcomings in the current O&M program had been identified following the re‐organization in the spring of 2013 as managers assumed new roles and with the addition of new staff dedicated to the maintenance planning function and the R&R model. The gap related to O&M practices was significant enough to make it meaningful to implement some improvements before implementing a new CMMS and before developing the formal AM Implementation Plan. Improvements to the O&M practices and the R&R program have also been identified as major needs in the 2010 management and performance audit.

The primary focus of this project is to develop and define the AM program for the next 3 to 5 years and to support the implementation of that plan. Before the project began, Tampa Bay Water established an organization framework for the AM Program. This framework defined the Asset Management Executive Team and the Asset Management Advisory Team. The AM Advisory Team includes management across the Agency and core staff with pivotal roles in implementing key aspects of the AM program. This framework is a best practice that allows a better understanding of roles and responsibilities throughout the planning and implementation process and enables necessary cross‐functional participation from the Agency’s departments. Other major benefits include assuring that the AM program is well coordinated with other Agency activities and initiatives, as well as helping to assure the support of senior management, which is key for any organizational change management activity.

The AM Program is being completed in three tasks to provide ideal assistance to Tampa Bay Water. These tasks are broken down below:

Task 1: Asset Management Program Development included an assessment phase and occurred over the fall and winter of 2013. This report is the culmination of that effort.

Task 2: Asset Management Program Implementation will include the core implementation phase and will be conducted during 2014.

Task 3: Asset Management Team Support will include the core team support phase and will be conducted during 2014 and 2015.

The asset management teams will continue beyond 2014, but it is anticipated that Tampa Bay Water will rely less and less on outside consultant support for the teams and the AM Program.

2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

2-2

Completion of these three tasks should represent substantial completion towards reaching the AM goals of Tampa Bay Water and creating a foundation for continued AM goal achievement organization‐wide.

3-1

SECTION 3

Project Approach & Findings

The AM Assessment Phase was executed through a series of activities with the Tampa Bay Water staff. The first of these was a mission, vision, and values workshop followed by an evaluation of existing practices, which included preparatory interviews and a gap assessment workshop. These activities formed the basis for CH2M HILL’s analysis and development of this Assessment Report and proposed Implementation Plan.

3.1 Methodology and Approach The methodology used for this plan was based on the general approaches provided in several sources: Implementing Asset Management: A Practical Guide (CH2M HILL, 2006); the International Infrastructure Management Manual (New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, 2011); and the draft of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 55000 standard (ratified during this project). The methodology was also consistent with, where applicable, the Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP) Book of Knowledge (BOK), the American Society of Quality (ASQ) Reliability Body of Knowledge, and the ISO 9000 Risk series.

The approach included: understanding the organizational context (Section 1); establishing the line of sight with the organization’s Strategic Plan, including mission, vision, values, and goals; understanding external LOSs service based on Interlocal Agreements and previously conducted customer surveys; conducting AM practice evaluation through structured individual and group interviews and a gap analysis; performing analysis based on experience and industry best practices; and providing recommendations addressing timelines, dependencies, internal full‐time equivalents (FTEs), and external cost estimates.

A formal, written AM policy was not established as part of this process; however, Tampa Bay Water has a strong, reliability‐based culture that is consistent with the fundamental tenets of AM. The formal use of the term “asset management” in the Agency’s overarching reliability policies and Strategic Plan is a consideration for the future. This policy will also support meeting Section 3.11 of the Interlocal Agreement that requires service disruptions be remedied as “quickly as technically feasible”.

Benchmarking in the assessment consisted of knowledge of other utilities and the core components of their asset management programs. This was primarily due to the unique nature of the Agency’s systems and operating paradigms, the specific focus of the Agency as a raw/finished water wholesaler, and the benchmarking that had been performed as part of the Management Audit in 2010. Focused benchmarking in targeted improvement areas in the future was considered a more relevant and beneficial use of resources.

Tampa Bay Water developed business process mapping as part of its continual improvement efforts before the organizational re‐structuring in the spring of 2013. This mapping, as well as additional or refined business process mapping done in conjunction with the CMMS process by CH2M HILL, served as the basis for understanding key organizational workflows.

3.2 Evaluation of Current Practices 3.2.1 Data Review CH2M HILL reviewed relevant ongoing activities conducted by the Agency. This review was focused on understanding the overall enterprise as well as recent efforts corresponding to AM practices. A list of the reviewed activities is presented below:

3 PROJECT APPROACH & FINDINGS

3-2

Strategic Plan

2035 System Hydraulic Update Project

Long‐Term Demand Forecasting Models

Long‐Term Master Water Plan (December 2013)

Optimized Regional Operations Plan

Governance Documents

Safety Policy and Procedures Manual

CIP Prioritization

Renewal and Replacement Program

Well Mitigation Program

Energy Management Program

Management and Performance Audit

Customer Survey

3.3 Benchmarking with Similar Organizations CH2M HILL performed informal benchmarking of Tampa Bay Water and its AM practices. This included a review of previous AM Programs for organizations whose size and scope are similar to those of Tampa Bay Water, CH2M HILL experience with performing industry benchmarking as part of industry initiatives, and conversations with leaders of similar organizations. The purpose of this activity was to ground‐truth comparative AM practices and to confirm the assessment (gap analysis) tool; it essentially served as a QC measure.

3.4 Mission, Vision, and Values Workshop The mission, vision, and values workshop was held on November 15, 2013. The workshop was attended by the top management of the organization, including the General Manager (Matt Jordan, PE), Chief Operating Officer (Charles Carden), Chief Financial Officer (Christina Sackett), Chief Technical Officer (Alison Adams, PE), and North and South Section Leader (Mandi Rice, PE). The Strategic Plan, as originally adopted by the Board in April 2011 and amended in August 2012, served as the foundation of the discussion.

The goal of the workshop was to focus on defining the approach and aligning it to the Agency’s values, ensuring that all activities within each division are aligned and have meaningful impacts on the strategic direction of the Agency. The information developed and discussed during this workshop was used to assure that this AM Implementation Plan that is being developed will align with the mission, vision, and values of Tampa Bay Water.

3.5 Data Management and Storage Data management and storage was reviewed primarily through (1) the EMMS/CMMS evaluation process that immediately preceded this assessment, (2) participation in other initiatives related to factors such as improving the existing asset registries and their interface with the financial software (MUNIS), and (3) the interview process associated with this effort. A new IT Master Plan is also being developed at the same time as this AM Implementation Plan and both consultants have been integrated into each process. The current data management storage summary is provided in Section 1.3.18.


3-3

The data management and storage focus of this evaluation was intended primarily to ensure that the importance of the topic was specifically highlighted in the plan. This focus was considered especially appropriate in light of the required interactions with the financial system (MUNIS), the new CMMS implementation (Maximo), the development of the new IT Master Plan, and the importance of the Enterprise Database in reliability‐based decisions. Each of these systems that potentially interface with Maximo are presented in Exhibit 3 in relative order of integration priority, and each application is summarized below.

3.5.1 Maximo Integration with Existing Systems Asset Management practices can be enhanced by integrating existing systems with the CMMS: currently planned activities and other recommendations for such integrations are summarized below.

MUNIS – In 2014, the ability to have financial data pulled for purchase orders, asset data, fixed asset registry, and budget/cost accounting in Maximo is desired. Warehousing and inventory management is estimated to take place in 2017 in Maximo.

GIS – In 2014, it is desired to have the ability to display the location of assets on maps within Maximo, based on an ArcSDE geodatabase Site ID. Later in 2015‐16, horizontal asset data will be used in the Spatial module of Maximo to manage work orders.

Enterprise Database – SCADA data to be integrated with Maximo could include pump run‐times, which could be used to generate Work Orders in 2014.

HP Records Manager – In 2014, documents managed in HP Records Manager/TRIM will be selectively linked to Maximo. In 2015‐16, an effort to link applicable documents will be made.

TrackStar – In 2015, GPS tracking of vehicles will be considered for integration into Maximo.

R&R Model – Asset data will be exported, including condition rating, from Maximo to the R&R model in 2015 and then updated thereafter.

CIP – Asset data will be exported from Maximo to the CIP in 2016 and updated thereafter.

Fleet Management – The Agency plans to use a fleet management program for at least a year before considering migrating/integrating to Maximo in 2015 or 2016. The long‐term aim is to use Maximo for Work Orders, scheduling, and planning.

BEAMEX – Calibration of meters will be a stand‐alone application.

LIMS – Tampa Bay Water wants to manage maintenance of its assets associated with the laboratory using Maximo. This will take place after 2018. In all other respects, LIMS will remain a stand‐alone application.


3-4

EXHIBIT 3 Potential System Interfaces/Integrations with Maximo

3.6 Safety Program Safety is considered a core factor in both reliability and risk management. Safety is also the basis of a new initiative and has been identified as a key priority of the new General Manager. As such, the role of safety in the AM process was a desired touch point in developing the AM Implementation Plan. The scope of services for this project did not include a detailed review or audit of the proposed program; rather, the scope was limited to interviews and conceptual overviews in terms of integration with this plan.

Some concerns have been noted regarding how safety planning was addressed with the previous reorganization. For example, questions were raised about safety responsibilities being split amongst staff and whether those staff have the right experience, training, or availability to properly address those responsibilities. As part of the process of establishing a Safety Policy and Procedures Manual to formalize and communicate expectations, the agency has created the Safety‐Security Program Coordinator position to implement the manual. The Safety‐Security Program Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of the Agency’s Safety and Security Programs, under administrative direction, to help reduce the Agency’s risk exposure.

A draft of the Tampa Bay Water Safety Plan, which will serves as the Safety Policy and Procedures Manual when adopted, is currently in progress (Tampa Bay Water, 2013d). These policies and procedures will address additional concerns regarding maintenance safety and a tracking program will help with enforcement, such as making sure staff certifications are up to date.

3.7 Asset Management Practices Evaluation The AM practices evaluation was conducted after completing the mission, vision, and values workshop. The assessment phase was conducted from December 3 through 4, 2013. The intent was to focus independently on the issues and gaps and utilize that knowledge to begin framing improvement activities.

The practices evaluation approach included 14 interviews with a cross‐section of Agency staff and a gap analysis workshop that included 15 staff members. Two additional discussions were also conducted for the gap analysis with key individuals who could not attend the workshop.


3-5

3.7.1 Preparatory Agency Staff Interviews A total of 14 staff members were interviewed, representing all Tampa Bay Water divisions.

The interviews provided an opportunity for:

Members of the CH2M HILL team to visit each employee in their personal work environment

The employees to ask questions and provide input in a non‐threatening, non‐group environment

Education and increased awareness of Tampa Bay Water’s overall AM Program development

Each CH2M HILL interview team spent approximately 30 minutes with each staff member. A standard list of 10 open‐ended questions was used to facilitate discussion.

In some cases, all 10 questions were addressed quickly. However, in many cases, the interview did not cover all 10 standard questions and occasionally explored related questions and topics that were not on the list. While qualitative and not executed with rigorous scientific survey controls, the open‐ended dialog provided valuable insight about key issues and Agency staff opinions. The interviews were considered a preparatory activity for the gap analysis and provided deeper understanding of the quantitative responses obtained during the gap analysis.

The following positive themes were noted in interviews:

Widely acknowledged that major effort will be required to properly implement AM; began at the right point and headed in the right direction. Generally see the importance, benefits, and financial value of AM (employees and Board)

Employees are talented, dedicated, and seen as a general strength.

Overall financial situation considered good, and the organization is investing in programs that will save money in the long run.

The culture of the organization includes willingness to change to improve.

Additional changes are anticipated.

Supportive of new management.

Some recent changes are working well, such as the North‐South split.

Accomplishing more maintenance work than in previous years, including the high service pumps and the chemical feed system.

Undergoing CMMS implementation and the Agency went through a process to define needs.

The following negative themes or areas for potential improvement were noted:

Still unsettled from the reorganization

‐ Lack of confidence in some of the changes made

‐ Some employees are in different roles, may not be using their skills to maximum advantage, and are without clearly defined responsibilities.

Programs need “owners,” and full commitment to AM is needed rather than selectively implementing or skipping steps.

‐ Some resistance to change from long‐term employees “set in their ways.”

Lack of communication

‐ Many decisions and activities should occur in a more integrated, cross‐departmental manner rather than within a single division.

‐ Employees should be more informed regarding the overall plan and understanding AM across the Agency.


3-6

‐ Employees feel that they are not given a voice, and are often “shut down” if they speak up.

Employee development within the Agency.

‐ Employees feel that they have overwhelming workloads, are often required to complete tasks outside of their responsibilities

‐ Succession planning is needed.

A central information repository is needed.

‐ The current system is “homegrown,” and information is disorganized, hard to find, and often lost with employees leaving.

Complete physical asset list is not available.

‐ Assets need to be defined, populated, numbered, and verified.

Standardized procedures and flow charts are needed for collecting, utilizing, and maintaining information, as well as facilitating training, PM processes, and decision making.

For successful CMMS implementation, there is a need for complete business processes and asset registry.

3.7.2 Gap Analysis Workshop In addition to the staff interviews, CH2M HILL conducted a facilitated workshop on December 4, 2013. One of CH2M HILL’s AM gap analysis tools was customized for Tampa Bay Water. The tool included 9 functional categories (listed below) and covered 77 best practice areas (such as “conducts regular salary studies,” and “asset inventories are complete and asset hierarchy can roll‐up or roll‐down”).

1. Customer Satisfaction and Stakeholder Understanding

2. Employee and Leadership Development

3. Operational Efficiency

4. Financial Viability

5. Maintenance of Infrastructure

6. Operational Capability and Emergency Response

7. Community Sustainability and Environmental Management

8. Business Support Systems

9. Strategic Business Plan

Using this tool, 17 Agency staff scored each of the 77 items on a scale of 1 to 10. This information was analyzed to identify the areas that were considered the most and least critical. Performance scores varied between practices, and valuable insight was gained by examining the distribution of scores.

3.7.2.1 Interpreting Survey Data Some items showed very close grouping of scores, which demonstrates a shared view of the practice area. Others had a very flat distribution, which revealed a wide range of opinions. Still others had clusters of scores: some low, some high, which indicates that perhaps better education or communication from one group to another is needed. Examples of each performance scoring type are shown in Exhibit 4.

In cases where there was not a clear consensus (i.e., not a tight cluster) of responses, these subsets where reviewed to gain further insight into the differing views of participants. Respondent comments were also analyzed for every practice area and often helped clarify scoring. The full range of detailed scoring results is included as Appendix A.


3-7

EXHIBIT 4 Examples of Gap Assessment Scoring Results

Example Histograms Interpretation

Question 9f: Performance Targets Tracked

Question 5h: Predictive Models for O&M Cost

Question 5c: Minimize Customer Disruption

TIGHT CLUSTER ‐ Demonstrates commonality of thought whether positive, negative, or neutral. Provides high confidence level in response.

Question 6a: All Staff Levels Collaborate

FLAT DISTRIBUTION ‐ Demonstrates generally diverse opinions or ambiguity in the practice area description. In these cases, written comments were relied upon to clarify participant responses.

Question 2j: Organizational Structure

SPLIT CLUSTERS ‐ Demonstrates “camps” with widely differing opinions (one group low, one group high). This type of distribution may indicate a need for education and/or improved internal communication.

In addition to recording a performance score, participants were also asked to indicate a “HI” or “LOW” importance ranking if the practice area was “very important and needing prompt attention” or “important, but not an immediate priority,” respectively. The results of importance rankings were graphed on a vertical intensity scale to provide guidance on staff priorities.

For analytical purposes, both performance scores and importance rankings were evaluated in three groups:

1) Full Group of Participants

2) Frontline Staff (12 people)

3) Senior Management (5 people)

By charting results in subgroups, significant trends can be identified through examining the viewpoints of different levels of the organization. Depending on the practice area, Frontline Staff may have a more “realistic” or “hands‐on” perspective, but Senior Management frequently sees a broader, big‐picture view that may consider factors unknown to Frontline Staff. The practice area under consideration dictates which subgroup carries greater weight. “SPLIT CLUSTER” histograms are often explained by reviewing subgroup data.

Overall, a significant trend was not observed in differing results between the Frontline Staff and Senior Management subgroups. However, there were some examples of practice areas where an isolated shift was noted, as presented in Exhibit 5.


3-8

Most practice areas returned similar results between the Frontline Staff and Senior Management subgroups. Exhibit 6 presents examples where there was consensus among the Full Group of Participants.

EXHIBIT 5 Differing Sample Scoring Histograms and Importance Intensity Scale by Subgroup

In the example above (Practice Area 1h: “Effective Customer Service” the means of receiving, responding to, and resolving customer complaints and requests in a timely and effective manner), charting results by subgroup revealed a significant discrepancy in the viewpoints of management from staff. Several Frontline Staff commented that there was no means to track complaints, whereas Senior Management indicated there was a program in place. Senior Management also noted this was based on finance and well complaints.

In the example above (Practice Area 3g: “Project Delivery Systems” to assure good cost estimates, schedules, and change management), charting results by subgroup revealed a more positive consensus in the viewpoints of Senior Management from Frontline Staff. Several Frontline Staff felt these processes were in place only in some areas and saw room for streamlining and improvement, whereas Senior Management were more confident with the processes in place. The CIP was noted as good throughout.


3-9

3.7.2.2 Overview of Results The “box & whisker” diagram, shown in Exhibits 7A and 7B, provides an effective graphical summary of gap analysis results. In addition to showing the group “mean” or “average” (red and white dot), it also shows, at a glance, the extreme responses (whisker tips represent minimum and maximum) and the 2nd and 3rd quartile score ranges (shown as brown and purple boxes, respectively).

The groups of responses in each category were examined for trends. Positive responses are indicated when the majority of the brown and purple boxes appear to the right of the “5,” and negative responses appear to the left. Strong consensus is indicated by a narrow box section.

One noteworthy observation is in the relatively wide range of responses in comparison with other utilities where this process has been applied. The wide range across senior management was similar to the range among the respondents as a whole. Based on experience with similar organizations, staff interviews, and knowledge of the Agency, this observation can be interpreted as largely a byproduct of the reorganization and as an indication that the organization is not in good cross‐functional communication. In many cases, as of December 2013, it appears that many of the key staff were more focused on learning the new roles and trying to understand the potential impact that changes anticipated from the new General Manager than understanding some of the higher level cross‐functional aspects of the organization. Time and more structured organizational communication are needed to help decrease this range of perspective.

EXHIBIT 6 Similar Sample Scoring Histograms and Importance Intensity Scale by Subgroup

In the example above (Practice Area 2a: “Workforce Retention” recruiting and retaining a workforce that is competent, motivated, adaptive, and safe-working), charting results by subgroup revealed a consensus among the viewpoints of Senior Management and Frontline Staff. Overall, comments indicated that they do a good job at recruiting, although there is limited succession or retention planning.

In the example above (Practice Area 6e: “Staff Training” to assure the workforce is not only able to operate safely, but also to respond effectively to emergencies), charting results by subgroup revealed a consensus among the viewpoints of Senior Management and Frontline Staff. Overall, comments indicated that they have a good emergency response program and some training is conducted, but that additional training is needed.


3-10

EXHIBIT 7A “Box & Whisker” Diagram of All Gap Survey Responses


3-11

EXHIBIT 7B “Box & Whisker” Diagram of All Gap Survey Responses

Easily identifiable trends are labeled above, such as Tampa Bay Water’s core strengths in “Financial Viability”, “Operational Capability and Emergency Response,” and “Community Sustainability and Environmental Management.” More detailed evaluations of each category are described in the following section.

3.7.2.3 Trends by Category

1. Customer Satisfaction and Stakeholder Understanding

Positive aspects of this category included providing reliable, responsive, and affordable services in line with explicit, customer‐accepted service levels; having a means of receiving, responding to, and resolving customer complaints and requests in a timely and effective manner; seeking understanding and support from oversight


3-12

bodies, community and watershed interests, and regulatory bodies for service levels, rate structures, operating budgets, CIPs, and risk management decisions; and generating support through involvement and education programs. It was noted that some service levels are available in Governance Documents such as water pressure and quality (West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, 1998a). Regarding seeking understanding and support, a lower scorer noted that this is not done; however, a survey is conducted regularly, indicating that education awareness is needed for this topic.

Several other results in this category did not reflect a consensus among the staff in areas such as actively involving stakeholders, developing service levels for the divisions, and addressing customer complaints and requests in a timely and effective manner (see Exhibit 5). Notes elsewhere throughout the assessment indicated that not all service levels were explicitly defined and LOS Development has been included as a recommended project in the Implementation Plan.

There was only one negative aspect to this category, communicating with customers through surveys and other means. This is an opportunity for education awareness throughout the organization, since surveys are conducted as discussed in Section 1.3.15.

2. Employee and Leadership Development

Recruiting and retaining a quality workforce received a generally positive team response; however, some comments suggested this needs improvement (see Exhibit 6). Further, the 2010 performance audit identified a concern that there is no succession or retention planning (Larson Allen, 2010). In addition, the aspect regarding providing written job descriptions received a generally positive response, and comments indicate that the situation is improving but that the descriptions may not be accurate or meet Agency needs.

There was no consensus regarding establishing a collaborative organization, providing opportunities for professional and leadership development, conducting regular salary and benefits studies, and performing timely performance reviews. Some comments allude to performance review improvements with new management. Regarding the studies, the scores may indicate reviews are conducted, but may not necessarily be done well.

Areas of concern include retaining and improving employee institutional knowledge, developing skills and core competencies required to meet future needs, and having an organizational structure that meets the needs of the Agency.

With respect to institutional knowledge retention, it was noted that information is hard to find and more documentation is needed. There is confidence this will improve with the AM Program, new CMMS and a new integrated CIP tool for capital projects planning, reporting and management.

Comments indicated that job descriptions need to be updated and that employee skills and core competencies are not matching the Agency needs.

Notes regarding the organizational structure indicate that changes are needed so that staff settle into a structure, as they have been in a state of uncertainty about the previous reorganization.

3. Operational Efficiency

The results from this category indicated the least consensus between the members of the AM Executive Management and Advisory Teams, with no consensus in any aspect but one. These included ensuring performance improvements, minimizing day‐to‐day resource use, adoption of technology improvements, conducting business case evaluations, considering life‐cycle costs, applying a team‐based approach, and using an effective project delivery system. Comments suggested that some progress has been made or some divisions have undertaken measures in these areas, but that more performance improvement is needed. Some comments expressed hope that the upcoming CMMS implementation will help with these. Comments regarding the team‐based approach suggest improvement could be made Agency‐wide as some processes take place in a “silo.” This is a valuable aspect of the AM Program, which is built around teams.


3-13

The one area of concern was providing communication of priorities. Comments indicated that this needs to improve with development of a process for communication and creating/updating policies.

4. Financial Viability

The positive aspects of this category related to establishing predictable rates and meeting financial targets. However, it was noted that rates will need to be increased at some point to keep the infrastructure in good shape.

