BOOK
Performance Assessment of Urban Infrastructure Services
Enrique Cabrera Jr | Miguel Angel Pardo
(2008)
Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
Performance assessment has been one of the hottest topics in the water industry in the past decade. In that period, the International Water Association has played a key role, and the performance indicators systems developed for drinking water and wastewater utilities have become a reference worldwide.
This book represents a collection of the papers presented to the Pi08 Conference, in Valencia, Spain (March 2008). The conference represents the final stage in the COST C18 Action, funded by the EU and brings together some of the most relevant professionals in the water industry. The book covers the latest trends in performance assessment, as well as relevant case studies from practical applications in utilities around the globe.
Themes:
- Performance Indicators Metric
- Benchmarking Process
- Benchmarking
- Asset Management
- Regulation Case Studies
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Table of Contents | 6 | ||
| About COST | 12 | ||
| About ESF and EU | 14 | ||
| Preface | 16 | ||
| Performance Assessment | 18 | ||
| Definition and establishment of performance assessment systems | 20 | ||
| A new approach for assessment of the performance of water distribution and sewerage networks | 22 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 23 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 23 | ||
| 2 METHODS | 24 | ||
| 2.1 Initial study | 24 | ||
| 2.2 Project idea | 24 | ||
| 2.3 Limitations of the project | 25 | ||
| 3 ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY, CUSTOMER SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENT | 25 | ||
| 3.1 Introduction | 25 | ||
| 3.2 Assessment approach | 26 | ||
| 3.3 Performance assessment of water distribution networks | 26 | ||
| 3.4 Performance assessment of sewerage networks | 28 | ||
| 3.5 Collective performance ranking of water and sewerage | 30 | ||
| 4 ASSESSMENT OF COST-EFFICIENCY | 31 | ||
| 4.1 Introduction | 31 | ||
| 4.2 Assessment of costs for operation and maintenance | 32 | ||
| 4.3 Assessment of capital costs | 34 | ||
| 4.4 Collective ranking of the costs for water distribution and sewerage networks | 34 | ||
| 5 ALTERNATIVE APPROACH FOR ASSESSMENT OF COST-EFFICIENCY | 35 | ||
| 6 ASSESSMENT OF LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY | 38 | ||
| 6.1 Level of pipe renewal | 38 | ||
| 6.2 Financing of pipe renewal | 40 | ||
| 6.3 Strategic management and planning of utility networks | 40 | ||
| 7 CONCLUSIONS | 41 | ||
| 8 REFERENCES | 41 | ||
| Cross-link performance indicators for sustainability evaluation of supply and disposal systems at mountain refuges | 42 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 43 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 43 | ||
| 2 MATERIAL AND METHODS | 44 | ||
| 2.1 System analyses | 44 | ||
| 2.2 Data collection | 46 | ||
| 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 46 | ||
| 3.1 Grouping | 46 | ||
| 3.2 Sector-PIs | 48 | ||
| 3.3 Cross-link-PIs | 49 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 50 | ||
| 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 50 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 51 | ||
| Definition of performance indicators for urban water distribution systems in drought conditions | 52 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 53 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 53 | ||
| 2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR URBAN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS IN SHORTAGE CONDITIONS | 54 | ||
| 3 PI APPLICATION AND RESULTS DISCUSSION | 58 | ||
| 3.1 The case study | 58 | ||
| 3.2 The intermittent distribution network model | 59 | ||
| 3.3 The network performance analysis | 60 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 62 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 63 | ||
| Development and implementation of a water quality performance assessment and management system for local government in South Africa | 64 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 65 | ||
| 2 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS FACED BY MUNICIPALITIES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF MUNICIPAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT | 65 | ||
| 3 KEY AREAS OF PROGESS WITH THE DWAF/IMESA WQM INITIATIVE | 68 | ||
| 3.1 Deployment and Use of an electronic Water Quality Management Tool by Municipalities | 68 | ||
| 3.2 Other Related Water Quality Initiatives | 70 | ||
| 4 DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE MUNICIPAL ENGAGEMENT MODEL | 70 | ||
