Contact MHC

QSI Online - a wealth of insight

Review of asset management processes and system requirements for a water wholesaler

Ben Ziser — September 2011

Recent Engagement: Our client is a bulk water authority facing an upgrade or replace decision for their Asset Management Information System (AMIS). The authority sees this as an opportunity to review and optimise process and systems that have been in place for over 10 years, and seeks to use process and system improvement to achieve ‘one truth’.

A key challenge was that existing processes were not standardised, maintained or refreshed, nor were they enforced. This lack of process discipline compromised data consistency and the optimal use of AMIS functionality, with many staff developing their own spreadsheet and database tools as work-arounds to core processes and AMIS.  This has led to a lack of overall process ownership.
Marchment Hill Consulting (MHC) was engaged to perform a business process review covering the asset management, operations and works management functions of Develop Maintenance Regime, Identify and Manage Risks, Collect Condition and Performance Data, Manage Works Order, Manage Resources, Manage Procurement and Stores, and Manage Asset Registers.

Ultimately, this review was required to support our client’s system decision.

MHC adopted a highly-consultative approach involving one-on-one interviews and half-day workshops with over 50 client representatives to develop a series of ‘As-Is’ process maps. The half-day workshops included client representatives from asset management, operations, works management and finance to agree and develop future state or ‘To-Be’ processes that: were adoptable and practical, incorporated industry ‘best practices’, and would provide improved processes across various asset groups.

Gaps between the ‘As-Is’ and ‘To-Be’ process state were identified by overlaying challenges on the ‘As-Is’ process maps as shown below.

Figure 1: Challenges overlay for ‘As Is’ Level 2 Process Map (click diagram to enlarge)

The ‘As-Is’ and ‘To-Be’ processes were presented in a functional ‘swim lane’ format to provide a clear guide of process ownership and system interfaces.

Figure 2: Level 2 ‘To-Be’ process map of Identify and Manage Risk Process (click diagram to enlarge)

In addition to developing Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 process maps for all reviewed functions, MHC also developed detailed task tables listing the actions and responsibilities at each process, including the system and tool interactions and data flows occurring at each step.

Throughout the engagement, MHC also identified a number of key (non-process) improvement opportunities that would facilitate the effective management of assets. These opportunities related to a comprehensive review of activity, problem and failure codes, implementing process leaders, and developing clear definitions for scheduled, unscheduled and corrective maintenance.
Process and non-process recommendations were supported by developing a comprehensive list of business system requirements, functional and non-functional requirements and a traceability matrix.

All processes were reviewed in a manner where process improvement could be achieved independent of a system upgrade or replace decision.

Our client gained a set of rigorously developed ‘To-Be’ process maps and a number of associated improvements in process effectiveness and efficiency. A series of non-process improvements further facilitated improved asset management, operations and works management.

Combining these improvements with a set of clearly articulated high-level business system requirements, our client can now seek system upgrade or replace options and continue their journey toward the achievement of ‘one truth’.

Get in touch with the author — Ben Ziser »

You might also be interested in:

« Back to QSI Online