There was some concern expressed among the AM Executive Management and Advisory Teams for a complete and functional asset hierarchy and subsequently tying it to a financial policy. Several comments reiterate that there is no detailed asset hierarchy in place and that the Agency is moving towards implementation of a new CMMS. Other concerns were noted regarding purchasing processes and resulting bottlenecks.

Although this category has some areas of good performance and some that need attention, the results of several aspects indicated no consensus. These included understanding full life‐cycle cost of assets, effectiveness of fiscal policy, an appropriate forecasting model, accounting and reporting systems, preparing funding demand forecasts, and analyzing financial trends. Comments allude to the Agency’s financial situation not being well understood or widely known, indicating an education opportunity for staff Agency‐wide.

5. Maintenance of Infrastructure

The results from this category indicated mixed responses from the AM Executive Management and Advisory Teams. Aspects with a positive response included coordinating maintenance efforts with customers to minimize disruptions and capacity management programs.

Aspects that resulted in no consensus included having a comprehensive asset inventory, tracking asset performance, and using predictive models for O&M cost forecasting. Regarding the asset inventory, notes indicate that it needs improvement. Likewise, a maintenance program has been started for O&M forecasting, but comments indicate that it needs more work. Implementation of the new CMMS will help.

Aspects that indicated more of a concern included knowing the condition and costs of assets, maintaining assets for low life‐cycle cost, knowing asset risk and failure modes, and using formal maintenance strategies. Comments indicated a need for correct and complete data from condition and risk assessments and that the Agency is currently working towards formal maintenance strategies.

6. Operational Capability and Response

This category had generally positive responses overall. The area of best performance was regarding emergency response plans. Comments suggested that the plans are in place, that they are regularly updated, and that training exercises are conducted. Another positive aspect was efficient operation of the SCADA system. It was noted that they have a good SCADA system, although one comment from operations staff stated that “SCADA is very fragile/outdated.”

The level of consensus among the other aspects was lower: ensuring all staff levels collaborate, identifying business risks, and providing adequate staff training. From discussions with staff, some employees are in new roles following the previous reorganization and might not be familiar with the tasks at hand, resulting in training gaps. Training is in place, but several suggested that more is needed.

7. Community Sustainability and Environmental Management

This category had the most positive responses overall. Areas of good performance included community and environmental impact, enhancing natural environment, ecological and community sustainability, and watershed impacts. Comments suggested the Agency is a good steward of the community and environment and has the OROP, monitoring, and mitigation programs in place; these are introduced in Section 1.3. Notes also indicated that good efforts are in place for evaluation of watershed impacts.


3-14

The AM Executive Management and Advisory Teams do not appear to have a clear consensus on their performance in aspects such as water and energy efficiency, promoting economic vitality, using a triple bottom line approach, and development and implementation of an Environmental Management System (EMS). Several notes indicated that they are making improvements in these areas and slowly moving in the right direction. Several respondents were not familiar with EMSs; however, it seems they are not needed. Different opinions were noted regarding “green” initiatives, with some staff stating the organization is very conscientious about these initiatives, while others noted that some strategies need further work.

8. Business Support Systems

This category received mixed responses.

Systems that scored positively included the GIS, the project management system, SCADA, LIMS, and financial systems. Notes indicate that these systems are being used more in daily activities but are not fully populated and linked to CMMS in full capacity yet, but headed in the right direction. Regarding LIMS, employees know that a system is in place, but are not familiar with the details.

Results which did not indicate a clear consensus included the IT operating environment, customer information system, and operational models. Notes associated with the IT operating environment referred to the need for updated software systems and procedures. Notes regarding the operational models indicated that several respondents were not familiar with them; this is an education opportunity for staff Agency‐wide. The Long‐Term Master Water Plan, discussed in Section 1.3.6, discusses system analysis.

Aspects receiving negative scores included the asset registry, IT planning environment, CMMS, and work planning and control.

Higher importance was indicated for the asset registry and CMMS, where comments indicated that the database is not complete and needs more detail, but that improvements are in progress.

It is noted that the Agency does not have adequate resources in place for the IT planning environment.

Notes indicate that work planning and control is in place but needs to be further developed and integrated to improve effectiveness and efficiency.

9. Strategic Business Plan

The strategic business plan category received the lowest score of all categories in the gap analysis exercise. Most aspects are of concern in this category, including communicating performance, a participatory organizational culture, employing a change management process, utilizing motivating strategies, and tracking performance targets. It was noted that well defined systems and processes are needed for these and that implementation efforts seem to stall.

On the contrary, results of the Strategic Plan development and implementation aspect received positive responses. Several comments indicated that a plan is in place but that it has not been fully implemented. With this comprehensive AM project, Tampa Bay Water is moving forward with developing and implementing a plan to meet its vision and mission by identifying goals and strategies, developing action plans, and focusing on their values.

3.7.3 Most Important Assets (“Dot”) Exercise The Gap Analysis Workshop concluded with an interactive exercise to identify the group’s perception of the Agency’s most important assets. Additionally, a ranking of the most important assets was developed. The approach taken was brainstorming. ISO 31000 for risk identification considers brainstorming is considered to be an applicable technique. Brainstorming involves stimulating and encouraging free‐flowing conversation among a group of knowledgeable people of the organization, systems, and process. The term “brainstorming” is often used to refer to any type of group discussion, in this case, particular techniques were used to trigger thoughts


3-15

and statements. Effective facilitation is very important to the outcome of this exercise. The complete results of this exercise are included as Appendix B.

The goal of the Most Important Assets Exercise was two‐fold. First, this activity provided a quick, initial list of the perceived most important assets within the system. Criticality of assets will be revisited as part of the AM implementation, but this approach allowed for early identification of potential issues.

Second, this activity can be revealing and educational to participants by providing an awareness of the relative importance of assets, how risk and reliability can be viewed differently, and how assets are viewed by their peers.

The top‐ranking focus areas were:

1) Information sharing related to physical assets, Agency processes and customer needs

2) Organizational Structure (tied #2)

2) High Service Pumps Station & High Service Pumps Surface Water Treatment Plant (tied #2)

2) SCADA – RTU (tied #2)

5) High Service – Cypress Creek (tied #5)

5) PM and Maintenance Practices (tied #5)

Meaningful observations included:

There was not a common definition of risk or criticality within the organization.

There were mixed opinions as to whether asset condition, potential consequences of failure, or in some cases reliability, should be the most defining factor in making an asset either “risky” or “important.”

The list of important assets was created by the workshop participants, who individually wrote down “what keeps them up at night” and then similar responses were assembled from the group. While there were distinct and diverse thought processes in creating the lists, there was good alignment when the responses were combined.

When the list is divided into physical assets versus non‐physical assets (people/information/fiscal), it is perceived by the group that the greater short‐term potential for loss to the organization exist within the areas of business processes and business tools rather than with the physical assets themselves. In our opinion, this is primarily based on the perception related to the Agency coming off an era of aggressive capital investment combined with a reorganization and general lack of IT system alignment/linkages.

3.7.4 Data Analysis and Briefing On January 8, 2014, CH2M HILL project team members met with Agency staff to discuss data analysis results and trends. To review high‐level trends, histogram data were presented in summarized formats. Supporting detail was also provided and has been included in Appendix A.

Trends apparent in these summary graphics were reinforced by detailed review of individual questions and participants’ written comments, as well as background material and insight gleaned from the staff interviews.

4-1

SECTION 4

Primary Assessment Observations & Conclusions

4.1 Organization Strengths Primary strengths for Tampa Bay Water, as identified during the assessment process, include:

Community and Environment: The organization is attentive to its community and the environment through planning, monitoring, and mitigation.

Emergency Response: Emergency plans are regularly updated, policies are in place, and training is conducted.

Finances: The organization has a good financial status and manages finances effectively to invest in programs that produce returns on investment in the long run while supporting current maintenance needs.

4.2 Opportunities for Improvement The following are general observations derived from the AM evaluation based on the information gathered from Tampa Bay Water and CH2M HILL experience with other organizations.

1. The current EMMS has been poorly implemented with respect to business processes, data management, management reports, and clear desired outcomes.

Implementation of the new CMMS system is ongoing. It is a foundational issue key to developing an effective AM Program at this point in time for Tampa Bay Water. Addressing the CMMS deficiencies is anticipated to provide the single greatest impact towards improving operational efficiencies. Compiling a comprehensive, integrated, and reliable asset inventory provides a basis for more preventative and predictive maintenance within the O&M functions and related management reports; a complete and well‐defined, functional asset hierarchy structure should be able to “roll‐up” or “roll‐down” to levels that meet the needs of a variety of users seeking data about assets or groupings of assets; and completing a condition assessment on assets provides a baseline to track, monitor, and plan for PM.

In addition to providing a basis for more predictive maintenance within the O&M functions and related management reports, a properly functioning and well‐utilized CMMS will also facilitate improved financial planning in terms of the annual budgets, R&R model, and CIP.

Efforts to address these issues include the ongoing CMMS implementation, the current project to develop a common asset naming convention, and the proposed work under the CMMS Implementation and Maintenance Strategies aspects of this AM Implementation Plan.

2. Work planning and control is more often reactive and preventative/predictive work is often not well coordinated.

From a work planning and control standpoint, improvements to the business processes and CMMS information will address the majority of this issue. There were some staff‐level related issues, as well as the need to modify personnel roles and responsibilities, that will need to be addressed either as a separate issue or as part of the business process improvements.

From a work planning and control standpoint, improvements to the business processes and CMMS information will address the majority of this issue. There were some staff‐level related issues, as well as the need to modify

4 PRIMARY ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS

4-2

personnel roles and responsibilities, that will need to be addressed either as a separate issue or as part of the business process improvements.

General project management issues are addressed in this Implementation Plan only through the improvements to the work order aspects of the CMMS. This primarily covers the areas of normal maintenance and potential issues related to maintenance capital projects (that are part of O&M work planning).

The CMMS Implementation and Maintenance Strategies aspects of this AM Implementation Plan will help to address these issues.

3. Life‐cycle cost analysis is not widely or uniformly used, primarily because supporting data and connectivity are not available.

The Agency has a high degree of focus on reliability and, at a planning and management level, understands and values the balance and tradeoffs needed among the effects of life‐cycle costs and risk on system reliability. However there is currently a lack of O&M data to support true life‐cycle cost analysis decisions.

This issue is linked to the ongoing implementation of the new CMMS. Data collected in the CMMS should include work order history, asset performance history, vendor history, warehouse inventories, and financial measures associated with past asset and system performance. This information is fundamental to developing true life‐cycle cost analyses. O&M cost data, as captured in the CMMS, should be used in making asset investment decisions. Alternatives should evaluate both O&M and capital expenditures to identify the lowest “whole life” cost option.

The ongoing CMMS implementation addresses connectivity with other systems, such as the financial system. Ensuring consistent assumptions across the organization for multiple systems will require significant time and resources. In the short term, relational database exchanges could be utilized. Keeping AM tools maintained with current data and accessible to all divisions is essential to their usefulness.

Efforts to address these issues include the CMMS Implementation and Financial Forecast aspects of this AM Implementation Plan.

4. Performance communication and change management processes need improvement.

Communication of priorities and performance allows for a more transparent organization and is useful for building a team‐based approach across the organization. Additionally, establishing clear, quantifiable, documented performance targets allows staff to track and measure successes, provides guidance for where improvement is needed, and avoids confusion about job priorities and goals.

There were a meaningful number of comments associated with the strength of the organization lying within its current and past leadership, while recognizing that “the old ways are not necessarily the best ways.” In a number of examples, frontline staff felt that their input was not being considered or that there was no appreciation for their perspective.

This AM Implementation Plan includes quarterly workshops with the Team that will help facilitate knowledge transfer, keep momentum going for parts of the Agency’s operations that are not directly included in the near‐term Implementation Plan, and serve as a tool for gradual cultural change. Combined with business process improvements and modified roles and responsibilities, the quarterly workshops are considered the most appropriate short‐term activity to address this set of issues.

Efforts to address these issues fall under the Organizational and Cultural Development aspect of this AM Implementation Plan.

5. A more participatory organization is needed.

There is a meaningful gap in the perceived degree to which staff is engaged in establishing management improvement, employees are empowered to make meaningful decisions, and the involvement of cross‐functional teams.


4-3

In general, it appears that the Agency has been able to operate effectively with a management approach of strategic decisions being made at the top levels of the organization and staff being held accountable for implementation. Tampa Bay Water has sought participatory advice from differing levels of the organization on some occasions, but there is often a sentiment at the operations level that senior management (or sometimes their supervisors) will disregard suggestions or input if they do not reflect opinions of management or supervisors. The Agency would likely benefit from establishing more formal structures that drive the desired changes.

Staff resources have been shuffled through the previous reorganization. Having clear roles and responsibilities, awareness of future skill needs, and a charted path for transferring roles provides stability and can enhance job performance. In addition, having a repository for asset information to capture institutional knowledge is critical to operational effectiveness and efficiency. Through population of AM tools, such as the CMMS, this knowledge can be preserved and shared among the staff.

Efforts to address these issues fall under the Organizational and Cultural Development and CMMS Implementation aspects of this AM Implementation Plan.

6. Asset and business risk are not consistently understood.

Risk is a key component of an AM program and helps determine the most appropriate investments for an organization. While risk and LOS are incorporated into certain aspects of Tampa Bay Water’s business, such factors are not widely documented or applied. Currently the only levels of service used are the points of connection pressure and water quality criteria and the overarching obligation to meet water demands of Tampa Bay Water’s members as defined in the agency’s governance documents.

There has been some improvement in the understanding and management of risk with the R&R program, System Reliability Analysis component of long range planning, and the 2035 System Analysis Update project, but there is no holistic, over‐arching approach to managing risk across all aspects of the Agency’s business. There is also no process to establish levels of service across Tampa Bay Water’s business units.

Risk assessment should be established within a framework of desired LOSs. Performance management should also be aimed at defining progress against those LOSs. Working within such a framework allows all aspects of the organization to drive towards meeting the same LOSs.

An example provided by staff that illustrates the need to understand asset and business risk is related to the decision to repair or replace the desalination plant seawater intake header and pipeline. In this scenario, the cost to replace the seawater intake header and pipeline is $3M to $4M, and there are problems that impact production every year, but once reservoir is back online the desalination production is not as critical. A process for discussion and buy‐in on when to make this investment that is risk‐based is desired.

Efforts aimed at addressing this concern include the ongoing 2035 System Analysis Update, continued evaluation of policy of level of service driven by reliable water resource availability, and the R&R model, as well as the Level of Service/Performance Management/Risk aspect of this AM Implementation Plan.

4.3 Asset Management Asset Management is an integrated set of processes intended to minimize the life‐cycle costs of infrastructure, at an acceptable level of risk, while continuously delivering established LOSs. It involves simultaneously improving the combined effectiveness and efficiency of an organization’s assets – its physical assets, its financial assets, its information assets, and its human assets. While AM principles can be applied to any dimension of the Agency, comprehensive AM recognizes the synergies created from looking at the utility holistically across all business units. It is essentially effective utility management.

A number of the primary concepts related to AM are not well understood by Agency staff. The most immediate action necessary is to develop meaningful information related to the assets in the CMMS, which is a significant


4-4

repository of data used to make decisions based on AM principles. Important AM concepts such as the role of condition assessments and risk should be applied in a natural progression following the implementation of the new CMMS. This will be an incremental and important step towards enabling the Agency to address AM in a comprehensive manner and establishing an AM culture.

Cultural changes aimed at improving effectiveness associated with AM should be implemented in the short‐term. The first step should be the regular interaction of the cross‐functional Team. Quarterly workshops will enable the Team to measure and monitor progress of the effort and provide an opportunity for the Team to be simultaneously exposed to AM principles.

5-1

SECTION 5

Implementation Focus Areas & Recommendations

The AM Program recommendations have been grouped to allow for logical implementation of each task in a team‐based format. A separate project description of each task, which includes purpose, goals, responsibilities, schedule, internal FTEs, and external costs, is provided in Appendix C. The internal FTEs and external costs are approximate only and have been included for high level planning purposes. Exhibit 8 presents the external costs and the budget funding for Project 1 through 17. The external costs can also represent an Agency position to perform this function. As the projects listed below are executed additional projects and efforts will be identified. Consideration of including AM Program contingency funds is recommended. A master implementation schedule is also provided in Appendix D.

A list of the projects is presented below organized by potential Team:

Asset Management Advisory Team

– Asset Management Advisory Team Briefings/AM Education Liaisons (Project 1, Appendix C)

CMMS Implementation

– Asset Inventory Review (Project 2, Appendix C)

– CMMS Stand‐Up and Pilot (Project 3, Appendix C)

– CMMS Deployment (Project 4, Appendix C)

Maintenance Strategy

– Workflows and SOPs (Project 5, Appendix C)

– Maintenance Task Development (Project 6, Appendix C)

– Condition Assessment (Project 7 and 8, Appendix C)

– Implement Maintenance Strategies (Project 9, Appendix C)

LOS/ Risk

– Level of Service Development (Project 10, Appendix C)

– Risk Model (Project 11, Appendix C)

Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement

– Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement (Project 12, Appendix C)


– Financial Tools (Project 13, Appendix C)

– Improve R&R Model and Other Financial Tools (Project 14, Appendix C)

Organization and Cultural Development

– Education and Training (Project 15, Appendix C)

– Strategic Planning (Project 16, Appendix C)

– Internal Communication (Project 17, Appendix C)

Ongoing Agency Projects (related to AM)

– IT Strategic Plan (Project 18, Appendix C)

– Renewal and Replacement (Project 19, Appendix C)

– Capital Improvement Program (Project 20, Appendix C)

– Energy Management Program (Project 21, Appendix C)

– Long Term Water System Master Plan (Project 22, Appendix C)

– Demand Forecasting (Project 23, Appendix C)

5 IMPLEMENTATION FOCUS AREAS & RECOMMENDATIONS

5-2

A link between the recommendations detailed in Section 5 and the best practices identified in the 2010 Management and Performance Audit is provided in Appendix E.

EXHIBIT 8 Implementation Funding Summary

Project FY 2014 Funding

Comment FY 2015 Funding

Comment Beyond FY2015 Funding

1 ‐ Asset Management Advisory Team Briefings

$20,000 Funded $20,000 Proposed

2 ‐ Asset Inventory Review $50,000

Funded, to be completed 2014

NA

3 ‐ CMMS Stand‐Up and Pilot $350,000

IT Budget / RFP responses under review

$400,000 IT budget

4 ‐ CMMS Deployment $150,000 Proposed

$150,000

FY 2016

5 ‐ Workflows and SOPs $40,000

Funded, complete in 2014

6 ‐ Maintenance Task Development $75,000


7 ‐ Condition Assessment $45,000

Proposed, may start in FY2014

8 ‐ Condition Assessment $75,000

Proposed, follows project 7

$75,000 per year ongoing

9 ‐ Implement Maintenance Strategies

$75,000 Follows project 6 $75,000 per year ongoing

10 ‐ Level of Service Development $75,000

$50,000 funded in 2014, planned for completion in 2014

11 ‐ Risk Model $50,000 Follows project 10

12 – Continuous Improvement/ Performance Measurement

$50,000 Follows project 10

13 ‐ Financial Tools $30,000


14 ‐ Improve R&R Model and Other Financial Tools

$60,000

15 ‐ Education and Training $50,000

$50,000 per year

16 ‐ Strategic Planning $30,000


17 ‐ Internal Communication $30,000


5-3

5.1 Computerized Maintenance Management System 5.1.1 The Value of a CMMS The value of a fully functioning CMMS is recognized by Tampa Bay Water. The issue has been an ongoing priority since moving from MP2 to its own, internally developed CMMS (called EMMS) approximately 7 years ago. The decision in the fall of 2013 to move to Maximo reflected both the need for a well‐functioning CMMS and an appreciation of its value.

A number of surveys and assessments have been conducted to assess the value associated with a CMMS. In the utility industry, potential cost savings associated with implementing a CMMS system typically range from 15 to 30 percent of maintenance costs; this general range is widely accepted and has been documented by Engineers Digest and similar publications.

Cost savings are typically associated with reducing costly corrective action repairs, extending equipment life cycles to decrease wasted or premature replacement costs, improving inventory control and purchasing processes, and improving staff resources management.

A useful way to predict the value of a well‐functioning CMMS is to examine it in the greater context of overall maintenance strategies. Studies performed over the past 30 years have concluded that maintenance savings associated with PM over reactive maintenance are on the order of 12 to 18 percent, an additional 8 to 12 percent for predictive maintenance over PM, and an additional 10 to 15 percent for reliability‐centered maintenance over predictive maintenance. Improved reliability and cost savings of 20 to 40 percent can be expected by developing a non‐reactive maintenance program. A well‐functioning CMMS is a major foundation element.

In spite of the benefits, there are numerous reasons why many water and wastewater utilities still do not develop optimal O&M programs. With respect to CMMS, the research and anecdotal experience documented in “Why CMMS Systems Fail” indicate the following reasons:

Incorrect/incomplete/inappropriate requirements assessment

Lack of management support

Failure to limit vendor participation

Developing an in‐house custom system

Inadequate vendor research

Inadequate pilot testing

Poor implementation planning

Insufficient training/documentation

EXHIBIT 9 Maintenance Strategies vs. Cost

Decreasing the amount of reactive maintenance and increasing the amount of predictive maintenance will increase cost efficiency and O&M effectiveness.


5-4

Underestimating data collection effort

Poorly defined maintenance work processes

Failure to prioritize, optimize, and limit maintenance tasks

5.1.2 CMMS Recommendations As part of the overall validation of assessment results, CH2M HILL previously performed a more thorough independent review of the current EMMS system. Tampa Bay Water elected to implement IBM Maximo to replace the EMMS. Based on that earlier review and the AM Implementation Plan development process, the following recommendations are made with respect to the CMMS:

CMMS ‐ 1. Install, stand‐up, and deploy CMMS. Maximo deployment to begin in April 2014.

CMMS ‐ 2. Redefine roles and areas of responsibility. This includes establishing CMMS administrator and workflow roles such as clerk of works and planner/scheduler.

CMMS ‐ 3. Develop organizational maintenance‐related key performance indicators (KPIs). The KPI benchmarks should be realistic and meaningful standards that provide future information as to the organization’s efficiency and effectiveness.

CMMS ‐ 4. Create a Maintenance Management Plan that identifies goals of the organization related to maintenance methodologies, CMMS functionality and use, major repair and replacement programs, and CIP.

CMMS ‐ 5. Clean up the asset registry. This effort should include coordination with Finance and Engineering, in addition to O&M staff. (Ongoing effort with application developed and field data collection occurring.)

CMMS ‐ 6. Review and modify the asset hierarchy based on user needs. This should include user needs for budgeting, insurance, and financial projections in addition to work order and inventory tracking. (Ongoing effort with asset hierarchy established for asset registry data collection.)