| 5 CHALLENGES AHEAD | 72 | ||
| 6 CONCLUSIONS | 74 | ||
| 7 REFERENCES | 75 | ||
| Performance assessment as a management tool for water utilities in developing countries. Case study at EMCALI-Colombia | 76 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 77 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 77 | ||
| 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION | 79 | ||
| 3 PREVIOUS PI SYSTEMS IN EMCALI | 81 | ||
| 4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMCALI’S NEW PI SYSTEM | 82 | ||
| 5 MAIN PROBLEMS FACED | 84 | ||
| 6 CONCLUSIONS | 84 | ||
| 7 ACNOWLEDGEMENTS | 85 | ||
| An agent-based model for simulating stakeholders interactions in water services through PIs | 86 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 87 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 87 | ||
| 2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH | 89 | ||
| 3 A MODEL OF VALUE FOR CUSTOMER | 90 | ||
| 4 QUALITY MODEL ADAPTED TO WATER SERVICES | 91 | ||
| 5 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | 92 | ||
| 6 AGENT-BASED SIMULATION | 93 | ||
| 6.1 General concepts | 93 | ||
| 6.2 Building an agent-based model: a theoretical case | 94 | ||
| 7 CONCLUSIONS | 98 | ||
| 8 REFERENCES | 99 | ||
| Decision support tools based on performance indicators | 100 | ||
| PI and Municipal Solid Waste service quality evaluation: experiences, needs and perspectives | 102 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 103 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 103 | ||
| 2 PI USE IN MSW SERVICE: EXPERIENCES | 104 | ||
| 3 NEEDS AND PERSPECTIVES | 106 | ||
| 3.1 DSS for sustainable MSW management solutions | 107 | ||
| 3.2 Methodological framework for evaluating quality of MSW service | 108 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 110 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 111 | ||
| Performance Indicators (PIs) as a Control Mechanism for the Effective Use of Donor Funds | 112 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 113 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 113 | ||
| 1.1 State of the Art | 114 | ||
| 1.2 ISO Series 24500 (ISO 24510, 24511, 24512) | 114 | ||
| 2 USING PIS | 115 | ||
| 2.1 General | 115 | ||
| 2.2 Step by step approach | 116 | ||
| 2.3 Use of PIs as prerequisites for granting donor funds | 116 | ||
| 2.4 Requirements for PIs | 117 | ||
| 3 DATA AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY | 118 | ||
| 4 PIs IN THE CONTEXT OF BENCHMARKING | 118 | ||
| 5 SUMMARY | 119 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 120 | ||
| A web-based application for water quality performance management of local government in South Africa | 122 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 123 | ||
| 2 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF MUNICIPAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT | 123 | ||
| 3 THE ELECTRONIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EWQMS) | 125 | ||
| 4 DEMONSTRATION OF DERIVED BENEFITS FROM USING THE INTERNET ACCESSIBLE EWQMS | 126 | ||
| 4.1 Step 1: Unaware | 126 | ||
| 4.2 Step 2: Aware | 128 | ||
| 4.3 Step 3: Practice | 129 | ||
| 4.4 Step 4: Habit | 130 | ||
| 4.5 Step 5: Mastery | 132 | ||
| 5 CONCLUSIONS | 132 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 133 | ||
| A Risk-based Strategic Assessment of Local Government’s Capacity to Implement Sustainable Water Quality Management | 134 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 135 | ||
| 2 METHODOLOGY | 135 | ||
| 3 RESULTS OF STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT | 138 | ||
| 3.1 Local level | 138 | ||
| 3.1.1 Water Legislation, Policies and Regulations | 138 | ||
| 3.1.2 Water Resources and Water Supply System | 138 | ||
| 3.1.3 Drinking Water Quality Monitoring, Laboratories and Logistics | 138 | ||
| 3.1.4 Human Resources | 138 | ||
| 3.1.5 Management | 138 | ||
| 3.1.6 Finances | 139 | ||
| 3.2 Provincial and national level | 139 | ||
| 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS | 140 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 141 | ||
| Sewer asset management tool: dealing with experts’ opinions | 142 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 143 | ||
| 1. INTRODUCTION | 143 | ||
| 2. DYSFUNCTION INDICATORS VALUATION | 144 | ||
| 3. ELICITING EXPERTS’ OPINION | 146 | ||
| 4. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY | 147 | ||
| 5. CONCLUSION – OUTLOOK | 149 | ||
| 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 151 | ||
| 7. REFERENCES | 151 | ||
| Managing utilities with performance indicators | 152 | ||
| Objectives and performance assessment of water supply services | 154 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 155 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 155 | ||