These activities are incorporated into the CMMS Implementation aspects of this AM Implementation Plan. Additional activities that may follow the initial implementation include:

CMMS ‐ 7. Consistent with Maintenance Strategies, establish failure codes and require them on all work orders.

CMMS ‐ 8. Physical inventory (warehouse) should be addressed in more detail as a future task and following the implementation of the CMMS and development of Maintenance Strategies.

The recommendations provided above are consistent with the majority of the comments and self‐evaluations that were received during the Tampa Bay Water Gap Analysis evaluation.

EXHIBIT 10 Practice Area 8C: Asset Registry - Computerized complete list of assets for Rehabilitation and Renewal by division/service area or system linked to a complete database

In the Gap Analysis, the deficiencies of the asset hierarchy received negative scores and comments indicating it should be addressed in the AM Implementation Plan.


5-5

5.2 Maintenance Strategies Extensive research indicates that the majority of utilities are dominated by reactive maintenance programs. These findings have been summarized in such water and wastewater industry publications as “Managing Public Infrastructure Assets to Minimize Cost & Maximize Performance” (CH2M HILL for Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies [AMWA], 2002), “Implementing Asset Management‐A Practical Guide” (CH2M HILL for National Association of Clean Water Agencies [NACWA], AMWA and Water Environment Federation [WEF], 2007), and “Thinking, Getting, and Staying Competitive: A Public Sector Handbook” (NACWA and AMWA, 1998). Predictive and risk‐based maintenance strategies achieve optimal AM performance in terms of meeting LOS and minimizing life‐cycle cost. However, an industry norm of 30 to 50 percent non‐reactive maintenance hours is typical. Although accurate records are not available in the current EMMS, the 2010 Management Audit and anecdotal discussions and review during preparation of this AM Implementation Plan indicate that Tampa Bay Water is probably in the 30 to 50 percent range in terms of non‐reactive maintenance. An optimized range of 70 to 80 percent is targeted by a number of public utilities and is almost universally targeted by private system operators. Several key process modifications and tools are required to move from one paradigm to another; however, a key enabler is a properly functioning CMMS.

5.2.1 Maintenance Strategies Recommendations The work under this aspect is closely tied to the CMMS Implementation and includes:

MS ‐ 1. Implement, as part of normal operations, the maintenance organization recommendations developed and provided by CH2M HILL in January 2014. Major components of these recommendations relate to maintenance structure, maintenance job tiers and responsibilities, and overtime/call‐in best practices.

MS ‐ 2. Develop specific workflow processes and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that include purchasing guidelines for Preventative, Corrective, and Emergency maintenance. (Ongoing effort with draft of SOPs developed without purchasing guidelines)

MS ‐ 3. Train all staff on workflow processes and SOPs in order to establish consistency in data collection and entry into the CMMS.

MS ‐ 4. Update all Preventative Maintenance (PM) job plans/task instructions. (Ongoing workshop series for major asset types through second quarter 2014)

MS ‐ 5. Develop a Condition Assessment and Predictive Maintenance (PdM) protocol that can provide a consistent condition assessment score to be used in all appropriate systems (CMMS, R&R Program, etc).

5.2.2 Additional Comments on Condition Assessment The physical condition of an asset is the primary factor in determining its likelihood of failure. Since the likelihood of failure is one of two primary factors in the classic risk equation (Risk = Likelihood of Failure X Consequence of Failure, or Vulnerability X Criticality within the R&R Program), properly assessing condition is both an important and a foundational component of determining risk. Key aspects of determining condition include selecting the appropriate risk scoring tool, selecting the most appropriate approach to collecting the data, and applying the system in a uniform manner across the class of assets (or enterprise).

The R&R Program currently includes some condition rating data based on sensory condition assessment.

There are many risk scoring tools (or methodologies) available. Condition assessment methodologies typically use one of a several scoring ranges (1 to 100, 1 to 10, or 1 to 5) and many often vary with respect to which number is “good” and which is “bad.” Users must select the most appropriate condition assessment tool and foresee how it will be used.


5-6

Another decision point is determining the most appropriate data collection method. One method is to perform a comprehensive assessment during a defined, finite period of time. While this approach has a number of advantages, it is expensive in terms of both financial and resource commitment. A second approach would be to phase the assessment. Following an initial condition assessment based on best available knowledge and an initial assessment of risk, a more field‐intensive data collection strategy and timeline can be developed for calibrating the initial assessment. This approach is normally the most efficient and most effective. The Agency has an established starting point using data collected for the R&R model.

A third decision point is to how to apply the condition assessment system uniformly. In many cases, supervisors of different classes of assets (wells, pump stations, transmission lines, etc.) adopt specialized condition assessment methodologies. While this has a number of advantages, there are also some disadvantages when trying to evaluate objectively across different classes of assets. At a minimum, condition assessment data should be collected as uniformly as possible in terms of maintaining standard processes, regular intervals of collection, and regular intervals of review.

For the Agency, performing condition assessments was considered both necessary and important in all four major evaluation processes (interviews, gap analysis, dot exercise, and data review). In the interviews, a number of comments conveyed very direct opinions, such as those indicating that the major activity needed to improve the condition of physical assets is “knowing what they have and what they need to take care of,” the first thing they need to do is “know their assets,” and the major concern is “what they need to tag as an asset and at what level.” Other opinions indicated that the major limiting factor is “data” and “easier access to information” would improve their job the most. In the group gap analysis, having a better understanding of the assets managed was noted as needing improvement and understanding the condition of critical infrastructure assets was considered high in importance. Ch2M HILL’s independent review of the CMMS also indicated little easily usable asset condition data.

5.3 Level of Service and Risk 5.3.1 Level of Service (LR-1) Level of service (LOS) is defined in Implementing Asset Management: A Practical Guide as the type and quality of service provided by an entity or an asset of the entity. LOSs are typically established only to consider the crucial goals of a utility. Similarly, ISO 55000 defines LOS as parameters, or combinations of parameters, which reflect social, political, environmental, and economic outcomes that the organization delivers. The parameters can include, but are not limited to, safety, customer satisfaction, quality, quantity, capacity, reliability, responsiveness, environmental acceptability, cost, and availability.

Such parameters have been historically established at a high level in the Tampa Bay Water Interlocal Agreement (1998), and in more detail in terms of levels and tradeoffs in the Decision Support System (2002). The regular customer surveys that have been done to date also serve as a valuable basis for establishing LOSs and potential related tradeoffs. The current Strategic Plan also identifies major goals of reliability; efficiency; financial stability and sustainability; and development, improvement, and maintenance of collaborative relationships with stakeholders.

However, there is lack of alignment of the LOS across the organization. There also appears to be an inadequate understanding of LOS at the staff level and a lack of line‐of‐sight with daily activities and performance measures and the organization’s LOSs. A solid basis for establishing consistent LOSs exists within the past and current work; the issue is one related to verification, alignment, education, and correlation into meaningful performance measures. Tying LOS to willingness to pay can provide a metric for value tradeoffs.


5-7

5.3.2 Risk (LR-2) Risk is a fundamental principle of asset management. Evaluating risk is important in terms of both meeting required LOSs and understanding the tradeoffs associated with different reliability approaches. The evaluation of risk helps the organization prioritize where limited resources should best be applied, assists in financial decision making, provides support in contingency and business continuity planning, and helps provide for better organizational response and resiliency through employee training and awareness. Risk can be evaluated at different levels within the organization and the risk evaluation may take several different forms, including qualitative and quantitative. In the classic risk equation of Risk = Likelihood of Failure x Consequence of Failure, the consequence should be considered in terms of impact on LOSs.

The 2010 Management Audit recommended the development of a corporate risk management plan.

Within the planning, engineering, and O&M divisions, a number of risk assessment tools and techniques are currently being utilized. These include Delphi techniques associated with the DSS and OROP, probabilistic modeling and forecasting associated with water supply and demand, multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) associated with CIP prioritization, and most recently FMEA associated with asset maintenance strategies. A combination of several of these techniques, including the use of Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), will also be incorporated in the current initiative to better assess mechanical reliability and availability associated with major systems, subsystems, and assets.

In terms of asset prioritization based on risk for future activities such as condition assessments and predictive maintenance programs, an approach using a consequence‐likelihood matrix is normally the most efficient and effective. In the case of Tampa Bay Water, a blended approach featuring qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques should be utilized.

A more unified and cross‐functional approach to risk, which includes an understanding of desired LOSs, needs to be developed at the asset, operations, and corporate levels. As the concepts of risk are better understood and more information is collected, alternative approaches to evaluating risk can be utilized, if desired. At this point in time, CH2M HILL recommends that LOS, performance measures, and maintenance strategies tasks, as well as ongoing initiatives associated with validating the mechanical reliability of the Agency’s many inter‐related systems, be performed prior to a focused effort on developing a more unified, cross‐functional approach to risk. The decision related to the development of a corporate risk management plan is independent of this recommendation.

5.4 Continuous Improvement According to the American Society for Quality (ASQ), the terms continuous improvement and continual improvement are frequently used interchangeably. But some quality practitioners make the following distinction:

Continual improvement: a broader term preferred by W. Edwards Deming to refer to general processes of improvement and encompassing “discontinuous” improvements—that is, many different approaches, covering different areas.

Continuous improvement: a subset of continual improvement, with a more specific focus on linear, incremental improvement within an existing process. Some practitioners also associate continuous improvement more closely with techniques of statistical process control. Continuous improvement efforts can seek “incremental” improvement over time or “breakthrough” improvement all at once.

The new international asset management standard (ISO 55000 series), recognizes continual improvement as a core component of asset management. More specifically, ISO 55000 states that organization’s asset management plan “should be used to guide the setting of its asset management objectives, and to describe the


5-8

role of the asset management system in meeting these objectives. This includes the structures, roles and responsibilities necessary to establish the asset management system and to operate it effectively. Stakeholder support, risk management and continuous improvement (emphasis added) are important issues to be addressed in the establishment and operation of the asset management system”.

ISO 55002: Asset management — Management systems — Guidelines for the application further provides guidelines in Section 10.3 (Continual improvement) subsection 10.3.1: Opportunities for improvement should be identified, assessed and implemented across the organization as appropriate, through a combination of monitoring and corrective actions for the assets, asset management, or asset management system. Continual improvement should be regarded as an ongoing iterative activity, with the ultimate aim of delivering the organizational objectives. It should not be interpreted as cyclic (e.g. annual) improvement in asset performance parameters just because they can be achieved.

Among the most widely used tools for continuous improvement is a four‐step quality model—the plan‐do‐check‐act (PDCA) cycle, also known as Deming Cycle or Shewhart Cycle:

Plan: Identify an opportunity and plan for change.

Do: Implement the change on a small scale.

Check: Use data to analyze the results of the change and determine whether it made a difference.

Act: If the change was successful, implement it on a wider scale and continuously assess your results. If the change did not work, begin the cycle again.

Walter Shewart (1891‐1967) was a student of Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of Scientific Management and author of the book by the same name (The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911). Edwards Deming was in turn a student of Shewart, and took the basic concepts of both Taylor and Deming to form what would be known as Total Quality Management. Approaches like Six Sigma and Lean, among others, would grow from the quality movement championed by Deming.

According to ASQ, widely used methods of continuous improvement — such as Six Sigma, Lean, and Total Quality Management — emphasize: employee involvement and teamwork; measuring and systematizing processes; and reducing variation, defects and cycle times. Six Sigma has its own version of the classic PDCA cycle called DMAIC which stands for:

Define: Define problem; baselining and benchmarking

Measure: Collected data is quantified

Analyze: Variable interactions and their effect of quality; root cause analysis

Improve: Implement conclusions from analysis

Control: Improvements are locked‐in, normally through SOPs

Six Sigma is focused on quality and emphasizes the “voice of the customer” to define quality. According to ISO 9000 (Management Systems), Six Sigma is a method that provides organizations tools to improve the capability of their business processes. This increase in performance and decrease in process variation lead to defect reduction and improvement in profits, employee morale and quality of products or services. Six Sigma quality is a term generally used to indicate a process is well controlled (±6 s from the centerline in a control chart).

While Six Sigma is popular in many quality circles, it is not without significant critics. From a Quality Progress editorial in 2003, “For example, critics say Six Sigma is really nothing new. This is true. Reputable Six Sigma experts often acknowledge the methodology doesn't offer new tools or techniques. Rather, it packages existing, proven tools and concepts in a different way that some companies and people find helpful”. Lean is focused on the elimination of waste. Since waste can also be a detriment to quality, Lean and Six Sigma are often combined into a single approach called Lean Six Sigma. ISO 9000 defines Lean as producing the


5-9

maximum sellable products or services at the lowest operational cost while optimizing inventory levels. A Lean enterprise is a manufacturing company organized to eliminate all unproductive effort and unnecessary investment, both on the shop floor and in office functions. Lean manufacturing/production is an initiative focused on eliminating all waste in manufacturing processes. Principles of lean manufacturing include zero waiting time, zero inventory, scheduling (internal customer pull instead of push system), batch to flow (cut batch sizes), line balancing and cutting actual process times. The production systems are characterized by optimum automation, just‐in‐time supplier delivery disciplines, quick changeover times, high levels of quality and continuous improvement.

Taiichi Ohno, who is credited with Lean although the term was used first by MIT in the 1990s, originally enumerated seven wastes (Japanese “muda”) and later added underutilized people as the eighth waste commonly found in physical production. The eight are:

overproduction ahead of demand;

waiting for the next process, worker, material or equipment;

unnecessary transport of materials (for example, between functional areas of facilities, or to or from a stockroom or warehouse);

over‐processing of parts due to poor tool and product design;

inventories more than the absolute minimum;

unnecessary movement by employees during the course of their work (such as to look for parts, tools, prints or help);

production of defective parts;

under‐utilization of employees’ brainpower, skills, experience and talents.

Kaizen is another important concept/tool that is often associated with Lean. Kaizen is a Japanese term that means gradual unending improvement by doing little things better and setting and achieving increasingly higher standards. Masaaki Imai made the term famous in his book, Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. As a management concept/tool, Kaizen is a Japanese word more typically translated to “continuous improvement.”

According to ASQ, the connotation of Kaizen has morphed to also include quick or fast improvements, like kaizen events (also known as kaizen blitzes, quick kaizens or rapid improvement projects), which are big improvements that are made quickly. This is analogous to hitting a homerun in baseball. Both kaizen and kaizen events produce results, like the singles and homeruns driving in runs on the baseball field. But kaizens occur far more often than kaizen events. Many organizations overlook the true power of gradual unending improvement through kaizen and prefer the quick and fast kaizen events; they want to hit the homerun, but instead often strike out.

Any form of continuous improvement is rooted in understanding business processes. The ISO 9000 series (management systems), the ISO 14000 series (environmental management systems), the ISO 9000 series (risk management) and the ISO 55000 series (asset management) are all applicable to water & wastewater utilities. All place a heavy focus on business process mapping, identification of related and applicable performance measures, and on continuous improvement synonymous with the Plan‐Do‐Check‐Act cycle. Unlike approaches such as Six Sigma, Lean, Kaizen, and TQM, ISO is considered an international standard. However, because ISO is considered a generic standard and applicable to all organization, its advocates and critics tend to cite it most appropriately as a guideline. And while ISO is a single certifying body, it is similar to Six Sigma and Lean in that there are very tangible costs associated with training, auditing, and certifying under the ISO name.

One major criticism of ISO approaches is that by focusing too heavily on processes and standards, arguably the most meaningful way to long term change, they do not produce the quick wins and increased value (or cost reduction) that is needed in many companies to justify necessary resources over the short‐ and mid‐term. This is an observation that was noted in the EPA push for certified Environmental Management Systems more than a decade ago; utilities could justify such an approach when required to do so by USEPA, but few could not justify the short‐term resource costs without a regulatory driver.


5-10

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) emphasizes the need for continuous improvement in all of its programs. This is manifested by a recognition of the major tools and processes identified in this section, and is demonstrated through endorsement of formal approaches like ISO 14000 certified Environmental Management Systems to less formal approaches like Adaptive Management Strategies (also commonly defined as “learn as you go”). USEPA also recognizes the importance of asset management and Effective Utility Management for water and wastewater utilities.

One related USEPA example is the industry guidebook Resource Guide to Effective Utility Management and Lean: Improving Performance and Addressing Key Management Priorities at Water‐Sector Utilities (October 2012). Five Key Lean and Six Sigma methods relevant to water‐sector utilities: 1. Standard work; 2. 5S (or 5S+Safety); 3. Lean Events; 4. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM); and 5. Six Sigma. These five methods are not mandated but are provided generically for utilities to consider for use in continuous improvement.

5.4.1 Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement (CI-1) Performance management, in terms of performance measures and KPIs, is closely aligned with LOS: performance should be measured against meeting desired LOSs aligned with the Agency’s Strategic Plan. Based on this evaluation and CH2M HILL’s work to date with both the CMMS and Maintenance Strategies projects, there are significant gaps in the quality, range, and depth of the measures and KPIs currently being used. This stems from a variety of sources, including a lack of established work flows and business processes in some divisions, a lack of a place and methodology for storing and using O&M data (like the CMMS), the lack of established best practices in some cases, and a lack of a clear line‐of‐sight with the Strategic Plan and LOSs.

One multi‐step approach that can be used to address this issue, and which closely coincides with establishing LOSs is: collection of all existing measures/indicators/targets that are currently being used by the organization; sorting the data by service categories and stratifying by level within the organization; analyzing the data across different functions of the organization and for clear line‐of‐sight; performing final consolidation or expansion; developing a reporting mechanism; and establishing a process for auditing and monitoring.

5.5 Financial Forecasting As in any organization, there can be competition for funding among several programs, such as Planning, O&M, R&R, and CIP. In order to effectively balance the competing needs, a consistent approach to making funding decisions is required. This will also lead to an improved ability to forecast future financial requirements.

5.5.1 Financial Forecasting Recommendations The recommendations of this AM Implementation Plan to support financial forecasting efforts are centered on a review of existing financial tools and the identification of potential enhancements to the R&R Program. A review of the current business case evaluation process will lead to recommendation for, or the development of, a formal, consistent business case evaluation process. This process will ensure that all appropriate costs and benefits are considered in the decision making processes.

FF‐1. The Financial Tools review will evaluate those tools used for financial forecasting and decision making (CMMS, R&R Model, CIP Prioritization, Rate and Fee model). It will include a gap analysis to ensure that appropriate linkages are in place such that O&M needs, as well as R&R and CIP requirements, are provided to Finance in a consistent manner. The review will also develop standards, guidelines, and procedures for annual operating and capital budget recommendations.

FF‐2. Improvements to the R&R Model will include recommendations for the incorporation of links to relevant data from other systems and tools (CMMS, LOS, Risk, CIP prioritization). As a result, the R&R Program will be more tightly linked to and consistent with other systems and processes. These include


5-11

Development of a Business Case Evaluation process or tool that includes Triple Bottom Line, Life ‐Cycle Costing, LOS, and Risk.

5.6 Organizational and Cultural Development Comprehensive AM includes physical assets, finances, information, and people. Establishing tools/technology, standard processes, and an outcome‐based, collaborative culture are key components to effectively manage an organization’s many assets in a prioritized manner that optimizes life‐cycle costs while minimizing risk and meeting desired LOSs.

The culture of AM has been described as follows:

Where performance excellence optimizes resources

Where employees are comfortable questioning “business as usual”

Where prioritization ensures doing the right things at the right times

Where staff and leadership routinely search for innovation and best practices

Where the organization is proactive in gaining new skills

Where outcomes that are best for the customer drive collaborative internal approaches

Effective AM cultures are primarily outcome‐based and secondarily output‐based. Outputs are normally associated with measures of operational efficiency. Operational efficiencies are thought of in an input‐output relationship, can normally be assessed in short‐term (1‐year) financial costs, can be attributable to a primary area/person of responsibility, and are typically viewed as how well an organization gets its short‐term work done.

Outcomes are normally associated with effectiveness, have a longer view than short‐term efficiency measures, and are seldom attributable to a single department or individual. Outcomes are normally expressed in terms of meeting an end result (such as resiliency, adaptability, vision, etc.) and define the ultimate character of the organization.

In terms of comparing efficiency to effectiveness, it is possible that a small group of people with limited resources can successfully complete a large number of work orders. This result was highly efficient. However, to determine whether it was effective or not would depend on whether the work orders were aimed at doing the right things to achieve a desired outcome. Other simple examples could include the amount of training (output) versus performing a job better (outcome) or the amount of medical treatment (output) versus being in better health (outcome).

High‐performing organizations, including those in the water industry, have a culture based on outcomes and effectiveness. This culture pervades both across and up‐and‐down the organization. And while outputs still serve as primary short‐term measures for how well the work gets done and where functional improvements are needed, even day‐to‐day decisions are driven by a focus on ultimate outcomes and not simply doing work. High‐performing organizations typically have cross‐functional team‐based decision making and participatory cultures.

The Agency has been re‐organized, and has recently appointed a new General Manager.

5.6.1 Organizational and Cultural Development Recommendations Under the AM Implementation Plan, there are four recommended projects related to Organizational and Cultural Development. These are:

OCD‐1. Education and Training, to include: AM‐related training, reviews of salaries and benefits (with HR), and plans for workforce recruitment, retention, and succession.


5-12

OCD‐2. Strategic Plan Implementation, which would ensure alignment of the AM Program to the overall Strategic Plan for the Agency.

OCD‐3. Internal Communication, which would establish a plan for effective communication to the Board and staff.

OCD‐4. Establishment of a Team that would meet quarterly for workshops and serve as a guide to the AM Program.

5.7 Timing, Urgency, and Priorities Based on the experience and perceptions of Agency staff, the short‐term performance and reliability of its physical assets is acceptable, and there are no major external fiscal or regulatory drivers that require immediate action. As such, an incremental approach can be taken in implementing the AM Program.

The most immediate need for the organization to improve its AM practices is to implement the new CMMS and begin applying AM practices such as condition and risk assessments. Additional measures such as looking at the entire organization’s AM practices comprehensively, adopting new maintenance strategies, prioritizing assets, and integrating AM information into the capital and O&M budgeting process can be performed once the most needed foundation improvements are completed.

Organizational improvements to address some of the effectiveness issues that were identified in this assessment need to be addressed at the Agency. Maintaining the recently formed cross‐functional Team and adding quarterly Team workshops throughout the assets improvement process will also help with improving AM and organizational issues. Additional measures should be assessed in 9 to 12 months and potentially implemented.

6-1

SECTION 6

Assessment Report and Implementation Plan

6.1 Draft Asset Management Assessment Report Based on the interviews, gap analysis workshop, and discussions with senior management, the AM Implementation Plan was developed. The identified and validated activities were grouped into projects.