| 2 METHOD | 157 | ||
| 3 RESULTS | 158 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 162 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 163 | ||
| Activity Based Costing and Benchmarking – the dual Approach of Ruhrverband | 164 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 165 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 165 | ||
| 2 INTERNAL ACTIVITY BASED COSTING | 165 | ||
| 3 EXTERNAL METRIC BENCHMARKING AND PROCESS BENCHMARKING | 170 | ||
| 4 EXPERIENCES WITH PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | 172 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 173 | ||
| Management of corporate development based on performance indicators: Implementation of a balanced scorecard within the Emschergenossenschaft/Lippeverband | 174 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 175 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 175 | ||
| 2 THE BALANCED SCORECARD INSTRUMENT | 176 | ||
| 3 APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTING A BALANCED SCORECARD AT EG/LV | 177 | ||
| 4 STRUCTURE OF THE BALANCED SCORECARD AT EG/LV | 178 | ||
| 5 INCORPORATING THE BALANCED SCORECARD IN THE CONTROL PROCESS AT EG/LV | 180 | ||
| 6 FUTURE PROSPECTS | 182 | ||
| 7 REFERENCES | 183 | ||
| Managing utilities with performance indicators in Russia | 184 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 185 | ||
| 1 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER SECTOR OF RUSSIA | 185 | ||
| 2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES | 186 | ||
| 3 INDICATORS AS A BASIS OF MONITORING OF THE WSS UTILITIES | 186 | ||
| 4 REFERENCES | 189 | ||
| Performance indicators – Aquapor’s three years activity | 190 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 190 | ||
| 1 GENERAL APPROACH | 191 | ||
| 1.1 The Holding AQUAPOR | 192 | ||
| 1.2 Main Figures | 193 | ||
| 1.3 The role of the Regulation Institute | 194 | ||
| 2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – THE START | 195 | ||
| 3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – THE DEVELOPMENT | 198 | ||
| 4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – THE FUTURE | 201 | ||
| Performance measures to support infrastructure asset management | 202 | ||
| Proactive crisis management of urban infrastructure - report from C18s twin sister COST C19 | 204 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 204 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 205 | ||
| 1.1 Introduction to urban infrastructures, critical infrastructures and lifelines | 206 | ||
| 2 WORK AND ACTIVITIES IN COST C19 | 208 | ||
| 3 RESULTS FROM THE ACTION | 209 | ||
| 4 REFERENCES | 210 | ||
| Sewer asset management: fusion of performance indicators into decision criteria | 212 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 213 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 213 | ||
| 1.1 The RERAU methodology | 213 | ||
| 1.2 The INDIGAU research program | 214 | ||
| 2. ISSUES INDUCED BY BASE DATA | 215 | ||
| 2.1 A typology of base performance indicators | 215 | ||
| 2.2. PIs derived from a synthesis of the results of visual inspections | 216 | ||
| 3. FUSION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | 217 | ||
| 3.1. Fuzzy rules for assessing rehabilitation criteria | 217 | ||
| 3.1.1. Representing an indicator with fuzzy linguistic variables | 217 | ||
| 3.1.2. Representing each aggregation with “if... then...” rules | 218 | ||
| 3.1.3. Combining two premises of a rule | 218 | ||
| 3.1.4. Fuzzy implication | 219 | ||
| 3.1.5. Aggregating the results of several rules | 219 | ||
| 3.1.6. Systems of operators that will be tested | 219 | ||
| 3.2 Issues related to the fusion of data: types of reasoning | 220 | ||
| 4. CONCLUSIONS | 221 | ||
| 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 221 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 222 | ||
| Technical Performance Indicators for Water Mains, the First Steps in Serbia on IWA Best Practise Application | 224 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 225 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 225 | ||
| 2 IWA BEST PRACTICE WATER BALANCE | 225 | ||
| 3 TRADITIONAL PI FOR REAL LOSSES | 226 | ||
| 4 THE CONCEPT OF UNAVOIDABLE ANNUAL REAL LOSSES | 227 | ||
| 5 ILI – INFRASTRUCTURE LEAKAGE INDEX | 228 | ||
| 6 COMPARING ILI VALUES TO PERCENTAGES | 230 | ||
| 7 ILI APPLICABILITY TO SERBIAN WATER MAINS | 231 | ||
| 8 CONCLUDING REMARKS | 233 | ||
| 9 REFERENCES | 234 | ||
| Model for Improvement of the IP Water Infrastructure in the Systems Featured by Annual Inequality in Water Production | 236 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 237 | ||
| 1 RESEARCH SUBJECT | 237 | ||
| 2 MAIN FEATURES OF THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS | 238 | ||
| 3 RESEARCH TASK AND THE AIM OF THE PAPER | 239 | ||
| 4 STARTING ASSUMPTIONS | 239 | ||
| 5 ALGORITHM | 240 | ||
| 5.1 The first step | 240 | ||
| 5.2 The step two– definition of the aim | 243 | ||
| 5.3 The step three - selection of functions | 245 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 245 | ||
| Benchmarking | 246 | ||
| Metric benchmarking as a driver for improved performance | 248 | ||
| The Right Choice of Denominators and Grouping Factors in Water Supply Metric Benchmarking | 250 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 251 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 251 | ||
| 1.1 Cubic metres, kilometres or number of service connections? | 251 | ||
| 2 COMPARING THE BEHAVIOUR OF DIFFERENT PI’S | 253 | ||
| 2.1 The example of personnel PIs | 253 | ||
| 2.2 Why to choose which denominator for PIs? | 255 | ||
| 3 HOW TO COPE WITH STRUCTURAL HETEROGENEITY OF PARTICIPANTS? | 256 | ||
| 3.1 Assessing overall performances on comparable PI values | 257 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 258 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 259 | ||
| The canadian national water and wastewater benchmarking initiative: Using process to drive improvement. Strategic Management of Water in Urban Areas | 260 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 261 | ||
| INTRODUCTION | 261 | ||
| What is Benchmarking? (And More Importantly, What is it Not?) | 262 | ||
| Participation is National in Scope | 263 | ||
| METHODOLOGY: ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, BUT IT IS HARD WORK | 264 | ||
| The Utility Management Model: What Should We Measure? | 265 | ||
| Data collection: Comunicationa and team work; Not data processing | 267 | ||
| Results from data collection to continuous improvement | 268 | ||
| Group Comparison Graphs: How do we compare with similar organizations? | 269 | ||
| Minimum, maximum and average graphs: How are we doing | 270 | ||
| Radar Charts: How are we doing overall? | 271 | ||
| Peer to peer network and annual workshop | 272 | ||
| Utility task forces | 274 | ||
| Water and Wastewater service activity mapping | 276 | ||
| INDIVIDUALIZED MANAGEMENT LEVEL BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORTS | 278 | ||
| CONCLUSIONS | 280 | ||
| REFERENCES | 280 | ||
| The Hungarian Inception Project on Benchmarking | 282 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 283 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 283 | ||
| 2 METHODS | 284 | ||
| 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 285 | ||
| 3.1 Expected benefits | 285 | ||
| 3.2 Basis of the project | 285 | ||
| 3.3 Key performance indicators | 285 | ||
| 3.4 Context information | 287 | ||
| 3.5 Further work | 288 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 288 | ||
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 288 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 289 | ||
| Benchmarking the Performance of Portuguese Water Utilities | 290 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 291 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 291 | ||
| 2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT STUDIES | 292 | ||
| 3 MODEL SPECIFICATION AND METHODOLOGY | 293 | ||
| 4 CASE-STUDY | 295 | ||
| 4.1 Data | 295 | ||
| 4.2 Results | 296 | ||
| 5 CONCLUSIONS | 299 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 300 | ||
| The development and application of Performance Indicators for sewage system service in Korea | 302 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 303 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 303 | ||
| 2 MATERIALS & METHODS | 304 | ||
| 2.1 Development of PI for domestic wastewater service | 304 | ||
| 2.2 Application on domestic wastewater service | 304 | ||
| 2.3 Service level comparison for domestic wastewater utilities | 306 | ||
| 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 306 | ||
| 3.1 PI application results and reliability analysis | 306 | ||
| 3.2 Service level comparison between domestic operators | 309 | ||
| 4. CONCLUSION | 311 | ||
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT | 312 | ||
| 5. REFERENCES | 312 | ||
| Optimal Incentives in Local Public Utilities: An International Benchmarking Study of the Drinking Water Sector | 314 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 314 | ||
| 1 BENCHMARKING AS A TOOL TO COMPARE AND ASSESS PERFORMANCE | 315 | ||
| 2 INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING IN THE WATER SECTOR | 316 | ||
| 2.1 Merger economies | 316 | ||