The Plan itself consists of three primary parts:

1) This body of this Assessment Report

2) Project Descriptions (Appendix C)

– Further detail on the AM projects proposed in the AM Implementation Plan

3) Preliminary Schedule (Appendix D)

– Shows estimated timeline and linkages between activities

Some key aspects of this Implementation Plan include:

Presents initial phase of implementation to be complete by fall 2014

Recognizes other initiatives within Tampa Bay Water, such as the R&R Program refinement, and seeks to align with those efforts

Utilizes a Tampa Bay Water team‐based approach to create a better understanding of the goals of AM and to ultimately achieve a sustainable AM culture.

The AM Program recommendations have been grouped to allow for logical implementation of each task in a team‐based format. A separate project description of each task, which includes purpose, goals, responsibilities, schedule, responsibility, internal Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), and external costs, is provided. The internal FTEs and external costs are approximate only and have been included for high level planning purposes. The external costs can also represent an Agency position to perform this function. As the projects listed below are executed additional projects and efforts will be identified. Consideration of including AM Program contingency funds is recommended.



– Asset Management Advisory Team Briefings/ AM Education Liaisons (Project 1, Appendix C)

CMMS Implementation Team




Maintenance Strategy Team





LOS/Risk Team


6 ASSESSMENT REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

6-2


Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement Team

– Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement(Project 12, Appendix C)

Financial Forecasting Team



Organization and Cultural Development Team




Selected Ongoing Agency Projects (related to AM)







As the projects listed above are executed additional projects and efforts will identified. Consideration of including AM Program contingency funds is recommended.

6.2 Project Chartering and Implementation Roll-Out Following the approval of the Implementation Plan and as the final step of the assessment process, a 2‐hour workshop will be conducted to roll‐out the finalized Implementation Plan and formally charter its execution. CH2M HILL’s approach will include a formal chartering session with Senior Management and the Team. CH2M HILL’s experience indicates that the greater involvement in the chartering and assessment process, the greater the buy‐in, ultimate success, and sustainability of the program.

The chartering session will also serve as a foundation for developing Team and staff needs prior to the implementation tasks, and will serve as an opportunity to assure that any work performed under the AM Program is well‐aligned with Tampa Bay Water’s current Strategic Plan.

7-1

SECTION 7

References

Awwa Research Foundation (AWWARF). 2006. Decision Process and Trade‐Off Analysis Model for Supply Rotation and Planning. CH2M HILL. 2002. Water Supply/Resources Decision Support System Implementation Plan. Prepared for Tampa Bay Water. December.

CH2M HILL for National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA). 2002. Managing Public Infrastructure Assets to Minimize Cost & Maximize Performance.

CH2M HILL for National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF). 2007. Implementing Asset Management‐‐A Practical Guide.

Citigroup, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Raymond James/Morgan Keegan. 2013. $75,295,000 Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority, Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 2013. January.

Ernst & Young LLP. 2013. Financial Statements, Tampa Bay Water (A Regional Water Supply Authority), Years Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, With Reports of Independent Certified Public Accountants. January.

Hazen and Sawyer. 2004. The Tampa Bay Water Long‐Term Demand Forecasting Model. June.

Hazen and Sawyer. 2010. The Tampa Bay Water Long‐Term Demand Forecasting Model. December.

Kerr & Downs Research (KDR). 2012. 2012 Tampa Bay Water Public Opinion Survey.

KPMG. 2005. Tampa Bay Water Performance Audit. Final Report. March.

Larson Allen. 2010. Tampa Bay Water Management and Performance Audit. Final Report. April.

NACWA and AMWA. 1998. Thinking, Getting, and Staying Competitive: A Public Sector Handbook.

Tampa Bay Water. 1998. Resolution No. 98‐06 TBW. August.

Tampa Bay Water. 2010. Tampa Bay Water Capital Improvement Program Process, Standard Operating Procedures. September.

Tampa Bay Water. 2011a. Operations Plan Update, Revised. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District. April.

Tampa Bay Water. 2011b. Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2012. March.

Tampa Bay Water. 2012. 2012 Public Opinion Survey Report – Presentation of Results. October.

Tampa Bay Water. 2013a. 2011 Strategic Plan Update – Status Report. April.

Tampa Bay Water. 2013b. Tampa Bay Water Security Policy and Procedures Manual. October.

Tampa Bay Water. 2013c. Energy Management Program – Status Report. October.

Tampa Bay Water. 2013d. Draft Safety Policy and Procedures Manual, Tampa Bay Water – Safety Plan. November.

Tampa Bay Water. 2013e. Tampa Bay Water Long‐Term Master Water Plan 2013. December.

Tampa Bay Water. 2013f. Energy Management Program – Status Report. December.

7 REFERENCES

7-2

Tampa Bay Water. 2013g. Approved Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2014. June.

Tampa Bay Water. 2013h. Capital Improvement Program Staff Meeting Number 2 PowerPoint. November

Tampa Bay Water. 2014. Optimized Regional Operations Plan (orop). http://www.tampabaywater.com/supplies/optimized_regional_operations_plan.aspx Accessed January 14, 2014.

West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. 1998a. Master Water Supply Contract. May.

West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. 1998b. Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement. June.

Appendix A: Gap Analysis Detail

Area of Good or Improving Performance ‐ No Action Needed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Provides reliable, responsive, and affordable services in line with explicit, customer‐accepted service levels

Customer Satisfaction and Stakeholder Understanding

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce

STAFF COMMENTS (where provided)SCORE

Neutral5

Don't know that we get formal feedback from external and internal customers/members7

Service levels not explicit; internal stakeholders ignored; do we get feedback?; we ignore regulators5

Not all service levels are explicitly defined. Exhibit C - addresses pressure; Exhibit D -water quality; don't poll members

7

Core mission9

I do not believe we are reliable7

We meet contractual requirements with our members10

TBW provides good service to members. Exhibit C & D are examples10

Finance meets with members with feedback9

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1a


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Receives timely customer feedback to maintain responsiveness to customer needs and emergencies


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Usually receive direct contact from members when needed8

Internal customers (staff) are ignored. 6 member governments are monitored thru OCC/WQWG5

Not a good system; relies on relationships among staff; no real formal process5

Could use more operational-level coordination with members4

Only when a problem6

Don't know5

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1b


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Seeks understanding and support from oversight bodies, community and watershed interests, and regulatory bodies for service levels, rate structures, operating budgets, capital improvement programs, and risk management decisions


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


We don't do this really2

Usually only done with permit renewals and long term water supply plan3

Seem to interact well with SWF WMD/DEP/etc7

Meet with members & present to Board8

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1c

Area of Heightened Concern ‐ Should be Considered in A.M. Plan

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Actively involves stakeholders in the decisions that will affect them


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Board meetings10

Especially internal stakeholders 3

Ignores most internal staff3

Only for long term water supply plan3

Members - 10; Staff - 78

Only as required by Board Agenda2

Industry standards more important that customer opinion6

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1d

Inconclusive Results ‐ No Consensus

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Develops service levels for the divisions, informed by desired or expected performance by the customers and regulators, in consideration of costs and risks


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1e

Could Use Improvement ‐ Should be Addressed in A.M. Plan

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Surveys and other means of dialogue from the customers are used


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Don't do them regularly3

Need this to measure4

Still developing survey process; do not formally survey customers3

Surveys are conducted and reported to Board9

None in place1

?5

Board meetings address most issues & concerns2

Member governments can have convergent needs3

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1f


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency generates public support through a proactive public involvement and education program providing concise and understandable information about the Agency and its operation


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


PR Department9

Usually project specific5

This is important to our board8

Programs in place but not sure of effectiveness10

Most people I run into have no idea what we do2

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1g


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency has a means of receiving, responding to, and resolving customer complaints and requests in a timely and effective manner


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Reactionary3

Mostly reactionary3

No means of internal staff providing feedback2

Mitigation program only for well complaints; other complaints not tracked8

No formal process for receiving and logging/tracking3

No formal system in place to track complaints 1

Seem to be routed thru Public Information and addressed quickly7

Finance responds directly; not sure about Operations6

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 1h


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Recruits and retains a workforce that is competent, motivated, adaptive, and safe‐working

Employee and Leadership Development

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Don't have succession plan5

We've lost some good people4

Good job at recruiting but needs improvement on retaining and motivating staff5

Good staff here8

Family atmosphere; Employees often have longevity and care8

Recruit well; Retainage issue5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Establishes a participatory, collaborative organization dedicated to continual learning and improvement


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Not collaborative; dominated by cliques. Huge, combative stove pipes1

Not enough group discussion; too many silos; Executive team not inclusive3

Good job at collaboration between divisions10

Training greatly increasing now. Not so good last 5 years6

Good for projects; not at higher levels7


Needs Critical Attention ‐ Recommend Action in A.M. Plan

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ensures employee institutional knowledge is retained and improved upon over time


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Need more documentation of equipment and better prints6

This will be improved with new CMMS system3

We are trying1

We don't document our knowledge; hopefully Asset Management will help2

Need big improvement here3

Working on this - web pages, CMMS, R&R, etc. Also SOPs, Policy, GIS7

Hard to find information4



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Provides a focus on and emphasizes opportunities for professional and leadership development and strives to create an integrated and well‐coordinated organization and teams


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Cliques dominate; Individuals try really hard to do this but are frequently ignored3

Agency used to focus on this; reorganization has deemphasized/don't do anymore3

Seem stuck in reorganization issues; getting better5

Working to improve5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Develops an understanding and application of the skills and core competencies required to meet future needs of the divisions. Strategies and actions are put into place to achieve these objectives


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


System works but could use improvement6

Job descriptions not accurate2

Skills and core competency not matching what agency needs are2

Need overhaul of field staff job descriptions3

Worked on process maps5

Finance has lost a person & no promotions of staff in 5 yrs.3

Identifying deficiencies and moving in positive direction5

Done as need arises; No long-term plan for employee development1



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Conducts regular salary studies


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Done every few years9

Recent salary evaluation was not done equitably1

Suppose to do every three years; Not always done and not done well2

HR's last effort -- didn't inspire confidence2

Not sure; only 1 year in and did one this year5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Conducts regular benefits studies


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Not aware of any being done5

Don't know5

Don't know5

Good benefits7

Some broker/benefits for years2



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Provides written job descriptions


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Getting better6

Provided but need to be accurate8

We have them; Not accurate5

Yes but they may not meet agency needs5

Last effort was rushed and not fully vetted with industry practices5

Recently revised descriptions agency wide7

We have them9

Changed last year; need to be improved6



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Performs timely performance reviews


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


The last ones were done on time9

Poor in the past, new system in place8

We did not enforce this for years1

Ex-Manager did not require the reviews; Have started making some changes2

Restricted from using 1 and 55

Changed process. Now all due at once7

Seems like new GM has this on track now8

New forms are better5

Not sure of past; currently going to standard5

Historic forms bad; New forms completed in October6

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 2i


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Organization structure is appropriate to the needs of the Agency


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Needs changes3

Getting closer; Some additional tweaks needed3

Need to settle in. We've been in a state of uncertainty for a while3

Hope for realignment as Agency matures3

Too many divisions for the size2

Work in progress6

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 2j


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ensures ongoing, timely, cost‐effective, reliable, and sustainable performance improvements in all facets of operations

Operational Efficiency

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Has improved recently5

No continuous improvement function that is centralized2

We have not gained all the efficiencies we could - maintenance3

No timely ongoing performance improvements5

We don’t use KPI's so we don’t know what needs improvement 3

Can improve maintenance and power use4

Moving into more effective procedures6

People want to do better but sometimes hampered by "we always did it this way"6

Good on reliability/sustainability, performance improvement needed6

working on reliable and sustainable7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Minimizes resource use (i.e., staff/materials) in day‐to‐day operations


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Some divisions have measures3

No way to measure/operations is not optimized3

Could better use money on PM than CM6

Need to work on Operations daily energy use5

Spend within budget but not with cost minimizing strategies6



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Maintains awareness of information and operational technology developments to anticipate and support timely adoption of improvements


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


We could do more - we don’t do much with contractors stuff6

Aware but does not support or timely implementation5

In some areas, yes. In others, no. Sometimes get ahead of ourselves with upgrading5

Additional staff at management level would free up time for analysis4

Trying to ramp this up5

State of the art operations tracking7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency identifies and acts on cost reduction opportunities and methods and applies methods or tools such as benefit/cost analysis to aid in decision processes


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


We think we are doing this - but not so much3

No risk analysis; Cost benefit analysis is not always quantitative; Cost reduction based on emotion5

New CMMS should help with this4

Working to ramp this up further7

Have not seen any cost/benefit studies3

Come a long way; Process in place over last 5 years7

Maintains status quo; Haven't focused on cost and efficiency improvements3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency makes decisions which consider life cycle costs and benefits for the benefit of both current and future generations


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Getting better, R&R could still use improvement3

Design of projects seem to focus on up front costs and not enough on maintenance and safety4

We think we are doing this - but not so much3

No reliability analysis included with life cycle cost; no cost for environmental sustainability3

Maintenance program overhaul should help4

Energy & CIP programs address this - also R&R8

Great studies for anticipating future needs/costs9

Maintains status quo; Haven't focused on cost and efficiency improvements3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency applies a team based approach to seek best practice and optimize efficiency


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Good within departments. Could use improvement Agency wide7

Weekly meetings are conducted that includes key representation from the department7

We have tried but it's been mostly squashed3

Limited use of cross functional teams 2

We are starting to do this but haven't made much progress4

Good coordination on CIP and R&R7

Working on team membership7

Good teams and inclusion7

Working hard; Team based approach new concept as of 2 years ago7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency uses effective project delivery systems and tools that assure good cost estimates, schedules, and change management


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


We are trying but 3

Cost estimates could be improved ; Don’t have cost estimate for O&M; Use a CIP program and R&R program

7

This is done in a silo3

Use in some areas, not in others. Improving these processes3

Solid CIP program9

Processes in place but enforcement needed for all projects regardless of project costs9

Need to streamline delivery somehow5

Don’t know. Not involved in operations; CIP good cost & schedules5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency provides regular communication of standardized priorities and measures


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Measures still need to be developed3

Done rarely if ever1

Don’t do; Don’t have a dashboard. Policies not up to date1

We don’t track KPI's at this time2

Need to improve these communications3

No existing process in place1

Good with employee meetings but not on overall communication3

Not as formal as needed5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Understands the full life‐cycle cost of Agency‐owned assets, and establishes and maintains an effective balance between long‐term debt, asset values, operations and maintenance expenditures, and operating revenues

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Could use improvement on evaluating life cycle of equipment5

Programs are being developed or in place already7

We are trying ; Finance does a good job operations/maintenance is weak on this3

Just starting on Asset Management program; Don't have good O&M cost database; Use the fund requirements in agency documents to decide

3

This is the heart of Asset Management3

R&R and CIP are somewhat integrated; Maintenance expenses need major work6

Getting better here with R&R, CMMS, etc. Communicating long-term cost to Finance7

Finance is heavily involved9


Core Competency for TBW ‐ Industry‐Leading Performance

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Establishes predictable rates and fees—consistent with customer expectations and acceptability—adequate to recover costs, provide for reserves, maintain support from bond rating agencies, and plan and invest for future needs

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Our Interlocal Agreement protects our funding/revenue9

Don't know5

Will need to increase rates at some point in order to keep infrastructure in good shape5

Annual budgets accepted with no increase in rate & rate model9

Done well in Finance but need additional understanding organization wide8



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency adopts and applies financial policies, practices and procedures to assure budget management effectiveness and integrity of processes

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Reevaluation of the purchasing policy has caused confusion on purchasing4

We're learning4

Don't know about integrity of processes5

Budget process needs to be tied to trends we'll get out of CMMS4

Alls POs go thru budget so we know when close9




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency establishes and meets financial performance criteria, including net income, cash and investments, reserves, bond coverage and ratings, and debt management

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Investments not performing as budgeted; interest rates not increasing9

Governance does this well8

Based on agency documents9

Don't know5

Audits are good every year10

Have AA+ rating7

Highest ratings on bonds; excess reserves9




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Asset data can be translated to financial terms for purposes of making level of service, operations and maintenance, repair vs. replace, and related budget and CIP decisions

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Improved CMMS will provide improved maintenance cost and reliability information4

Asset data currently at higher level, need more detailed information4

Data not good enough to make level of service decision, no O&M for R&R3

EMMS doesn't provide information needed. Hope Maximo will2

Data is available but not accessible4

Need to work on this one5

Need better integration with CIP/CMMS/finance6



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Appropriate financial forecasting models exist and are integrated into budget, accounting, rate, and CIP processes

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Governance 7

Not all integrated; Have different models3

Don't know5

Need better information on life expectancies and time to major PM efforts7

Room for improvement on all tools, better integration between CIP/R&R/Budget is required4

Need to work on this one5

New rate model coming on which connects to supply/demand7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Efficient management and reporting systems are in place for payables, receivables, internal and external reporting, travel and expense reporting, and payroll

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Travel reporting needs some improvement9

Does a good job8

Not sure but I don't think we have this in place5

Munis is difficult to use. Purchasing is very difficult5

Munis is very effective; looking at more utilization9




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Funding demand forecasts prepared

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


I know the Agency does this, but I don't know anything about how5

R&R program still needs some work to be fully functional6

CIP goes out 5 years, budget is done for 10 years9

Don't know5

Good for CIP. Maintenance needs work. R&R needs to be more robust6

?5

Some exists but could be better integrated with budget models8



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Analyzes financial trends rather than simply using planning forecasts

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


I know the Agency does this, but I don't know anything about how5

Look at historical data when preparing budget, need more R&R information7

We don't do this at all1

Not a robust analysis; Seems to do for board funding events3

Not sure5

?5

Look at historical and future but not to industry indices6



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Asset inventories are complete and asset hierarchy can roll up or roll down, and adequate to meet all potential uses

Financial Viability

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Working on it1

Not very effective2

Need more detail for R&R program & maintenance2

Nope1

No asset hierarchy in place; Not all assets in database2

This is in place but needs a lot of work3

On verge of major overhaul2

Upgrading CMMS and R&R, also asset ID#6

Cannot roll up/down. Separate records operations/finance2

Need define parent/child relationships3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Understands the condition of and replacement costs associated with critical infrastructure assets

Maintenance of Infrastructure

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


R&R program doesn't always have correct information3

Complete asset information not complete2

Don't really have but really need2

We don't have the condition asset piece1

Not all assets have undergone condition assessment; No replacement cost database5

Don't know level of knowledge/service for most of these areas5

Effort started but not complete & not current2

Need better data for replacement costs4

R&R/RPM model running at 80% populated - need to refine equipment costs & finish populating model8

Knowledge of condition is good; not the replacement costs/life3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Maintains and enhances the condition of all assets over the long‐term at the lowest possible life‐cycle cost and acceptable risk


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Don't have the condition asset piece or risk assessment of assets1

Don't have reliability goals; not risk assessments2

Risk and LOS have not been documented2


On verge of overhaul2

Getting better at those with 2035, R&R, etc.6

Good R&R program/maintenance, need more risk assessments8



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Assures asset repair, rehabilitation, and replacement efforts are coordinated with customers to minimize disruptions and other negative consequences


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Customers are always given advance notice of work that will affect them9

Regular OCC meetings are held to coordinate with the members8

We do this well - OCC, WQWG8

We do this well9

Don't know5


Very good at this9

Don't know how ops. coordinates with stakeholders5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Understands assets managed: inventory, condition, useful life, maintenance requirements, and replacement needs


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


No accurate list4

Better documentation needed6

Guys in field are familiar with assets but Agency doesn't truly understand3

Need to do a better list, a formal list3

Just simply no; We have started - list not complete3


Needs much work ; analysis & documentation2

Needs improvement on understanding and decision making between replacement vs. repair6

Finance has solid records/inventory/custody. Not sure of maintenance7

No requirements for inventory5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Understands asset risk and failure modes, asset criticality, likelihood of failure, and consequence of failure


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Hopefully this will improve with Maximo2

Have not conducted FMEA on all assets3

Don't do risk or failure analysis1

This has not been done yet2


Need much worked. Started2

Operations has very good understanding, needs system. 2



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency has developed formal maintenance strategies and preventive maintenance programs


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Work in progress7

In progress6

Believe something in place, but not personally involved5

Working on this; Need the right staff working on this 3

Working on it2

We are working towards this but have not made progress2


Need much worked. Started2

None developed yet1

Have old ones; need upgraded ones; underway4

R&R, CIP programs8

Working on current effort6

In place but not formalized5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency measures and tracks performance of their assets


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Infant stages of this4

Regular pump efficiency tests; Energy are OROP7

Look at any impairments on yearly basis, but not familiar with other measures5

We have just started to do this2

Occasionally at the equipment level but not at the system level3

We do not have or track KPI's at this time2


Some work done but not yet tied to decision making6

None tracked1

Working thru power use and pump testing now5

Don't know 5

Working on current effort6



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency uses predictive models as an approach to forecast renewal, replacement, and O&M costs used from a long‐term perspective


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Definite room for improvement4

Started program but needs more work6

Agency has an R&R but don't believe it is fully functional4

We have one - but don't use it well; Need to have the right staff on this 3

Have R&R model, not robust3


Condition assessments that feed model aren't comprehensive & up to date4

Used for R&R but not yet for O&M costs8

R&R up, CMMS coming soon7

Not sure what operations does. Do have R&R program in place5

Improving6



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency has programs and protocols to manage system capacity


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


OROP8

We're learning7

Have OROP; Reliability System model9

Don't know5


Lots of models5

Not sure what operations uses5

Not really3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ensures Agency leadership and staff work together to anticipate major operational and enterprise risks to avoid problems

Operational Capability and Emergency Response

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Agency works well together up to a certain level8

CEMP, NIMS public information9

Could communicate better4

Not really a community effort4

Don't know5

COO very good at working with staff and executive team 8

NMIS; Full command structure9



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency proactively identifies and assesses a full range of business risks in a proactive way consistent with industry trends and system reliability goals


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


This area is improving with risk management identified7

Need to improve in this area4

Need to improve; impediments in management3

Don’t have agency reliability and don't have business risks defined1

No risk assessments3

I have not seen an emphasis on risk management3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Emergency Response Plans are prepared, including risk mitigation strategies and plans, including functions for customer liaison, press liaison, and post incident review


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


CEMP plans regularly updated with exercises conducted9

CEMP in place & have yearly exercises8

We have a plan but7

We have plan and we have done training9

Don't know5

Have a plan but don't practice much6

Policies in place; updated & discussed; need training/simulation7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SCADA systems monitor and control all key assets, and allow efficient operation of infrastructure assets


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


SCADA is very fragile/outdated2

Highly automated both monitor and control9

Believe so, not area of familiarity5

Pretty good job6

We have a good SCADA system; monitor & control; redundant & backups10

Good SCADA system9

Don't know how SCADA system operates5

Redundant Servers8



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Staff training is adequate to assure the workforce is not only able to operate safely, but also to respond effectively to emergencies


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Some training but need more6