| 2.2 International comparisons | 317 | ||
| 3 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS | 318 | ||
| 4 NON-PARAMETRIC EFFICIENCY ESTIMATION | 319 | ||
| 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS | 322 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 323 | ||
| Water Utility Benchmarking for Managerial and Policy Decisions: Lessons from Developing Countries | 324 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 325 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 325 | ||
| 2. LESSONS | 325 | ||
| 2.1 Lessons from Managers: Keep it Simple | 326 | ||
| 2.1.1 Data Manager Commitment | 326 | ||
| 2.1.2 Data Manager Continuity | 326 | ||
| 2.1.3 Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems | 327 | ||
| 2.1.4 Data Disaggregation | 327 | ||
| 2.1.5 Data Definitions and Benchmarking Objectives | 327 | ||
| 2.1.6 Operational Data | 328 | ||
| 2.1.7 Other Data Sources | 328 | ||
| 2.1.8 Information Technology and Management | 328 | ||
| 2.1.9 Transparency and Public Policy | 328 | ||
| 2.1.10 Methodologies and Capacity-Building | 329 | ||
| 2.2 Lessons from Academics: Recognize Complexity | 329 | ||
| 2.2.1 Sources of Productivity Change | 329 | ||
| 2.2.2 Strengths and Limitations of Methodologies | 330 | ||
| 2.2.3 Accessibility of Technical Studies to Practitioners | 331 | ||
| 3 POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | 331 | ||
| 3.1 Steps in Benchmarking | 332 | ||
| 3.2 Four Types of Indicators: Decision-Relevance | 333 | ||
| 3.2.1 Core Overall Performance Indictors | 333 | ||
| 3.2.2 Performance Scores: Production or Cost Estimates | 334 | ||
| 3.2.3 Engineering/Model Company Approach | 334 | ||
| 3.2.4 Process Benchmarking | 334 | ||
| 3.2.5 Customer Survey Benchmarking | 335 | ||
| 3.2.6 Other Indicators: Financial and Resource Sustainability | 335 | ||
| 4 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS | 336 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 337 | ||
| Service Performance Evaluation within an International Group | 338 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 339 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 339 | ||
| 2 DATA GATHERING | 340 | ||
| 3 REPORTS | 342 | ||
| 3.1 Global Approach | 342 | ||
| 3.2 Individual report | 344 | ||
| 4 ADVANCED ANALYSIS | 346 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 347 | ||
| Process benchmarking as a source for new solutions | 348 | ||
| Process Indicators for drinking water production – a unified approach and its pilot application in Germany | 350 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 351 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 351 | ||
| 2 METHODOLOGY: PROCESS MODEL, PI-SYSTEM AND CLUSTER CRITERIA | 351 | ||
| 2.1 Process model | 351 | ||
| 2.2 PI-system | 353 | ||
| 3 COMPARING A VARIETY OF PRODUCTION SCHEMES | 355 | ||
| 3.1 New explanatory factors | 355 | ||
| 3.2 Using capable cluster criteria | 356 | ||
| 3.3 Data evaluation and process benchmarking | 357 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 358 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 359 | ||
| Benchmarking the Processes of Customer Meter Reading and Customer Meter Replacement | 360 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 361 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 361 | ||
| 2 THE AUSTRIAN PROCESS BENCHMARKING APPROACH | 361 | ||
| 2.1 Customer meter reading | 363 | ||
| Results of benchmarking the process of customer meter reading | 364 | ||
| 2.2 Customer meter replacement | 367 | ||
| Results of benchmarking the process of customer meter replacement | 367 | ||
| 2.3 Methodical results | 369 | ||
| 3 CONCLUSIONS | 370 | ||
| 4 REFERENCES | 371 | ||
| Benchmarking Laboratory Processes for Drinking-Water Quality Monitoring | 372 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 373 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 373 | ||
| 2. WATER QUALITY CONTROL (WQC) | 374 | ||
| 3 SETTING UP THE PROCESS MODEL | 375 | ||
| 4 PROCESS INDICATORS | 376 | ||
| 4.1 Definition and selection | 376 | ||
| 4.2 Evaluation: Structural indicators | 377 | ||
| 4.3 Evaluation: Indicators for productivity | 379 | ||
| 4.4 Evaluation: Financial indicators | 380 | ||
| 4.5 Interpretation within the context of various indicator sets | 380 | ||
| 5 CONCLUSIONS | 381 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 381 | ||
| Case Studies | 382 | ||
| WaBe project - Performance indicators of water utilities in Czech Republic | 384 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 384 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 385 | ||
| 2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | 386 | ||
| 2.1 Selected performance indicators | 386 | ||