We have the plan; impediments exist6

Training needs improvement5

I do not believe we have any training program in place2

Need more practice4

Good safety programs & procedures. Need more training7

Need additional training3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency is attentive to the impacts its decisions have on current and long‐term future community and environmental health and welfare

Community Sustainability and Environmental Management

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Diversification of resources are a prime example9

Lots of talk about this but it is not backed up with real actions6

Not on long term future community; not enough attention on climate change3

This is a big deal to stakeholders - we have monitoring programs to address8

OROP program. Mitigation programs. Well mitigation9

Systems in place through the mitigation program9

Master Water Plan/ River Protection Effort7

Very good stewards of the environment & community9



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency manages operations, infrastructure, and investments to protect, restore, and enhance the natural environment


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Diversification of resources are a prime example; Extensive water level monitoring and diverse resources/ OROP and climate modeling

9

We are charged with this but have historically fought this4

We have OROP/ active environmental recovery program; Groundwater cutback to enhance and restore8

Don't know5

Monitoring programs, mitigation programs, and permit required enhancements8

OROP program. Mitigation programs. Well mitigation9

Doing ok with protection and restoration but not enhancing9

Master Water Plan is all about this9

Do everything we can7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Efficiently use water and energy resources


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Slowly moving in this direction6

Some efficiency studies completed ENERNOC program with energy company wire to water7

Looking at more energy efficiency parts when replacing existing parts7

Working on it 5

We have energy efficiency studies; ENERNOC; operating more efficiently; Water use is most efficient8

We are working towards this 6

Working on and studying ways to do this better (some efficiency built into plants) 6

Could do better on energy usage optimization. Tied to maintenance5

Program developed for energy management but not implemented fully4

Water - yes/ energy needs more focus6

Energy alternatives could be more cost-effective & green4



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency promotes economic vitality and seeks overall community improvement


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


We say so - no examples are evident5

Not what we do but we are the region's water provider3

Don't know5

Agency supports economic development and helps make possible. Not necessarily promotes 3

Development of major new supply sources promoted economic sustainability8

?5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Explicitly considers a variety of pollution prevention and resource protection approaches as part of an overall strategy to maintain and enhance ecological and community sustainability


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Well mitigation - recovery assessment in progress7

OROP & well mitigation, optimized regional operations plan8

Don't know5

Well mitigation program. Wetland mitigation program9

Don't know5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Uses triple bottom line evaluation that considers environmental and social costs and benefits in addition to financial data for decision making


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


We really only use financial; environment is driven by regulations2

Don't use triple bottom cost techniques; Environment is more qualitative2

Don't know5

Environmental issues and public comment considered in major decisions9

Decisions often are made based on environmental factors rather than benefits/financial7

Sustainability8



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Develops and implements Environmental Management System (EMS) to identify and manage environmental aspects and impacts


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Not familiar with this5

Need to improve 2

Our water use permits ID what we need to do; don't need ISO5

Don't know5

Hope to improve with use of Maximo7

No system in place4

Don't know5

Don't do1



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Develops "green initiatives" and develops adaptive strategies and programs to address impacts of climate change, energy, and chemical usage


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Mostly talk3

We don't have green initiative; Have some adaptative strategies2

One or two staff members focus on this. This could use an Agency policy or direction7

Don't know5

Do not necessarily call programs "green" initiatives5

Need further work on existing strategies 6

Starting to look at chemicals & energy6

We have an energy program2

Very conscious of green7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Provides watershed based infrastructure planning and addresses water supply adequacy, supply and demand management


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


OROP program, demand management programs in place7

Watershed protection is fragmented2

We have excellent demand & supply management tools9

Good evaluation and planning efforts in place regarding supply & demand9

Lots of work/models here8

Alison8



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

GIS ‐ Fully populated, accessible, updated, standardized, and shared Geographic Information System (GIS) with populated attributes to facilitate asset management and linkages to other Information Systems such as CMMS

Business Support Systems

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Not linked to CMMS in full capacity yet; Not all equipment in GIS2

Not fully populated, infancy, limited use4

GIS in place, don't believe it links to other systems well6

Getting there; adequate or good staff?7

Working on it; Not all data there; Do have some functionality and accessibility to field staff5

One in place and continuously being improved8

Not sure on level of populated data, etc.5

System is in great shape but not as utilized as possible8

Starting to use GIS more in daily activities; a sign of success!7

Technical goals are met 9

Better integration including finance system7

Partially complete, not fully5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Project Management ‐ A project management system is in place to ensure adequate resources to tasks needing to be completed


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Have system in place, needs some improvement7

Getting there 7

Engineering department has good project management7

Don't know5

Use Microsoft project, Putting staff through project management certificate7

Engineering does a great job with this9

Needs to be fully developed, implemented and measured. Need new system or improve existing database5

Need to keep working to improve this function, homemade project program in use6

CIP/Engineering8



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Asset Register ‐ Computerized complete list of assets for Rehabilitation and Renewal (R&R) by division/service area or system linked to a complete database


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Not all information is accurate2

R&R just starting off. No list outside of EMMS2

Have list of assets at top level. Need more details for R&R3

In progress3

Database not complete5

Working on this. Needs improvement3

Effort is about to get underway. Major work needed2

Needs to be fully populated and linked to all pertinent systems5

Working on this -- CMMS, R&R, Asset ID#6

We have an R&R program and DB8

Not as formal as needed2

Mostly complete; update to database required5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IT Operating Environment ‐ Published hardware & software standards, limited server operating environments, one primary desktop operating system


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Several software programs need updating3

Need to improve3

Have good hardware system; We use only Windows operating system; But the policies & procedure are not published & known

7

Not sure where standards published, one primary operating system, but seem to be loosening standards on that

3

Good computer resources & support9

Need to standardize operating system in all desktops2

Mostly managed but can improve9

Many servers7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IT Planning Environment ‐ Multi‐year technology plan in place and being executed. Efficient procedure to procure information technology products is fully functional


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


They don't really have a plan3

In progress - maybe3

No planning environment; Just starting IT strategic planning2

Don't know5

Beginning this process - needs a lot of improvement for overall plan3

Needs work, but an evaluation is about to get started4

No existing plan in place, ad hoc system2

Done but could be improved7

Not strong now, but in planning3



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Customer Information System ‐ Data management and customer help system to track calls, time until returned, location of calls, nature of concerns etc.


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


?5

Not readily applicable to TBW3

Don't have this system in general, only mitigation program2

Don't know5

Do not have a system across the Board ; Good for mitigation3

Don't have such a system2

None in place1

?5

There is a well complaint system5

Don't think we have anything in place to track1



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System). Fully functional, and provides data and information needed


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Current system has been changed too much with no communication of changes 1

Have EMMS in place but major improvement needed, going to CMMS2

Not there yet2

EMMS was partially functional; Procuring new CMMS 2

Working on this3

On verge of purchasing Maximo. Then need to implement/integrate2

Work in progress2

Getting new system2

There is a system. Migrating to new system7

Don't know specifics of current system5

Working on4

Working on CMMS5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SCADA systems provide complete status and control of Agency systems


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Could be better; Information hard to find7

Believe works very well, don't work with it8

All status yes - mostly can control8

Needs improvement4

Not entirely sure7

System is good now. Room for some improvement & implementation of new technology8

Good, redundant, SCADA system; need to look into automatic operation of pumps, etc.8

SCADA is being fully utilized8

Don't know specifics of system5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) ‐ Provides water quality data and information required to meet the needs of laboratory and reporting


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Not familiar with at all5

Could be improved7

Works as well as LIMS systems are9

Don't know5

System is in place. Meeting needs. Not integrated8

?5

System is in place8

Limited perspective, never hear it’s a problem10

Don't know specifics5

Don't hear good things4



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Operational Models ‐ Computerized models linked to a GIS program for simulating conditions within infrastructure systems


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Don't know if we have or use this capability5

Not familiar with at all5

We are in the planning stages of this type of modeling; Have hydraulic model2

Nothing in place1

Surge modeling, hydraulic modeling, OROP. Not sure if tied to GIS7

Don't think they are linked/ don't know5

Some systems in place. WQ viewer and analysis system7

Don't know specifics6

Compartmentalized Task under Engineering4



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Financial Systems ‐ Budget, CIP, financial forecasting, accounting processes and reporting are sufficient for intended purposes


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


B&V just developed new rate model for better financial forecasting9

Munis can do it9

One in place but not sufficient4

Not integrated into enterprise. Need trending from Maximo/CMMS5

Need improvements in CIP reporting capabilities8

I think we need better infrastructure cost projection input into future finance needs5

Systems are in place7

Need budget to go thru Munis; CIP integration; Rate Model integration6

Like something better5

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 8k


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Work Planning and Control ‐ Planning and scheduling, standardization, and work optimization system and/or protocols are in place to manage resources


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Department planning is used but may need to be integrated3

Plan on using CMMS to assist with this3

In progress4

Not across the Agency; Some departments3

In place but not done efficiently or effectively 2

Need to incorporate scheduling in maintenance work processes5

Currently being developed. Need to develop in the capital projects area. i.e., engineering/construction staff3

Old system is inadequate ; getting new system & have a planner scheduler now4

Capital improvements system in place7

Don't know specifics 5

Comprehensive Asset Management Assessment Results ‐ 8l


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The Agency has developed and is implementing a Strategic Plan that has mission, vision, goals, strategies, action plans and enabling values

Strategic Business Plan

Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


I haven't read the plan5

Plan has been developed. Steps to meet still in process8

Developed, implementation needs some work8

We have it - are we implementing it?5

Have a strategic plan; Not focusing on implementation strategies; Not focused on meeting goals3

Objectives should be changed to SMART objectives7

In place but not used in decision making6

Did not get to level of action plans and enabling values. Needs updated under new management7

We have one, but should probably be revisited. A lot has changed since then5

Plan in place not fully implemented 8

We have one of these8

Plan is in place7

Seems to have slowed progress, not really used7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Performance is measured and managed by a well‐defined system, integrated across the organization, with a decision framework assuring results are evaluated and reported, communicated, and responded to in a timely manner


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


No information on this5

Performance goals and measures have not yet been defined and linked6

Need to have balance scorecard for entire Agency1

Not well defined; not timely; not integrated3

No system in place to measure performance across the Agency1

I don't know that we measure anything3

No reporting in place1

Do not have dashboard ; Need to develop this system fully3

Need a formal dashboard and list of performance measures2

No well-defined system1

Efforts here seem to have stalled4

Attempt failed1

No integration of systems to report all operating results4

A lot of work to do5



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A “participatory organizational culture” that actively seeks to engage employees in improvement efforts (e.g., establishing management improvement, employee empowerment, and cross‐functional teams)


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Wide use of cross functional teams; Ideas are considered from throughout the agency8

Cross functional teams have disappeared from across the Agency2

We were almost there with the reorganization but it seems to have stalled4

Needs improvement. Some structure but very little3

Not a lot across divisions5

Need more grass roots involvement5

Attempt failed1

Some committees but not overall engaged4

Working on5

Lack of employee empowerment1



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency employs an explicit change management process that anticipates and plans for change and encourages staff and managers to embrace, rather than resist, change


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


I don't know of any process for this2

Went through major reorganization & lot of staff felt stranded and unappreciated2

Does not manage change effectively across the Agency2

If it exists I don't know about it3

"That's not how we do things here"1

No or little effort on this. 3

Stops & starts - not consistent4

Attempt failed, old guard is issue not new1

Change is not well received by long-term employees. New GM seems to embrace2




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agency utilizes implementation strategies that seek early, step‐wise victories that help divisions get started and remain motivated


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Varies by department 2

Reorganization is a good example. Instead of addressing specific issues, everything was changed and has to be worked out

2

Reorganization kind of felt like it was not completed (partially due to GM leaving)2

Have tried for water production with some success; we take too long3

The strategic plan and the reorganization stalled3

Not formal implementation strategies for non-critical project or emergency situations3

The reorganization has not reached conclusion. New CMMS process needs to go better3

Have seem some of this, but not consistent5

We don't finish, we go with the wind1

Not much motivation or recognition during processes2



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Service and Performance Measures are comprehensive, with established accountability structure, where customer, financial, learning and growth and work process measures and targets are defined and tracked


Highly Critical

Less Critical

Importan

ce


Varies by department 5

Some departments have some in place but need major improvement overall3

Don't do it1

No system in place 1

We're not measuring3

No reporting or accountability in place2

Some established; Not clearly defined and tracked3

Don't have formal performance measurements in place yet2

There are no performance measures1

Did some work here but nothing more for a year4

Attempt failed1

No system to track except maybe engineering2


Not defined at various levels1


Appendix B: Most Important Asset Exercise

B-1

Appendix B

Most Important Assets Exercise List of Staff-Identified Important Assets

Auxiliary Power

Chemical Feed Systems (Groundwater)

DemandStar Website

Desalination Plant Reliability

Emergency Management (i.e., Breach at Reservoir, Natural Disaster)

Emerging Regulatory Issues

Exercise Facilities Used Infrequently

Finance System (MUNIS)

High Service – Alafia

High Service ‐ Cypress Creek

High Service Pumps ‐ TBC

High Service Pumps Station & High Service Pumps Surface Water Treatment Plant

HVAC Equipment & Building Systems

IT/IS Systems & Software

Information sharing related to physical assets, Agency processes, and customer needs

LIMS

Lithia H2S Facility Takeover

Main Switch Gear Cypress Creek

Main Switch Gear High Service

Organizational Structure

Physical Security System

Pipeline ‐ Cypress Creek

Pipeline – NCHI

Pipeline ‐ South Pasco 42"

Pipeline ‐ Security (ARVs)

Pipeline ‐ South Central

Pipeline ‐ Valve Exercise

PM & Maintenance Practices

Reliability of Pump Station (i.e., Salt Wedge, Climate Change)

Reservoir

Retaining & Training

Safety Arc Flash

SCADA – RTU

Succession Planning

Surface Water Plant Capacity

Surface Water Quality ‐ Alafia River

Vehicles

Water Quality Monitoring

APPENDIX B – MOST IMPORTANT ASSETS EXERCISE

B-2

EXHIBIT B-1

Most Important Assets List

Ranking Asset/Focus Area Votes Physical Asset

Non‐Physical Asset (People/

Information/ Fiscal)

1 Information sharing related to physical assets, Agency processes and customer needs

14

●

2 Organizational Structure 12 ●

2 High Service Pumps Station & High Service Pumps Surface Water Treatment Plant

12 ●

2 SCADA – RTU 12 ●

5 High Service ‐ Cypress Creek 11 ●

5 PM & Maintenance Practices 11 ●

7 Safety Arc Flash 10 ●

8 Emergency Management 9 ●

9 Succession Planning 8 ●

9 IT/IS Systems & Software 8 ●

9 HVAC Equipment & Building Systems 8 ●

Retaining & Training 7 ●

Chemical Feed Systems (Groundwater) 7 ●

Emerging Regulatory Issues 7 ●

Water Quality Monitoring 7 ●

Pipeline ‐ Cypress Creek 6 ●

Pipeline ‐ Valve Exercise 6 ●

Auxiliary Power 6 ●

Physical Security System 6 ●

Finance System (MUNIS) 5 ●

Main Switch Gear High Service 5 ●

Reservoir 4 ●

Pipeline ‐ South Pasco 42" 4 ●

Main Switch Gear Cypress Creek 4 ●

Desalination Plant Reliability 3 ●

Pipeline ‐ Security (ARVs) 3 ●

Lithia H2S Facility Takeover 2 ●

High Service ‐ Alafia 2 ●

Surface Water Quality ‐ Alafia River 2 ●

Reliability of Pump Station (i.e., Salt Wedge, Climate Change) 2 ●

Pipeline – NCHI 2 ●

Exercise Facilities Used Infrequently 2 ●

High Service Pumps ‐ TBC 1 ●

Surface Water Plant Capacity 1 ●

Vehicles 1 ●

LIMS 1 ●

Appendix C: Project Descriptions

APPENDIX C – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

C-1

The AM Program recommendations have been grouped to allow for logical implementation of each task in a team‐based format. A separate project description of each task, which includes purpose, goals, responsibilities, schedule, responsibility, internal Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), and external costs, is provided. The internal FTEs and external costs are approximate only and have been included for high level planning purposes. The external costs can also represent an Agency position to perform this function. As the projects listed below are executed additional projects and efforts will be identified. Consideration of including AM Program contingency funds is recommended.



– Asset Management Advisory Team Briefings (Project 1, Appendix C)

– AM Education Liaisons (Project 1, Appendix C)

CMMS Implementation Team




Maintenance Strategy Team





LOS/ Risk Team



Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement Team

– Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement (Project 12, Appendix C)

Financial Forecasting Team



Organization and Cultural Development Team




Selected Ongoing Agency Projects (related to AM)







As the projects listed above are executed additional projects and efforts will identified. Consideration of including AM Program contingency funds is recommended. The teams are cross‐functional and the timescale of the activities are related. Through chartering each team, a schedule and items for delivery will be established.

APPENDIX C- PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

C-2

TABLE C‐1 Implementation Funding Summary

Projects FY 2014 Funding

FY 2014 Budget

Net FY 2015 Funding

FY 2015 Budget

Net Comment Beyond FY2015 Funding

1 ‐ Asset Management Advisory Team $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 2 ‐ Asset Inventory Review $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 ‐ CMMS Stand‐Up and Pilot $350,000 $350,000 $0 $400,000 $250,000 $150,000

IT budget; shift between FY

$0

4 ‐ CMMS Deployment $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 Proposed $150,000 FY 2016 5 ‐ Workflows and SOPs $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 ‐ Maintenance Task Development $75,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 ‐ Condition Assessment $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $45,000 $0

Proposed, may start in FY2014

$0

8 ‐ Condition Assessment $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $75,000 $0 Proposed, follows project

7$75,000 per year

ongoing 9 ‐ Implement Maintenance Strategies $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 Follows project 6

$75,000 per year ongoing

10 ‐ Level of Service Development $75,000 $50,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 ‐ Risk Model $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0

Proposed, Follows project 10

$0 12 – Continuous Improvement/ Performance Measurement $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0

Proposed, Follows project 10

$0 13 ‐ Financial Tools $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 ‐ Improve R&R Model and Other Financial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Postponed until 2016 $60,000

15 ‐ Education and Training $0 $0 $0 $50,000 varies $0Included in Dept training

budgets$50,000 per year

ongoing 16 ‐ Strategic Planning $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 ‐ Internal Communication $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Not funded in 2015 $0

TOTAL $670,000 $645,000 $25,000 $945,000 $640,000 $305,000 $410,000


C-3

TABLE C‐2 Full‐Time Equivalent Summary

Projects FY 2014 FTE FY 2015 FTE Beyond FY2015 FTE

1 ‐ Asset Management Advisory Team 0.25

2 ‐ Asset Inventory Review 0.75

3 ‐ CMMS Stand‐Up and Pilot 3.0

4 ‐ CMMS Deployment 2.0 1.0

5 ‐ Workflows and SOPs 0.1

6 ‐ Maintenance Task Development 0.25

7 ‐ Condition Assessment 0.1 8 ‐ Condition Assessment 0.35 0.35

9 ‐ Implement Maintenance Strategies 0.25 0.25

10 ‐ Level of Service Development 0.25

11 – Risk Model 0.25 12 – Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement 0.25 13 ‐ Financial Tools 0.25

14 ‐ Improve R&R Model and Other Financial 0.25 15 ‐ Education and Training 0.25 0.25

16 ‐ Strategic Planning 0.5

17 ‐ Internal Communication 0.5 0.5

TOTAL 5.35 4.2 2.35


C-5

Project 1 Asset Management Advisory Team Briefings

Team Asset Management Advisory

Tie to Recommendation OCD‐4

Project Elements/Preliminary Scope

Establish a cross‐functional steering team approach to implement the Asset Management Program and document processes for Asset Management implementation, including definition of roles and responsibilities

Define a suite of Asset Management Program Performance measures and create a process to measure performance of implementation efforts against the TBW Strategic Plan and the Asset Management Implementation Plan.

Provide a forum in quarterly workshops to keep the TBW Agency connected with progress and to become better educated in comprehensive Asset Management practices.

Serve as AM liaisons for education and communication related to asset management, plan progress

Project Background and Objectives

Establish a team for guidance of the program and monitoring of the individual projects (tasks) and project teams, including an annual review to report on overall progress and success of the Asset Management implementation.

Indicative Benefits

Ensures a timely, relevant, and well‐coordinated Implementation Plan is performed. Validation of a holistic approach to comprehensive Asset Management is being utilized by the Agency.

Acts as liaison for education and communication.

Link to Strategic Plan

Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: Asset Management is fundamentally about efficiency of operations

Goal 4 ‐ Relationships: Leads to shared understanding among employees, and strengthen relationship between Agency and staff.

Measures of Success

Efficient performance of implementation plan, especially schedule and budget.

Maintenance of risk register and reduced number of implementation “surprises”.

Estimate of Resource Requirements

Timeframe: Ongoing

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $20,000 per year for first 2 years (Current budget includes $20,000)

Internal FTE: 0.25 (10 people at half‐day per month)

Team and interfaces: TBW Comprehensive Asset Management Advisory Team having quarterly, 2‐hour workshops. Primary workshop components to include: status and findings of the projects;

PROJECT 1 – ASSET MANAGEMENT ADVISORY TEAM BRIEFINGS

C-6

communication of Agency initiatives that can impact the comprehensive Asset Management program in the short‐ and long‐term; and brief educational topics.

Status

Team established


C-7

Project 2 Asset Inventory Review

Team CMMS Implementation

Tie to Recommendation CMMS‐5


Review, upgrade and improve the current Asset Registry to determine:

Completeness of asset inventory

Completeness of asset data

Identify attributes by asset type

Appropriateness of how data will be stored and aligned in CMMS

‐ Develop asset hierarchy


During the assessment process, concerns were expressed that the data may not be complete, may not be entered into the current system in a useable way, or may have become outdated. Developing a detailed asset hierarchy and developing/modifying business process or standard operating procedures (SOPs) are companion activities that are needed to achieve best benefits.

Indicative Benefits

To enhance the asset registry so there is confidence in its completeness, and so data is effective and useable.


Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: Improved Maintenance Practices, of which CMMS is a part, leads to increased efficiency.

Measures of Success

Percentage of total assets accounted for in asset registry.

Percentage of total asset register entries with substantial data attributes in system.


Timeframe: 3 months

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $50,000 (Current budget includes $10,000)

Internal FTE:0.75 (6 people ; half‐time per month for a quarter)

Team and Interfaces: Minimum 3‐person TBW team to serve as a review and decision‐making authority; three team workshops to review and finalize the database and identify potential gaps and additional actions; TBW subject area specialists and data collection team to verify data between workshops.

Status

Team Established; Data collection process being developed and executed


C-9

Project 3 CMMS Stand‐Up and Pilot


Tie to Recommendation CMMS‐1


Establish a Team to lead implementation of CMMS efforts

Migrate historic data into CMMS (potentially)

Stand up system including user access and security, with CMMS Implementer

Pilot CMMS in one focus area (North, South, Cypress Creek etc.) including inventory, condition assessment, develop full asset hierarchy, business process mapping, develop Work Orders

Develop report formats and linkages

Develop integration needs (GIS, MUNIS, SCADA, etc.)

Populate non‐pilot systems to extent that information is available. Develop higher level, non‐validated data for non‐pilot areas

Train staff and implement


The driver for this project is to initiate development of a single database for asset information management, and the need for an improved understanding of the system.

Phased input to identify and rectify issues prior to full Agency‐wide CMMS rollout

Indicative Benefits

Implementation of CMMS will provide the ability to report details on asset history (for example, labor and material cost data). This historic data will:

- Inform future decisions

- Provide investment justification

- Improve work and warehouse efficiency

Automate maintenance management

Linking to other systems will:

- Improve data integrity

Provide understanding of assets: inventory, condition, useful life, maintenance requirements, and replacement needs.

Pilot implementation will:

- Provide opportunity to learn lessons ahead of Agency‐wide implementation


Goal 1 – Reliability: Effective implementation of CMMS improves asset reliability.

PROJECT 3 – CMMS STANDUP AND PILOT

C-10

Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: CMMS can provide data to support measurement of efficiency.

Goal 3 – Financial: Use CMMS data to develop Operations and Maintenance needs to help prepare better budgets and forecasts for rates.

Measures of Success

Number of users active in CMMS

Work Orders being generated and completed on time within CMMS


Timeframe: 6 months

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $750,000 (Current budget includes $30,000 coordination; RFP for Implementation Consultant)

Internal FTE:3 (6 people at half‐time per month for 6 months; 3 people full‐time per month for six months)

Team and Interfaces: TBW CMMS Implementation team; multiple implementation workshops for pilot area

Status

CMMS Needs Assessment performed; Maximo implementation services undergoing procurement; CMMS Implementation Team established


C-11

Project 4 CMMS Deployment (2015, 2016)


Tie to Recommendation CMMS‐1, CMMS‐3, CMMS‐6, CMMS‐8


Monthly CMMS Governance team meetings

Agency‐wide deployment of CMMS: including detailed inventory, condition assessment, review and modification of asset hierarchy based on user needs, business process mapping, and develop Work Orders.

Establish program for on‐going CMMS training

Develop procedures to maintain up‐to‐date attribute data in the CMMS and coordinate with the Geographic Information System (GIS) and Site ID (Enterprise Database)

Develop organizational maintenance‐related key performance indicators (KPIs)

Use the CMMS data and reports to understand and communicate the cost of maintaining (and not maintaining) assets. Develop reporting requirements.

Use the CMMS to track condition of assets and maintenance history. Develop trending protocols.

Use the CMMS for Fleet Management.

Use the CMMS to improve warehouse inventory management. Develop protocols and procedures for inventory management.

Review and fully implement Health, Safety and Environment module as appropriate

Review and fully implement Business Analytics Pack

Review additional modules not currently implemented

Execute integration plan developed in 2014 with various applications.


The driver for this project is to complete the CMMS deployment. This will implement the CMMS Agency wide.

Indicative Benefits

Implementation of the new CMMS will provide detail on asset history. This historic data will:

- Inform future decisions

- Provide investment justification

- Improve work and warehouse efficiency

Automate maintenance management

Linking to other systems will:

- Improve data integrity

PROJECT 4 – CMMS DEPLOYMENT (2015, 2016)

C-12

Provide understanding of assets: inventory, condition, useful life, maintenance requirements, and replacement needs.


Goal 1 – Reliability: Effective implementation of CMMS improves asset reliability.



Link to Asset Management Implementation Plan Recommendations

Recommendations CMMS‐1, CMMS‐3, CMMS‐6, CMMS‐8

Measures of Success

Substantial completion in 2015; final completion in 2016 (for support services related work divisions)


Timeframe: 24 months

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $150,000 per year (Current Budget $0)

Internal FTE:2 per year( 2 employees at half‐time; 4 people at quarter‐time)

Team and Interfaces: TBW CMMS Implementation team; multiple implementation workshops

Status Target to commence in 2015


C-13

Project 5 Workflows and SOPs

Team Maintenance Strategy

Tie to Recommendation CMMS‐2, MS‐2, MS‐3


Define Roles and Responsibilities as they relate to CMMS practices and processes.

Review workflows and prepare SOPs for:

Maintaining asset data (adding new assets, retiring old assets)

Work Order Processes (for Preventative, Corrective, and Emergency work orders)

Reporting from CMMS

Training of staff on workflow processes and SOPs in order to establish consistency of use.

Define purchasing requirements


The current system is not consistently applied across the Agency.

Indicative Benefits

To develop a common understanding and consistent approach to CMMS practices. This is essential for gaining full benefits with respect to efficiency and effectiveness of both CMMS and operations and maintenance (O&M) activities.


Goal 1 – Reliability: Effective implementation of CMMS, including enhanced maintenance practices, improves asset reliability.



Measures of Success

Number of SOP’s prepared and in use/complied with


Timeframe: 4 months


Internal FTE:0.1 (10 people ; 6 hours per month for 4 months)

Team and interfaces: CMMS Maintenance Strategy Team. Several workshops with team participation; CH2M HILL to develop business process mapping and SOPs between team workshops. SOPs will be simple MS Word documents without complex (“Visio‐style”) graphics.

Status

Ongoing effort; Initial workflows developed


C-15

Project 6 Maintenance Task Development (2014)


Tie to Recommendation MS‐1, MS‐4


Develop appropriate maintenance strategies after evaluating alternatives for different asset categories and levels of risk.

Perform failure mode effects analysis on select equipment types

Develop preventive maintenance task job plans that includes for various asset types

Determine which assets and systems need a more detailed job plan to be developed in Phase 2

Implement recommendations from prior work related to maintenance structure, maintenance job tiers and responsibilities, and overtime/call‐in best practices


The driver for this project is the desire to move from a reactive to a proactive maintenance program through a focus on proven Preventative (PM) and Predictive (PdM) Maintenance programs where they provide better reliability and lower life‐cycle costs for assets while providing the necessary levels of service (LOS).

Indicative Benefits

Optimization of O&M teams

Maintenance of assets at lowest possible life‐cycle cost

Increase in PM and PdM, away from costly reactive maintenance

Review of available maintenance strategies allows most appropriate approach to be selected


Goal 1 – Reliability: Effective implementation of enhanced maintenance practices improves asset reliability.

Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: Drive towards PM and PdM better balances maintenance expenditure away from costly corrective maintenance.


Measures of Success

Number of FMEA analyses completed

Number of job plans created


Timeframe:3 months;


PROJECT 6 – MAINTENANCE TASK DEVELOPMENT (2014)

C-16

Internal FTE:0.25 (9 people ; 12 hours per month for 3 months; 1 person at quarter‐time for 3 months)

Team and Interactions: TBW sub‐teams consisting of primary O&M staff. Perform Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to determine maintenance strategy.

Status

Ongoing effort; Workshop series completed


C-17

Project 7 Condition Assessment (2014/2015)


Tie to Recommendation MS‐5; FF‐2


Review existing condition ratings from R&R model

Desktop condition evaluation, building on prior maintenance strategy team work (including FMEA), to estimate remaining useful life of asset

Establish prioritized, detailed field condition assessment plan and protocols. Tools and frequency requirements.

Conduct baseline condition assessments using Predictive Technologies (consider concise timeframe)


Assessment will provide a condition score to be entered into the CMMS.

Indicative Benefits

Consistent approach to condition rating that will support risk‐based decision processes. Consistent estimation of remaining useful life will be used for R&R and reliability.


Goal 3 – Financial: Improves R&R model to help prepare better budgets and forecasts for rates.


Recommendations MS‐5

Measures of Success

Number of desktop condition assessments completed and loaded into CMMS

Number of site based condition assessments completed and loaded into CMMS


Timeframe: 3 months

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $45,000 (Current budget includes $0)

Internal FTE:0.1 (3 people ; 20 hours per month for a quarter)

Team and Interfaces: TBW sub‐teams consisting of primary O&M staff. Field effort up to weeks per asset grouping. Invasive testing of assets is not part of this project.

Status

Target to commence in 2014/2015; Follow‐on activity to Project 6


C-19

Project 8 Condition Assessment (2016 and beyond)


Tie to Recommendation MS‐5; FF‐2


Initial shadow program (hands‐on training) for staff on methodologies and tool to be used

‐ Annual assessment to gather data to examine effectiveness of preventative maintenance and predictive technologies being applied

‐ Analyze CMMS data for assets that require significant maintenance to determine if field assessment is needed

‐ Use assessment protocols to determine useful life remaining

‐ Perform field evaluation of selected assets

o Recommended from FMEA analysis, risk or R&R model development


Assessment will provide a condition score to be entered into the CMMS.

Condition score in CMMS will be exported to R&R model

Indicative Benefits

Consistent approach to condition rating that will support risk‐based decision processes.


Goal 3 – Financial: Improves R&R model to help prepare better budgets and forecasts for rates.

Measures of Success

Number of desktop condition assessments completed and loaded into CMMS


Timeframe: 3 months per year

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $75,000 per year (Current budget includes $0)

Internal FTE:0.35 (3 people ; 80 hours per month for 3 months)

Team and Interfaces: TBW sub‐teams consisting of primary O&M staff. Field effort up to weeks per asset grouping.

Status

Target to commence in 2015; Occur annually (Part of R&R model process); Follow‐on activity to Project 7


C-21

Project 9 Implement Maintenance Strategies (2015 and beyond)


Tie to Recommendation CMMS‐4, MS‐4


Implement Phase 2 of selected O&M strategy (include performing Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)

Consider Reliability Centered Maintenance practices and training requirements

Develop preventive job plans for various asset types

Implement Work Planning and Scheduling Methodologies

Create a Maintenance Management Plan that identifies goals of the organization related to maintenance methodologies, CMMS functionality and use, major repair and replacement programs, and CIP


The driver for this project is the desire to move from a reactive to a proactive maintenance program through a focus on proven PM and PdM where it provides better reliability and lower life‐cycle costs for assets while providing the necessary LOS.

Indicative Benefits

Optimization of O&M teams

Maintenance of assets at lowest possible life‐cycle cost that reliably meets desired LOS

Increase in appropriate PM and PdM, away from costly reactive maintenance


Goal 1 – Reliability: Effective implementation of enhanced maintenance practices improves asset reliability.

Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: Drive towards PM and PdM better balances maintenance expenditure away from costly corrective maintenance.


Measures of Success

Number of FMEA analyses completed

Number of job plans created

Increased MTBF


Timeframe: 12 months per year; Ongoing


PROJECT 9 – IMPLEMENT MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES (2015 AND BEYOND)

C-22

Internal FTE:0.25 (quarterly workshops; 1 person quarter‐time)

Team and Interactions: TBW sub‐teams consisting of primary O&M staff.

Status

Target to commence in 2015; Follow‐on activity to Project 6


C-23

Project 10 Level of Service Development

Team LOS/ Risk

Tie to Recommendation LR‐1


Establish LOS/Risk Team

Define LOS framework that integrates Contractual, Customer, Environmental, Physical Asset, Financial and Operational Development elements, and develop key performance measures and targets

LOS outreach program: Develop elements such as a Board report card or communication to customers, identify KPIs to be reported

Collect all performance measures within the Agency and review for alignment with Strategic Plan

Define continuous improvement framework that integrates all components of Asset Management program


- LOS definitions needed to inform risk and resources decisions.

- Trade‐off between reliability and cost of maintenance and availability of sources and cost associated with source availability.

Indicative Benefits

Improved customer and Agency understanding of various service levels and associated costs.

Helps to drive a performance‐based culture


Goal 1 ‐ Reliability: The focus on Levels of Service helps define what Reliability means to Tampa Bay Water.

Goal 4 – Relationships: Development of Levels of Service can be a vehicle for outreach, and the understanding of stakeholder desires, values, and priorities.

Measures of Success

Collection of all performance measures within Agency; Review of performance measures and alignment for mission, vision, values, and goals.

LOS definitions inform risk and resource decisions

Report Card for tracking Levels of Service against Strategic Plan


Timeframe: 6 months


Internal FTE:0.25 (6 people; 12 hours a month for six months)

PROJECT 10 – LEVEL OF SERVICE DEVELOPMENT

C-24

Team and Interactions: Team that includes middle and senior management with multiple meetings.

Status

Target to commence second quarter 2014


C-25

Project 11 Risk Model (2015, 2016)

Team LOS/Risk

Tie to Recommendation LR‐2


Establish LOS/Risk Team to review existing work within Agency to determine criteria and application.

Develop Risk Models to identify corporate risks and asset/operational risks and incorporate the agency system reliability evaluation model. Consideration of source water availability.

Risk models are to be based on criticality, likelihood/consequence of failure, asset performance, and cost criteria. Consideration of climate change vulnerabilities such as sea level rise and storm surge.

Develop, pilot, and implement a criticality framework for use in prioritizing major asset/operational risks.

Perform a high level (table‐top) probability/likelihood of failure assessment based on rules from the risk model.

Implement risk mitigation plans for identified risks.


Development of a corporate risk management plan

The driver for this project is the need to help prioritize available resources (i.e. funds, labor) and programs (i.e. repair and replacement plans)

Consistent inputs and definition for use by various departments

Asset funding (for repair and rehabilitation)

Indicative Benefits

Consistent approach to application of risk in support of decision‐making processes.

Allows decision making to consider criticality and life‐cycle costs and benefits

Provides a deeper understanding of risk (likelihood and consequence of failures) and impact on LOS


Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: Best practice is to base decisions around risk leading to more efficient use of funds.

Goal 3 – Financial: Risk based approach improves financial forecasting of budgets and rates.


Recommendations LR‐1

Measures of Success

- Unified, singular‐focused risk approach with buy‐in from major operating divisions


PROJECT 11 – RISK MODEL (2015, 2016)

C-26

Timeframe: Quarterly per year


Internal FTE:0.25 (quarterly workshops)

Team and Interactions: Team that includes middle and senior management with multiple meetings to develop consistent definition and application criteria.

Status

Target to commence 2015; Follow‐on activity to Project 10


C-27

Project 12 Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement (2014, 2015)

Team Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement

Tie to Recommendation CI‐1


Evaluate current and appropriate Performance Measures and Performance Management tools (e.g. six sigma, ISO, reliability analysis, etc).

Establish work process, management protocols, data collection system, and reporting.

Provide dashboard that illustrates and monitors performance against standards

Implement selected Performance Measures and tools.

Develop criteria for determining priority areas for implementation of continuous improvement specific application


Results will be used to help maintain consistent LOS

Results will be used to implement a continuous improvement program across the agency

Indicative Benefits

Establishing of targets and ability to monitor and report and manage Agency service and operations to meet established goals and service requirements

Improved efficiency and effectiveness

Helps to drive a performance‐based culture


Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: The focus on Performance Management will help establish and measure efficiency levels across the Agency.

Goal 4 – Relationships: Use Performance Management results to communicate/report to Stakeholders.


Recommendations LR‐1 and CI‐1

Measures of Success

- Performance Measures identified, accepted and used

- Measured improvement overtime




Internal FTE:0.25 (6 people; 6 hours a month)

PROJECT 12 – CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT/PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (2014, 2015)

C-28

Team and Interactions: Team that includes middle and senior management with multiple meetings.

Status

Target to commence 2014; Follow‐on activity to Project 10


C-29

Project 13 Financial Tools (2014)

Team Financial Forecasting

Tie to Recommendation FF‐1


Evaluate tools, processes and associated governance for financial forecasting and decision making (CMMS, R&R Model, CIP Prioritization, Rate and Fee model).

Perform gap analysis to ensure linkage so O&M needs, R&R and CIP requirements are provided to finance in a consistent manner. Develop process for CMMS data extraction for R&R model.

Review for consistency/develop standards, guidelines, and procedures for annual operating and capital budget recommendations. Include project identification process and analysis of alternative methods (performed in‐house or via contract).

Education on Business Case Evaluation process and consider development of methodology/tool that includes Triple Bottom Line, Life Cycle Costing, Level of Service, and Risk.


Finance department identified as performing well with the tools they have, but may need different level of detail to support new asset management programs.

Ensure consistent data inputs in CIP, R&R, O&M budget development


Goal 3 ‐ Financial: Use of appropriate tools to develop budgets and rate forecasts.

Measures of Success

Gap analysis and review complete

Plan developed for future budgeting

Business Case Evaluation process considered

Indicative Benefits

Integration of finance, budget, R&R and CIP with asset management needs and requirements

Improved ability to forecast financial requirements


Timeframe: 6 months

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $30,000 (Current Budget includes $30,000)

Internal FTE:0.25 (10 people for 4 hours a month)

Team and Interactions: Team that includes representatives from finance, engineering and operations.

Status

Target to commence 2014


C-31

Project 14 Improve R&R Model and Other Financial Tools (2015 and beyond)

Team Financial Forecasting

Tie to Recommendation FF‐2


Review R&R model

Review Business Case Evaluation process and consider development of methodology/tool that includes Triple Bottom Line, Life Cycle Costing, Level of Service, and Risk.

Incorporate/link to relevant data from other systems/tools (CMMS, LOS, risk, CIP prioritization)

Consider triple bottom line methodology to include Social, Environmental, and Financial costs in decision making processes


Project to be done once ‐ CMMS, LOS, Risk, CIP Prioritization are updated

Ensure consistent data inputs in CIP, R&R, O&M budget development

Ensure all appropriate costs and benefits are considered in all decision making processes

Indicative Benefits

Integration of finance, budget, R&R and CIP with asset management needs and requirements

Improved ability to forecast financial requirements

Rigorous process ensures most cost‐effective projects are implemented



Measures of Success

R&R model more tightly linked to and consistent with other systems and processes.


Timeframe: Quarterly

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $60,000 (Current Budget includes $0)

Internal FTE:0.25 (1 person quarter‐time)

Team and Interactions: Team that includes representatives from finance, engineering and operations.

Status



C-33

Project 15 Education and Training

Team Organizational and Cultural Development



Establish team to focus on proactive staff development and training related to asset management

Develop Asset Management Competency Framework

Carry out gap analysis for staff against the Asset Management Competency Framework

Develop multi‐year training plan to support a phased implementation approach.

Develop training materials and various asset management modules for different departments and levels. Excludes general training.

Review and enhance human resources (HR) programs including communication on salary and benefits studies.

Review and enhance the use of skills evaluation and core competency tools required to support the future needs of the Agency.

Prepare training/professional development plans to support skill and core competency requirements.

Assess and enhance performance review process.

Prepare plans for workforce recruitment, retention, and succession planning.

Conduct post reorganization implementation review (review current organizational structure and staffing levels)

Conduct culture and values based training

Review written job descriptions to further clarify roles and responsibilities


Training and engagement needed for employee buy‐in/ownership to ensure successful and sustainable plan implementation

Assessment indicated that the reorganization process could have been improved through communication

Indicative Benefits

Training will ensure timely and sustainable implementation of new AM practices

Improved efficiency and effectiveness

Improved staff morale

PROJECT 15 – EDUCATION AND TRAINING (2014)

C-34

Refinement of organizational structure and major work and decision processes to increase accountability, and focus on asset management


Goal 4 ‐ Relationships: Educate staff on workings of Agency and member Governments. Strengthen relationship between Agency and staff.

Measures of Success

- Training to meet future needs of Agency

- Staff have the required competencies to enable to perform their roles more effectively


Timeframe: Ongoing

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $50,000 per year (Current budget included $0, actual training budget included in Department training budgets.)

Internal FTE:0.25 (15 people for 3 hours a month)

Team and Interactions: Representatives agency‐wide

Status



C-35

Project 16 Strategic Plan Implementation




Review Strategic Plan for the Agency, consider incorporating the asset management mission vision and values developed

Review criteria for decisions and documentation requirements for continual improvement

Review Organizational Structure, employ change management process that anticipates and plans for change, and utilize implementation strategies that help divisions get started and remain motivated

Succession Planning

Include consideration of promotion of economic vitality and community improvement


Communicate strategic plan across Agency

Provide link between asset management, and the Agency‐wide Strategic Plan

Indicative Benefits

Better understanding of the direction of the Agency as a whole assuring integration of the asset management program with other TBW initiatives

Creates an asset‐centric Strategic Plan


Incorporation of Strategic Planning goals into Asset Management decision making and planning.


Recommendations OCD‐2




FTE:0.5 (15 people for 3 hours a month; 1 person quarter time)

Team and Interactions: Consider alignment with LOS/Risk team

Status

Target to commence second quarter 2014


C-37

Project 17 Internal Communications




Establish Team for Internal Communications Plan

Develop and implement Internal Communications Plan

Develop and implement process for effective communication to the Board


Internal Communication identified as a key to achieve successful AM plan implementation, both to staff and the Board.

Communication required up, down, across, and outside the Agency for an effective asset management program.

Indicative Benefits

Timely employee buy‐in/ownership to ensure successful change efforts

More effective communication to the Board, to put them in a better position to make decisions


Goal 4 ‐ Relationships: Communication aimed at improving relationships with internal and external stakeholders.


Recommendations OCD‐3

Measures of Success

Communication Plan implemented


Timeframe: 12 months; quarterly beyond

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $30,000 (Current budget includes $0)

FTE:0.5 (10 people for 4 hours a month; 1 person quarter time)

Team and Interactions: Cross‐functional team

Status


C-39

Project 18 IT Strategic Plan

Team Ongoing Initiative


Conduct interviews, facilitate focus groups, observe system installations and review documentation and diagrams relevant to the Agency’s management and operations of IT

Define the “future state” of IT resources and the deployment of IT assets

Develop IT Strategic Plan and presentation


A facilitated self‐assessment of the Agency’s IT business maturity, conduct an evaluation of the current IT Enterprise Architecture, operations and staffing and will provide actionable recommendations towards achieving the goals identified in the RFP. Based on the findings, and driven by the Agency’s corporate strategic plan, an IT strategic plan will be developed.

Indicative Benefits

IT delivering effective, efficient services aligned to the business goals of the Agency to improve the performance and productivity of practitioners and stakeholders alike

Assist with technology adoption


Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: Improvement of performance and productivity leads to efficiency enhancement.

Goal 4 ‐ Relationships: Involvement of a cross‐functional team can lead to a shared understanding among employees, and strengthen relationship between Agency and staff.

Measures of Success

IT Strategic Plan implemented


Timeframe: 4 months



Status

Ongoing


C-41

Project 19 Renewal and Replacement



Estimation of annual and future R&R funding requirements

Risk Assessment

Sensory Condition Assessment

Prioritization of R&R projects and activities


The R&R Program development process follows five steps: Data Collection, Risk Assessment, Sensory Condition Assessment, Desktop Assessment, and Replacement Planning Model. The Replacement Planning Model (RPM) is a custom application used to forecast asset R&R needs over a given timeframe. The RPM considers type, useful life, renewal activities, probability of failure, condition, and utilization of assets to estimate timing of their renewal and replacement.

The RPM is updated annually as new assets are added and as assets are renewed or replaced. R&R activities or Projects arising from the RPM model are submitted to the Capital Improvement Program or for funding through the Renewal and Replacement Fund.

Indicative Benefits

The R&R program provides Tampa Bay Water with a way to help manage its assets from installation through disposal.



Measures of Success

R&R Program implemented annually.


Timeframe: Ongoing

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $0


Status

Ongoing


C-43

Project 20 Capital Improvement Program



Five year plan of capital projects that is updated annually.

Multi‐criteria evaluation of project for prioritization purposes.


Tampa Bay Water’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plan is a five‐year plan of approved and proposed capital projects. It is updated annually to adjust for need and timing of projects. In developing the plan Tampa Bay Water staff use several goals to guide decision making and recommendations. These are:

Identify and prioritize capital projects through a coordinated effort that considers planning and

development, engineering, construction, financing requirements, and operation and

maintenance costs.

Classify projects to ensure they meet capital projects requirements.

Develop a schedule for each project.

Develop a funding scenario that identifies funding source, projected cash flow, and future

operating and maintenance cost estimates.

The evaluation process includes a multi‐criteria evaluation for each proposed project against each of the following criteria: Compliance, Level of Service, Contractual Obligations, Security and Safety, Outside Funding, and Annual O&M.

Indicative Benefits

Consistent basis for evaluation of capital projects.

Near‐term (1 year) and medium term (5 year) look ahead at upcoming capital needs.


Goal 3 ‐ Finance: Supports accurate budgeting, future planning, and setting of predictable rates.

Measures of Success

Robust, transparent and defendable CIP in place

Measurement /variances of budget and schedule for implementation of the projects


Timeframe: Ongoing

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $0


Status

Ongoing


C-45

Project 21 Energy Management Program



Review, evaluation and implementation of Energy efficient, Energy conservation, and Alternative/Renewable energy projects

Review of rebates and incentive programs

Energy Audits


A programmatic approach to improve energy efficiency through implementation of emerging technologies and other opportunities is a top priority for the Agency. Substantial energy is consumed in providing water to its customers over its 2,000 square mile service area. The Energy Management Program follows a 10‐year Energy Roadmap that looks at issues related to energy consumption.

Indicative Benefits

Reduction in energy consumption.

Revenue generation through reduction in energy demand


Goal 2 ‐ Efficiency: Energy management program seeks to off‐set costs in innovative ways.

Measures of Success

Cost savings


Timeframe: Ongoing

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $50,000 (Current budget for audit studies at specific pump stations is $50,000)


Status

Ongoing


C-47

Project 22 Long‐Term Master Water Plan



5‐yearly update of the Master Water Plan

Analysis to ensure that Tampa Bay Water meets the obligation to provide quality water to its member governments both now and in the future.


Under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement, Tampa Bay Water is required to update the Master Water Plan every 5 years. The third such update was completed at the end of 2013. Elements of the plan update include: indentifying current and future customers; identify proposed new water supply facilities; provide hydraulic analysis of existing and proposed systems; evaluation of present and future sources and treatment requirements in terms of capacity, reliability and economy; and updating the list of water supply facilities required to meet the anticipated water quality needs of the member governments for the next twenty years

The Board’s goals for the Master Water Plan projects include: environmental stewardship, cost and

reliability.

Indicative Benefits

Well documented, and defensible review of system capacity and needs.

Long term view of system requirements


Goal 1 ‐Reliability: Evaluation of current and future water supply to ensure reliability of supply.

Goal 3 ‐ Financial: Long‐term view allows understanding of significant future capital expenditure.

Measures of Success

Plan recommended actions implemented


Timeframe: Ongoing

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $0 (prepared internally)

Current budget in 2014 for outside services to assess what is known & develop cost for 7 projects to next step is $50,000

Beyond current budget estimated $100,000 per year to further refine the 7 selected projects under evaluation.

Water Resource System Analysis: 18 month baseline of system performance for Water Resource System Analysis. Beyond current budget estimated $300,000 per year to further refine the “eighth project”


PROJECT 22 – LONG-TERM MASTER WATER PLAN

C-48

Status

Ongoing


C-49

Project 23 Demand Forecasting

Team Ongoing Initiative to be completed early 2016


Point and probabilistic forecast projections of demand.


In 2004 Tampa Bay Water developed a long‐term demand forecasting system (LTDFS) in response to the need to develop new water supply and reduce pumpage from existing wellfields. The LTDFS quantifies how socioeconomic, meteorological, and policy conditions influence potable water demand. In 2014 Tampa Bay Water is undertaking a project to redevelop forecasting model through 2035.

Indicative Benefits

Long term demand projections to support water supply planning.


Goal 1 ‐ Reliability: Long term view of demand to help ensure reliability of supply.

Goal 3 ‐ Financial: Long‐term view allows understanding of significant future capital expenditure.

Measures of Success

Demand projection completed and used in planning efforts.


Timeframe:

Estimate of resources required: Cost (external) = $1.3M (Current budget includes $300,000; FY2015 budget estimate is $800,000)


Status

Ongoing

Appendix D: Preliminary Schedule

0.75 pt line, black

0.75 pt line, black

1/8" air from baseline to rule

From the Toolset:FIGURE NUMBER - Calibri, all caps, 10/11Figure Title - Calibri, initial caps, bold, 10/11Figure Caption or Project Name - Calibri, initial caps, italics, 10/11

Use this North arrow if working with GIS.

Calibri, 6 pt

Calibri 8 pt/auto

Calibri Bold 9 pt, all caps

0.25 pt line, 1/16" (4.5 pt) high

0.6" Bottom Margin

0.75" Top Margin

0.7"Right

Margin

.7"Left

Margin

Footer, or Slugline:Arial Narrow, 6 pt, all caps. Will ALWAYS include the JETT number, Project Acronym and FileName.

X=Business Group,LOC=Office Location

AA=Designer InitialsBB=Date example: 10.01.11

4" from edge of paper

space = height of logo

North

0 1,000500

Approximate scale in feet

LEGEND

Bh

Kitsap Series (formed on glacial lacustrine deposits)

Kitsap silt loam

No

Norma Series (formed on alluvium)

Norma sandy loam

Study Area

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

TBW IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

Asset Management Advisory Team Briefings (Project 1)

Asset Inventory Review (Project 2)

CMMS Stand-Up and Pilot (Project 3)

CMMS Deployment (2015, 2016) (Project 4)

Workflows and SOPs (Project 5)

Maintenance Task Development (Project 6)

Condition Assessment (2014/2015) (Project 7)

Condition Assessment (2016 and beyond) (Project 8)

Level of Service Development (Project 10)

Risk Model (2015,2016) (Project 11)

Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement (Project 12)

Financial Tools (2014) (Project 13)

Education and Training (Project 15)

Strategic Plan Implementation (Project 16)

Internal Communications (Project 17)

3rd Quarter 4th Quarter3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 2nd Quarter4th Quarter 1st Quarter(2018) (2018)

Implement Maintenance Strategies (2015 and beyond) (Project 9)

(2018)(2014) (2014) (2014)1st Quarter

(2015) (2015) (2015)2nd Quarter1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

Improve R&R Model and other Financial Tools(2015 and beyond) (Project 14)

(2017) (2017) (2017) (2018)(2016) (2016) (2016) (2016) (2017)(2014) (2015)Task Name

AM Advisory Team

CMMS Implementation

Maintenance Strategy

LOS/Risk


Organization and Cultural Development

Continuous Improvement/Performance Measurement

Appendix E: Link to 2010 Management and Performance Audit

E-1

Appendix E – Link to 2010 Management and Performance Audit The following selected Performance Measurement tables (Table 1‐1 through 8‐1) originated from the 2010 Tampa Bay Water Management and Performance Audit (Larson Allen, 2010). Within each chapter of the Performance Management and Assessment, these tables were presented along with key performance indicators. Best practices provide a means for determining whether the review areas meet the performance targets and recommend potential opportunities for improvement. The best practices listed in the selected performance measurement tables below, compiled from various sources, have been utilized to examine alignment with the Asset Management Implementation Plan.

A fourth column has been incorporated to the original table which provides information aligning the best practice with the recommendations and projects presented in the Asset Management Implementation Plan. The first three columns in Tables 1‐1 through 8‐1 are taken in there entirety from the 2010 TBW Management and Performance Audit with no modifications made for progress since the date of the report.

Reference: Larson Allen. 2010. Tampa Bay Water Management and Performance Audit. Final Report. April.

APPENDIX E – LINK TO 2010 MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE AUDIT

E-2

TABLE E1-1 Management Structure Best Practices Strategic Planning

Original Text From 2010 Management and Performance Audit

Best Practice Met:

Organizational Strengths Not Met:

Opportunities for Improvement

Recommendation in Asset Management Implementation Plan

Vision, mission, and organizational values statements.

The Agency leadership operates with a shared vision of being an industry leader. The vision statement, as presented in the Agency's website is "to deliver safe, clean water to sustain the region's quality of life and environment". The mission statement is "to serve the public by supplying and protecting your drinking water".

Vision and mission statements should be consistently articulated throughout the Agency and include in all key Agency documents. (Recommendation 1.1)

OCD‐2: Strategic Plan Implementation, which would ensure alignment of the AM Program to the overall Strategic Plan for the Agency.

(PROJECT 16)

OCD‐3: Internal Communication, which would establish a plan for effective communication to the Board and staff. (PROJECT 17)

An assessment of the utility's strengths and opportunities for improvement for the next 3 to 10 years; consideration of the internal and external factors that will or may impact the utility.

Agency leadership considers the internal and external factors that will or may impact their areas of operation and make management decisions accordingly.

A methodical analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for each department, division and the Agency as a whole can be a starting basis for strategy setting. (Recommendation 3)

Analysis and selection of strategies in the areas of water system management, customer service, finance, human resources management, and business process improvement.

While the Agency has established important strategies in certain key areas, the Agency needs to rise strategic planning to a more comprehensive and methodical process involving strategies for all functional areas and business procedures. (Recommendation 3)

LR‐1: LOS (PROJECT 10)

CI‐1: Continuous Improvement/ Performance Measurement (PROJECT 12)

Short‐ and long‐term action plans, including allocation of resources directed at achieving the goals and strategies the utility has adopted.

The Agency has not methodically established short‐ and long‐ term action plans for all functions and business areas, including allocation of resources directed at achieving the goals and strategies. (Recommendation 3)


E-3

TABLE E1-2 Management Structure Best Practices Performance Measurement System


Best Practice Met:




Be multidimensional, utilizing appropriate measures for internal and external stakeholders, supporting both routine works and special projects, and offering integrated measurement systems responsive to the needs of line employees, management, and executives.

The Agency has taken steps to develop performance measures and these measures are reported monthly to the Board of Directors.

Performance measures currently used do not give clear indication of efficiency or cost‐effectiveness. (Recommendation 2)



Have a process for establishing targets, usually in conjunction with the budgeting process, that reflect broad internal, external, financial, and improvement goals in strategic and operating plans.

The annual budget is based on the goals of the Board of Directors.

There is no defined connection between establishing department or program targets, and the budgeting process, that reflect broad internal, external, financial, and improvement goals in strategic and operating plans. (Recommendation 3)


LR‐2: Risk (PROJECT 11)


FF‐1: The Financial Tools review will evaluate those tools used for financial forecasting and decision making (CMMS, R&R Model, CIP Prioritization, Rate and Fee model). It will include a gap analysis to ensure that appropriate linkages are in place such that O&M needs, as well as R&R and CIP requirements, are provided to Finance in a consistent manner. The review will also develop standards, guidelines, and procedures for annual operating and capital budget recommendations. (PROJECT 13)

Provide measures focused on quality, efficiency and effectiveness.

Performance measures are generally not focused on quality, efficiency, and effectiveness. (Recommendation 2)




Provide measurement data collection systems.

There are numerous automated systems that generated the data the Agency needs to track performance and develop the performance measurement system.

In parallel to identifying adequate performance measures, the Agency needs to also identify the flow of work related to each performance measure as well as the points in the system where data will be collected. (Recommendation 2)




MS‐2: Develop specific workflow processes and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that include purchasing guidelines for Preventative, Corrective, and Emergency maintenance. (Ongoing effort with draft of SOPs developed


E-4

TABLE E1-2 Management Structure Best Practices Performance Measurement System


Best Practice Met:




without purchasing guidelines). (PROJECT 5)

MS‐3: Train all staff on workflow processes and SOPs in order to establish consistency in data collection and entry into the CMMS. (PROJECT 5)

Include a routine monitoring and reporting process.

There is not a defined process for performance measurement monitoring and reporting.


TABLE E2-1 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Policies and Procedures


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has a policy of developing a multiyear Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that specifies in detail the Agency's plans for replacing, rehabilitating, and/or expanding its system infrastructure.

The Agency has a CIP policy in place to ensure acceptable performance of its infrastructure over the long run, including the ability to meet its current and emerging regulatory requirements and population growth. The CIP provides a roadmap to create, maintain and fund present and future infrastructure requirements; identifies needed capital projects; coordinates the financing and timing of improvements (i.e. projects); and is revised on an annual basis.

While gains have been achieved to ensure more objectivity into selection of candidate CIP projects, there is the need for more thoroughness in quantifying risk benefit associated with each project. (Recommendation 1)




E-5

TABLE E2-2 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Updates to the CIP


Best Practice Met:




The Agency reviews and updates its capital improvement program annually, and perform "major" updates approximately every five years.

The Agency reviews and updates the CIP every year. A comprehensive update is accomplished every five year accomplished through the updates of the Master Water Plan.

None identified.

TABLE E2-3 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Policies for Project Selection


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has policies that stipulate how CIP project alternatives will be developed, evaluated, and selected. Such policies may call for the use of cost‐benefit analysis, multi‐objective decision‐making tools, committee based evaluation processes, and value‐engineering, among others.

The Agency uses a detailed ranking system that describe how CIP projects are developed, evaluated and selected.

None identified.

The Agency's process for selecting between capital improvement project alternatives, consider each alternative's life‐cycle costs (that is long‐term maintenance costs, as well as capital costs), environmental costs, and community impacts ("social" costs).

The project selection criteria evaluates whether the project is: Critical to existing level of service; Needed to meet Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement production failure requirements; Critical to facility security; Needed to meet Exhibit D of the Master Water Supply contract; Required by legal settlement, regulatory agency action or Memorandum of Understanding with Member Government. It also evaluates the projects: Effect on electrical consumption; Possibility of being funded externally; improves the reliability of existing system components.

More thoroughness in quantifying risk and benefit associated with each project can enhance the project selection process. (Recommendation 1)




E-6

TABLE E2-4 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Accountability for Program Execution


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has established clear accountability for its CIP with a senior manager or manager level employee with adequate engineering and system planning experience and the ability to electively manage contract resources.

CIP accountability within the Agency is delegated to the Senior Manager for Planning and Engineering. Under his purview, the Senior Planner coordinates the five‐year CIP through the Master Water Plan Update, and an Engineer coordinates the annual CIP process.

Accountability of construction projects is provided separately by the Construction Department, part of the Operations and Facilities Division. (Recommendation 4)

TABLE E2-5 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Community and Stakeholder Involvement


Best Practice Met:




The process of developing the Agency's CIP includes key stakeholders, including engineering, maintenance, finance, customer service, and other stakeholders as necessary.

In developing the CIP, the Agency incorporates key stakeholders, including engineering, operations, maintenance, finance, and other stakeholders.

None identified.

The Agency has an ongoing communications program for communicating its capital improvement plans to community stakeholders, regulators, and other key stakeholders. This program insures a proper level of involvement of stakeholders in site selection decisions.

The updates to the Master Water Plan every five years has specific requirements for soliciting stakeholder input from wide stakeholder base including general public attending planning workshops, a Planning Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives of local, regional and state water related agencies, among others.

None identified.


E-7

TABLE E2-6 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Supporting Tools


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has robust programs/tools for supporting the development of its CIP, including condition assessment programs, and tools for forecasting future population and consumption.

The Agency has robust tools for assessing the future population and water consumption projection data, produced by the SREP department.

Until the R&R program is completed, the Agency may not have a full assessment of the conditions of facilities. See Recommendation 1, infrastructure Management, Chapter 7.

CMMS‐1: Install, stand‐up, and deploy CMMS. Maximo deployment to begin in April 2014. (PROJECT 3 & 4)

MS‐4: Update all Preventative Maintenance (PM) job plans/task instructions. (Ongoing workshop series for major asset types through second quarter 2014). (PROJECT 6 & 9)

MS‐5: Develop a Condition Assessment and Predictive Maintenance (PdM) protocol that can provide a consistent condition assessment score to be used in all appropriate systems (CMMS, R&R Program, etc). (PROJECT 7 & 8)

FF‐2: Improvements to the R&R Model will include recommendations for the incorporation of links to relevant data from other systems and tools (CMMS, LOS, Risk, CIP prioritization). As a result, the R&R Program will be more tightly linked to and consistent with other systems and processes. These include Development of a Business Case Evaluation process or tool that includes Triple Bottom Line, Life ‐Cycle Costing, LOS, and Risk. (PROJECT 14)

TABLE E2-7 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Technology


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has business systems and technologies, including data collection processes and procedures, that allow it to electively plan, implement, and evaluate its CIP programs.

To support the planning and execution of its CIP, the Agency uses SCADA, EMMS, CAD systems, GIS and more specifically, the CIP database.

None identified. The Agency has business systems and technologies, including data collection processes and procedures, that allow it to electively plan, implement, and evaluate its CIP programs.

CMMS‐5: Clean up the asset registry. This effort should


E-8

TABLE E2-7 Capital Improvement Plan Best Practices Technology


Best Practice Met:




include coordination with Finance and Engineering, in addition to O&M staff. (Ongoing effort with application developed and field data collection occurring.). (PROJECT 2)





E-9

TABLE E3-1 Project Management Best Practices


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has established policies and procedures to guide staff in project management, preliminary engineering (e.g., survey, permitting requirements, bid documents), design, project review, and construction management.

The Agency uses its Project Management Guidelines (2008 version) to guide all project management activities. The guidelines are deployed through the Capital Project Management Database that tracks schedule and budget, and is an electronic repository for project documentation. The guidelines are updated periodically.

None Identified.

Staffing requirements (i.e. project management) and other costs have been identified for all CIP projects.

The staffing requirements for subcontractors is established by the subcontractors during the project's bidding process.

There is currently no linkage of in house staff time requirements to CIP projects. (Recommendation 2)

"Billability" targets have been set for engineering staff for the design of CIP, and management monitors their success in meeting these guidelines.

Insufficient detail is available to effectively predict engineering staff needs. (Recommendation 2)

The Agency has a set of performance metrics for project management that measures how well the organization executes its program (schedule), how well the organization estimates costs (plans versus actuals), and how efficiently the organization delivers projects (hard versus soft costs).

The Agency tracks soft costs, budgets and schedules through the Capital Project Management Database.

Clearly specifying performance standards for each CIP project and regularly compiling and submitting such information to senior management can enhance project management activities and accountability. (Recommendation 3.2)

Monthly or quarterly project status updates are prepared that contain status, schedule, task/time assessments, budget update, program update, potential problems, and critical issues.

Bi‐monthly, project status reports that contain schedule and budget update are submitted to the board. These reports are submitted to agency managers attending the monthly integration meeting.

Streamlining the format of the construction projects update report can be beneficial to the Agency. (Recommendation 3.2)


E-10

TABLE E4-1 Engineering Program Best Practices Processes and Systems for Ensuring Performance of Constructed Assets


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has methods, systems, and processes for ensuring that engineered infrastructure can be safely and cost‐effectively maintained by field personnel.

Project designs are reviewed and commented on by Construction, Operations and infrastructure Management (including Maintenance and Instrumentation and Control Sections) departments. The Agency prefers simple, robust design using materials with long life and minimal ongoing maintenance. The Agency has standardized specifications and details that are also used as a starting point for the designs.

Processes and systems for ensuring performance of assets constructed by contractors need to be fully documented and formalized. (Recommendation 5)

The Agency has methods, systems, and processes for ensuring that engineered infrastructure conforms to community expectations for aesthetically appealing design.

The Agency prefers aesthetically pleasing structures that are easy to maintain. Standard construction consists of split faced, permanently colored block construction, standing seam metal roofs with aluminum soffit and fascia, and fiberglass or aluminum doors. Buildings in sensitive locations are discussed with, and architectural rendering shown to, stakeholders for input before the project moves forward.

None identified.

The Agency has methods, systems, and processes for ensuring that engineered infrastructure meets or exceeds requirements for minimization of environmental impacts.

For every identified design, the Agency considers environmental impact and steps are taken to minimize or offset those impacts.

None identified.


E-11

TABLE E5-1 Water Operations Best Practices General Business Practices


Best Practice Met:




The Operations Department should have a mission statement that is communicated to employees and addresses water quality optimization.

Operations does not have its own mission statement; rather, they operate under the parameters of the organization's general mission statement.

Developing own mission statement will enhance team cohesiveness and identity. (Recommendation 1.1)

The Agency should have, as part of its management goals, the review frequency of its performance goals. The management system shall keep records regarding the accomplishment of the goals, have a periodic review, and take documented action if goals are not being achieved.

Annually, Operations prepares a work plan that lists new and on‐going projects to be completed during the year.

Goals and objectives are not easily discernible, are generally not measurable, and are not linked with a time frame or with resources needed to accomplish them. (Recommendation 1.2)


The organization has a system to develop and update standard operating procedures (SOPs) for equipment and plant production processes.

SOPs for equipment and plant production processes are developed and updated as needed.

Content and format of SOPs need to be fully updated. (Recommendation 1.3)

MS‐2: Develop specific workflow processes and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that include purchasing guidelines for Preventative, Corrective, and Emergency maintenance. (Ongoing effort with draft of SOPs developed without purchasing guidelines). (PROJECT 5)



Plants shall have specific goals for process supervision, record keeping, process control, procedures for plant operation and upkeep of current procedures, and a system to track operational trends.

The plant has specific goals for process supervision, record keeping, process control, procedures for plant operation and upkeep of current procedures, and a system to track operational trends.

None identified.

The Agency assesses the cost of operation and related production processes at least annually.

Operations uses models to predict demand on the three types of source water and uses the changes in expectations to change the proportion of the budget. When demand changes within a year, budgets are adjusted accordingly.

None identified.


E-12

TABLE E5-1 Water Operations Best Practices General Business Practices


Best Practice Met:




The plant(s) have a system to document and respond to customer inquiries. The documentation may be specific to the plant or part of a company‐wide program.

Operations maintains a log where it tracks member government inquiries and requests as they are received.

None identified.

TABLE E5-2 Water Operations Best Practices Personnel Practices


Best Practice Met:




The Agency verifies that treatment plant personnel possess valid certification at the necessary level as required by applicable regulations and requirements.

Treatment plant personnel possess valid certification at the necessary level as required by State of Florida regulations and requirements. Currently, there are 6, 3 and 5 Water Treatment Operators A, B, and C, respectively.

None identified.

The Agency must have an education or training program in place to transfer appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to acquire or maintain the competencies and certifications of plant personnel.

The Agency provides training to employees as permitted by the current budget constraints. An orientation program where a trainee is paired with an experienced operator for a period of time and rotated into all of the shifts to provide exposure to all facets of operations.

The training program must be better defined (needs to be more specific) and include continued assessment of staff skills and knowledge required and acquired. (Recommendation 1.4)

OCD‐1: Education and Training, to include: AM‐related training, reviews of salaries and benefits (with HR), and plans for workforce recruitment, retention, and succession. (PROJECT 15)

The Agency maintains appropriate records of staff education, training, skills, licensure and experience.

The Agency maintains appropriate records of staff licensure and experience.

None identified.

The plant shall have procedures to establish the quality of delivered chemicals.

Occasionally, Operations conducts spot checks of delivered chemicals by taking samples for the laboratory to verify quality standards.

None identified.


E-13

TABLE E5-3 Water Operations Best Practices Equipment


Best Practice Met:




The treatment plant system has multiple units and equipment for critical treatment processes and systems.

The Agency has three SCADA locations.

The only main SCADA location can monitor and control the entire regional system; the other two locations (referred to as remote locations do not have such ability. (Recommendation 4)

Operating logs or supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) shall record operational conditions, such as inlet pressure, discharge pressure, individual run times, flow rate, and other operational variables.

Operations maintains logs that record operational conditions, such as inlet pressure, discharge pressure, flow rate, and other operational variables.

None identified.

The organization has an instrument calibration program that includes the frequency of calibration. Equipment and instrumentation used to monitor the treatment process must be calibrated using traceable or certified standards or the approved standards.

Operators are responsible for calibrating the system’s analyzers. Currently, approximately 1,380 calibrations are performed per month on several instruments.

The Agency can benefit from moving to a fully flexible workforce program. (Recommendations 5.1 and 5.2, Chapter 7)

MS‐1: Implement, as part of normal operations, the maintenance organization recommendations developed and provided by CH2M HILL in January 2014. Major components of these recommendations relate to maintenance structure, maintenance job tiers and responsibilities, and overtime/call‐in best practices. (PROJECT 6)

A water meter registration accuracy‐testing program is in place that result in these meters being field tested on a one‐year schedule.

The Agency, in cooperation with member governments, calibrates meters on a quarterly basis. Agency’s calibration equipment is sent to manufactures periodically for calibration. Once a year, there is a meter “true up” process to physically verify accuracy of meter readings.

None identified.


E-14

TABLE E5-4 Water Operations Best Practices Energy Use


Best Practice Met:




The plant shall review and optimize electrical energy usage at regular intervals, including review of energy use trends and costs.

The only facilities reviewed on a monthly basis are SWTP and Desal plants. The production rates from both treatment plants are determined through OROP. The review consists of monthly kWh usage, the cost per kWh, and the kWh cost per million gallons produced.

For lesser plants, energy usage should be reviewed quarterly or annually. (Recommendation 2)

The organization shall consider energy costs in the evaluation of new or replacement treatment system components.

Optimizing energy consumption constitutes a part of the Board's environmental stewardship goal and is considered in Master Water Planning.

With the cost of power being one of the biggest costs, the organization should continue to look for additional energy savings and looking for alternative sources of energy, including the generation of its own power. (Recommendation 2)

TABLE E5-5 Water Operations Best Practices Effective Energy Management Programs through the use of:


Best Practice Met:




Variable speed/frequency drive pumps.

The Agency makes extensive use of Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) and premium efficiency motors. These drives and motors are connected to pumps throughout the system and used to maintain flows and pressures exactly where needed. When new facilities are designed and built, or when older facilities are upgraded, both the pumps and motors are specified to be as efficient as possibly while meeting flow and pressure requirements. VFDs are also considered for use as part of any new design or retrofit effort.

None identified.

Systems must have defined provisions for alternative notification in the event of primary notification system failure (telephone and radio).

Systems do not have defined provisions for alternative notification in the event of primary notification system failure.

Standard operating procedures must include defined provision for alternative notification in the event of the primary notification system failure (telephone and radio), such as 1) cellular test of alarm message (via SMS ‐ System Management Server), 2) email or 3) auto voice message

MS‐1: Implement, as part of normal operations, the maintenance organization recommendations developed and provided by CH2M HILL in January 2014. Major components of these recommendations relate to maintenance structure,


E-15

TABLE E5-5 Water Operations Best Practices Effective Energy Management Programs through the use of:


Best Practice Met:




notification (auto detail). (Recommendation 3.2)

maintenance job tiers and responsibilities, and overtime/call‐in best practices. (PROJECT 6)

A system failure shall result in automated systems reverting to fail‐safe default settings.

A system failure does not result in automated systems reverting to fail‐safe default settings. However, if they lose communications the system will stay in the current settings.

Additional automation may be required to ensure that systems revert to fail‐safe settings. (Recommendation 3.2)

Periodic training on operation during a system failure shall include manual operation of automated systems and situation drills. Training shall include the personnel listed in the notification protocol.

The Agency conducts training on operations during system failures, including manual operation of automated systems and situation drills. Training includes personnel on the notification protocol.

None identified.

Plant operation during the alarm and failure conditions, including automatic plant shutdown and restart, shall be documented in SOPs.

SOPs document plant operation during alarm and failure conditions, including automatic plant shutdown and restart.

None identified.

The plant has a system to retain alarm logs and failure incident records.

Logs are kept for alarms and failure incident records.

None identified.

TABLE E6-1 Maintenance Best Practices General Business Practices


Best Practice Met:




The maintenance operation has a mission statement that is established in writing.

The maintenance operation (Maintenance and the Instrumentation and Control sections) operates under the parameters of the Agency's general mission statement.

Developing own mission statement will enhance team cohesiveness and identity. (Recommendation 10.1)

The maintenance operation has goals that are measurable and established in writing.

Annually, the Maintenance and the Instrumentation and Control sections, prepare a work plan that lists new and on‐going projects to be completed during the year.

Goals and objectives are not easily discernible, are generally not measurable, and are not linked with a time frame or with resources needed to accomplish them. (Recommendation 10.2)

MS‐1: Implement, as part of normal operations, the maintenance organization recommendations developed and provided by CH2M HILL in January 2014. Major components of these recommendations relate to maintenance structure, maintenance job tiers and responsibilities, and overtime/call‐in best practices.


E-16



Best Practice Met:




(PROJECT 6)

MS‐2: Develop specific workflow processes and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that include purchasing guidelines for Preventative, Corrective, and Emergency maintenance. (Ongoing effort with draft of SOPs developed without purchasing guidelines). ( PROJECT 5)



The Agency has written maintenance procedures for every major piece of mechanical equipment (including emergency power generating equipment), describing frequency, procedures, and maintenance of records. Information shall include basic manufacturer operating requirements.

The maintenance operation has written procedures for every major piece of mechanical equipment (including emergency power generating equipment), describing frequency, procedures, and maintenance of records. Information includes basic manufacturer operating requirements.

None identified.

The maintenance program has established and implemented accountability mechanisms to ensure the performance and efficiency of the maintenance program.

The maintenance program reports performance through the Maintenance and Operations Division Activity Report, submitted on a monthly basis to the board.

Most of the performance measures are outcome (more output than outcome) based and do not give a clear indication of the program's performance, cost‐efficiency measures or interpretive benchmarks to evaluate each key function or activity. (Recommendation 10.2)

L LR‐1: LOS (PROJECT 10)


The Agency has developed an annual budget with spending limits that comply with the allowed funding for each category of facilities maintenance.

The Agency follows a detailed budget process that allocates sufficient resources to adequately fund its maintenance needs, including manpower, supplies, equipment, training and the technology to support the maintenance program. The process includes routine evaluation of actual versus

The maintenance program budget process follow prior year activity plus or minus increases for more water distribution, without directly addressing ongoing and recurring maintenance tasks or long term goals for maintaining facilities. Until the Renewal and Replacement (R&R) program is completed, this information will

MS‐5: Develop a Condition Assessment and Predictive Maintenance (PdM) protocol that can provide a consistent condition assessment score to be used in all appropriate systems (CMMS, R&R Program, etc). (PROJECT 7 & 8)

FF‐2: Improvements to the R&R Model will include


E-17



Best Practice Met:




planned expenditures. not be known and proper planning and accurate projections of maintenance needs will not be possible. (Recommendation 1)

recommendations for the incorporation of links to relevant data from other systems and tools (CMMS, LOS, Risk, CIP prioritization). As a result, the R&R Program will be more tightly linked to and consistent with other systems and processes. These include Development of a Business Case Evaluation process or tool that includes Triple Bottom Line, Life ‐Cycle Costing, LOS, and Risk. (PROJECT 14)

The Agency maintains a maintenance reserve fund to handle one‐time expenditures necessary to support maintenance and operations.

The Agency is required and maintains a Renewal and Replacement Fund in an amount equal to five (5) percent of the prior fiscal year's gross revenues or such other amount as is certified by the Consulting Engineer. These funds are available to be used for repairs and/or replacement of the system as the need arises. Additionally, The Agency maintains a Utility Reserve Fund sufficient to cover 10% of yearly budgeted gross revenue.

None identified.

Organization personnel regularly review maintenance and operation's costs and services and evaluate the potential for outside contracting and privatization.

The Agency routinely explores the feasibility of alternative methods of providing services such as outside contracting.

The Agency would benefit from methodically evaluating the cost‐benefit of outsourcing versus completing the work in‐house. (Recommendation 6)




The Agency obtains and uses customer feedback to identify and implement program improvements.

The Agency informally gathers feedback from its internal and external (member governments) customers.

The Agency could benefit from formally gathering and using customer feedback from surveys, self‐analyses, and subsequent follow up on identified problems to realize improvements. (Recommendation 10.4)





E-18

TABLE E6-2 Maintenance Best Practices Personnel Practices


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has established procedures and staff performance standards to ensure efficient operations

Comprehensive written standard operating procedures exist and are available to employees. A project is currently under way to revise all equipment specifications.

Organization will benefit from making SOPs more uniform, cohesiveness, centrally located, along with a process for periodic updates and inclusion of staff performance standards. (Recommendation 10.3)





The Agency provides a staff development program that includes appropriate training for maintenance and operations staff to enhance worker job satisfaction, efficiency, and safety.

Staff development programs are commensurate with current budget constraints.

Additional cross‐training will help achieve optimized maintenance productivity levels. (Recommendation 15.1 and 5.2)

MS‐1: Implement as part of normal operations the maintenance organizations recommendations developed and provided by CH2M HILL in January 2014. Major components of these recommendations relate to maintenance structure, maintenance job tiers and responsibilities, and overtime/call‐in best practices. (PROJECT 6)

The Agency regularly reviews the Agency structure of the maintenance and operations program to minimize administrative layers and assure adequate supervision and staffing levels.

The current organizational structure minimizes administrative layers and assures adequate supervision and clearly defined responsibilities.

Changes to the current organization structure can increase productivity. (Recommendation 4.1 and 4.2)

MS‐1: Implement, as part of normal operations, the maintenance organization recommendations developed and provided by CH2M HILL in January 2014. Major components of these recommendations relate to maintenance structure, maintenance job tiers and responsibilities, and overtime/call‐in best practices. (PROJECT 6)


E-19

TABLE E6-3 Maintenance Best Practices Maintenance Management


Best Practice Met:




The Agency has a maintenance management system with practices adequate to sustain plant performance.

The Agency's maintenance management practices sustain plant performance.

Total productive maintenance management and optimized maintenance practices can further improve plant performance. (Recommendation 2)

Training in ODR in Fall 2013

Asset Management Program




A Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) is in place and utilized to manage a work order system, inventory, annual work program, maintenance frequency goals, a reporting system to report actual versus planned performance, asset management system, and defined service levels and performance standards for each work activity.

The Agency's EMMS (Enterprise Maintenance Management System) is used to manage the work order system, and among other features, produces preventive maintenance schedules, accumulates maintenance history, and recommended maintenance practices. EMMS establishes PM schedules so that work orders are produced daily based upon monthly, quarterly or annual intervals.

The Agency's CMMS needs to become more robust and serve as a basis for comprehensive maintenance plan. (Recommendation 7)


CMMS‐2 Redefine roles and areas of responsibility. This includes establishing CMMS administrator and workflow roles such as clerk of works and planner/scheduler. (PROJECT 5)

CMMS‐3: Develop organizational maintenance‐related key performance indicators (KPIs). The KPI benchmarks should be realistic and meaningful standards that provide future information as to the organization’s efficiency and effectiveness. (PROJECT 4)

CMMS‐4: Create a Maintenance Management Plan that identifies goals of the organization related to maintenance methodologies, CMMS functionality and use, major repair and replacement


E-20



Best Practice Met:




programs, and CIP. (PROJECT 9)

CMMS‐5: Clean up the asset registry. This effort should include coordination with Finance and Engineering, in addition to O&M staff. (Ongoing effort with application developed and field data collection occurring.). (PROJECT 2)

CMMS‐6: Review and modify the asset hierarchy based on user needs. This should include user needs for budgeting, insurance, and financial projections in addition to work order and inventory tracking. (Ongoing effort with asset hierarchy established for asset registry data collection.). (PROJECT 4)

The Agency uses proactive maintenance practices to reduce maintenance costs.

A preventive maintenance program has been implemented.

The Agency's preventive maintenance ratio is below the industry standard. (Recommendation 2)


The Agency has an inventory of spare parts, repair parts, and spare replacement equipment on‐site sufficient to address routine equipment failures with a minimum of downtime.

The Agency maintains adequate levels of spare parts and materials on‐site sufficient to address routine equipment failures.

Labor and material costs are not tracked for each work order in EMMS (Recommendation 10.5)

CMMS‐4: Create a Maintenance Management Plan that identifies goals of the organization related to maintenance methodologies, CMMS functionality and use, major repair and replacement programs, and CIP. (PROJECT 9)

The maintenance operation has a system for prioritizing maintenance needs uniformly throughout the Agency.

The Agency has a system for prioritizing maintenance needs uniformly throughout the Agency.

None identified.

Work orders are used to record all maintenance and repair activities.

The Agency uses EMMS to manage work orders and record all maintenance and repair activities.

None identified.

There is a formalized method to track service requests and document response time.

Through EMMS, infrastructure Management has the ability to track service requests and document response time.

Tracking service requests and document response time should be formalized. (Recommendation 10.4)

CMMS‐4: Create a Maintenance Management Plan that identifies goals of the organization related to maintenance methodologies, CMMS functionality and use, major repair and replacement


E-21



Best Practice Met:




programs, and CIP. (PROJECT 9)

A formal water main rehabilitation and replacement program is in place for improving water quality and maintaining the reliability of its systems.

Presently there is no formal water main R&R program in place. Currently, there are no water quality or reliability issues.

The R&R study due to be completed in 2011 will provide essential R&R information. (Recommendation 1)


TABLE E7-1 Finance Department Best Practices

Best Practice Met:




Significant expenditure processes are appropriately controlled

Oversight of large dollar amount transactions is decentralized and the role of the financial staff is limited to ensuring that new purchase orders are not created until they have been approved according to policy, and the Budget Analyst has verified that funds in the approved budget are available. In September 2009 the Agency began implementing an improved contract management module that links to MUNIS and is intended to serve as the central location for all contracts.

The highly decentralized process could result in lost opportunities for leverage with vendors or identification of new contractors with such a decentralized process. (Recommendation 4)

Annual budget is tied to the strategic plan and provides useful and understandable information to users.

The Agency has not prepared an overarching strategic plan that includes measurable objectives or key indicators for the finance department. The annual budget is tied to the Master Water Supply Contract, which requires the Agency to sell and deliver sufficient Quality Water to its member governments. In February each member government provides the Agency with its estimated water

A formal strategic plan that articulates goals for maintaining a strong infrastructure for the Agency as a whole, as well as key operational goals and potential risks the organization faces in achieving those goals, will help ensure long‐term sustainability and efficiency. (Recommendation 3 Chapter 1)

FF‐1: The Financial Tools review will evaluate those tools used for financial forecasting and decision making (CMMS, R&R Model, CIP Prioritization, Rate and Fee model). It will include a gap analysis to ensure that appropriate linkages are in place such that O&M needs, as well as R&R and CIP requirements, are provided to Finance in a consistent


E-22

TABLE E7-1 Finance Department Best Practices

Best Practice Met:




demand for the year being budgeted and for the next four years. The Board and General Manager use these estimates to determine significant assumptions related to the coming year's budget and to determine whether changes to the Capital Improvement Plan and Long Term Water Supply Plan are indicated. Once water production goals are set, all departments estimate the resources they need to support that level of production. A very thorough budget manual documents the budget process.

manner. The review will also develop standards, guidelines, and procedures for annual operating and capital budget recommendations.

(PROJECT 13)

Management analyzes strategic plans for measurable objectives or results.

No strategic plan in place. Management continually analyzes and monitors progress against goals related to water demand and production, the capital projects essential to meeting demand, and compliance requirements such as cash reserve levels.

Formulation of goals related to the organization's short‐ and long‐term internal capacity needs will help ensure appropriate resources are allocated to maintain a strong organization. (Recommendation 1.2)

OCD‐2: Strategic Plan Implementation, which would ensure alignment of the AM Program to the overall Strategic Plan for the Agency. (PROJECT 16)

Significant capital outlay purchases meet strategic plan objectives

Budget requests are based on long‐term Capital Improvement Plan; separate capital project budgets are submitted and maintained throughout the life of the project

None identified

TABLE E7-2 Finance Department Best Practices Debt Management

Best Practice Met:




Written policies and procedures are in place and are periodically updated to provide for effective debt management

The Agency's bond ratings published by Moody's, Standard & Poors, and Fitch all rose in 2008 from 2006 and 2004 ratings. Policies and procedures are in place and used appropriately. The organization meets all of its covenants and files reports in a timely and accurate manager

None identified

Significant debt financings meet strategic plan objectives

All debt issuances are linked to the goals of the Capital Improvement Plan and are approved by the General Manager and Board of Directors.

None identified


E-23

TABLE E7-2 Finance Department Best Practices Debt Management

Best Practice Met:




A financing team consisting of the Director of Finance, General Counsel, Senior Finance Manager, Financial Compliance Analyst, Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, Disclosure Counsel and board‐approved underwriters follows an extensive process to evaluate financing needs, best and most economic means of financing

TABLE E7-3 Finance Department Best Practices Risk Management

Best Practice Met:




Written policies and procedures are in place and are periodically updated to provide for effective risk management. Staff monitors compliance with laws and regulations related to risk management.

Written plans are in place for preventing and managing risks related to water supplies, environmental impacts on water supplies, information systems, and certain other areas, and management operates with high standards for due diligence in all areas

The organization does not have an overarching risk management plan. (Recommendation 3)

Written policies and procedures are in place and are periodically updated to provide for effective risk management. Staff monitors compliance with laws and regulations related to risk management.

The Agency prepares appropriate written cost and benefit analyses for insurance coverage.

The Agency self‐insures against significant losses such as pipeline defects. Per Finance and Administration Division Director, the Operations area does most of this work ‐

None identified

The Agency prepares appropriate written cost and benefit analyses for insurance coverage.


E-24

TABLE 7-4 Finance Department Best Practices Inventory Management

Best Practice Met:




Written policies and procedures are in place and periodically updated to provide for effective inventory management.

Policies are thorough and clear and implemented appropriately.Annual physical inventory counts are taken, the results compared to control accounts and reconciled to the general ledger to ensure inventory is properly accounted for; adjustments are typically less than one percent.

None identified Written policies and procedures are in place and periodically updated to provide for effective inventory management.

The Agency periodically evaluates the warehousing function to determine its cost‐effectiveness

Finance staff was not aware of any formal evaluations related to cost‐effectiveness.

The Agency can benefit from developing a cost‐effectiveness approach to evaluating its warehousing function. (Recommendation 5)

The Agency periodically evaluates the warehousing function to determine its cost‐effectiveness

TABLE E8-1 Human Resources

Best Practice Met:




The Agency efficiently and effectively recruits and hires qualified operational and non‐operational personnel.

The Agency needs to take a longer view of its recruitment needs by succession planning. (Recommendations 1.1 ‐ 1.6)

To the extent possible given factors outside its control, the Agency works to maintain a reasonably stable work force and a satisfying work environment by addressing factors that contribute to increased turnover or low employee morale.

Agency maintains a reasonably stable work force.

In order to ensure future work force stability and in light of the need for a robust succession plan, the Agency needs to take a longer term view of its work force with deeper analysis and greater opportunities for direct employee input. (Recommendations 2.1 ‐ 2.3)


The Agency provides a comprehensive staff development program to maintain high levels of productivity and employee performance among operational and non‐operational employees.

The Agency provides internal and external opportunities for staff development.

The Agency's approach to staff development and tracking is basic and in need of attention, both for immediate/technical needs as well as long term development and succession/work force stability concerns. A more comprehensive staff development program will ensure long term staff development, leadership succession, and overall stability of the Agency's work force. (Recommendations 4.1 ‐ 4.4)


The Agency's system for formally evaluating employees improves and rewards excellent performance and productivity, and identifies and addresses

The Agency has an evaluation process and has tried to improve it over the years.

The Agency's staff performance management needs to advance to a new level for greater consistency and depth. (Recommendations 5.1 ‐ 5.5)


E-25

TABLE E8-1 Human Resources

Best Practice Met:




performance that does not meet the Agency's expectations for the employee.

The Agency ensures that employees who repeatedly fail to meet the Agency's performance expectations are promptly addressed and that the appropriate steps are taken to terminate the person's employment.

Currently, the Agency does not appear to have a problem with repeated performance gaps in its employees.

The Agency may further formalize and improve staff performance process, with the purpose of making it more efficient and transparent. (Recommendations 5.1 ‐ 5.5)

The Agency has efficient and cost‐effective systems for managing absenteeism.

Currently, the Agency does not appear to have a problem with absenteeism.

The Agency may improve tracking absenteeism to ensure prompt action if it becomes an issue in the future. (Recommendations 5.5)

The Agency maintains personnel records in an efficient and readily accessible manner.

The Agency may improve efficiency through a more formal, electronic‐based approach to its personnel recordkeeping, updating it to current practices. (Recommendations 6.1 ‐ 6.3)

The Agency uses cost‐containment practices for its Workers' Compensation Program; Employee benefits programs (health, dental, life; and disability insurance, as well as, retirement).

The Agency may improve its long‐term needs for containment of costs related to employee benefits and worker's compensation insurance by developing a proactive, long‐range, organization‐wide cost containment plan. (Recommendations 6.1 ‐ 6.3)