| 3 WABE TOOL | 387 | ||
| 3.1 Data structure | 388 | ||
| 3.2 Comparative analysis | 388 | ||
| 3.3 Involved water companies | 389 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 392 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 393 | ||
| Water Utility Sector Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking in Slovak Republic | 394 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 395 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 395 | ||
| 2 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER SEWERAGE – PRESENT STATE | 396 | ||
| 2.1 Water supply | 396 | ||
| 2.2 Waste water Collection and Treatment | 397 | ||
| 2.3 Legislative and Regulatory Framework | 397 | ||
| 3 WATER UTILITY SECTOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING | 399 | ||
| 3.1 Performance Monitoring from the point of arrangement of investments requested by legislation | 399 | ||
| Question 1st – Public sources versus value of investment needs | 400 | ||
| Question 2nd – What are other public financial sources? | 400 | ||
| Envirofond | 400 | ||
| Question 3rd – What are the own sources of water companies? | 400 | ||
| Deprecations of existing equity | 400 | ||
| Profit after tax of water companies | 401 | ||
| Question 4th – What are the foreign sources? | 402 | ||
| Bank loans | 402 | ||
| Other foreign sources | 402 | ||
| 4 BENCHMARKING OF WATER UTILITIES | 402 | ||
| 5 CONCLUSIONS | 404 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 404 | ||
| A PI system for drinking water treatment plants – framework and case study application | 406 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 407 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 407 | ||
| 2 THE PI SYSTEM FOR DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS | 408 | ||
| 3 CASE STUDY APPLICATION | 408 | ||
| 3.1 Description of the case study – Alcantarilha WTP | 408 | ||
| 3.2 Application of selected PI to Alcantarilha WTP | 409 | ||
| 3.3 PI results and discussion | 410 | ||
| 3.3.1 Evaluation domain “Treated water quality” | 410 | ||
| 3.3.2 Evaluation domain “Plant reliability” | 411 | ||
| 3.3.3 Evaluation domain “Use of natural resources and raw materials” | 415 | ||
| 3.3.4 Evaluation domain “By-products management” | 416 | ||
| 3.3.5 Evaluation domain “Safety” | 416 | ||
| 3.3.6 Evaluation domain “Human resources” | 417 | ||
| 4 FINAL REMARKS | 418 | ||
| 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 418 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 419 | ||
| Assessing performance: The case of Jakarta | 420 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 421 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 421 | ||
| 2 BACKGROUND OF WATER IN JAKARTA | 423 | ||
| 2.1 Raw water supply | 423 | ||
| 2.2 Type of customers and water tariff | 424 | ||
| 3 PERCEPTIONS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS | 425 | ||
| 3.1 Perceptions of the customers | 425 | ||
| 3.2 Perceptions of PAM Jaya | 425 | ||
| 3.3 Perceptions of Jakarta Water Supply Regulatory Body | 426 | ||
| 3.4 Perceptions of the companies | 426 | ||
| 4 FINDINGS | 427 | ||
| 5 DISCUSSIONS | 428 | ||
| 6 CONCLUSION | 429 | ||
| 7 REFERENCES | 429 | ||
| A Tale of Two Benchmarking Initiatives: A South African Case Study | 432 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 433 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 433 | ||
| 2 DEVELOPING COUNTRY CONTEXT | 434 | ||
| 2.1 Restructuring of Municipalities | 434 | ||
| 2.2 Access to Services | 435 | ||
| 2.3 Poor Data | 435 | ||
| 2.4 Low Technical Capacity | 435 | ||
| 2.5 Service Delivery AND Transformation | 436 | ||
| 3 COMPARING THE TWO INITIATIVES | 436 | ||
| 3.1 Origin | 436 | ||
| 3.2 Process Followed | 437 | ||
| 3.3 Participation | 438 | ||
| 3.4 Performance Areas and Indicators | 441 | ||
| 3.5 Data collection | 443 | ||
| 3.6 Data Quality | 443 | ||
| 3.7 Data Analysis | 444 | ||
| 3.8 Recognition & Awards | 445 | ||
| 3.9 Knowledge Sharing & Process benchmarking | 446 | ||
| 3.10 Marketing & Profile | 446 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 446 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 448 | ||
| Survey of performance indicators for sewer cleaning and sediments in Austria | 450 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 451 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 451 | ||
| 2 METHODS | 451 | ||
| 3 RESULTS | 452 | ||
| 3.1 Statistics of sewerage lengths and design capacities of the WWTPs | 452 | ||
| 3.2 Results for cleaning of sewers | 452 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 457 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 457 | ||
| Urban water conservation based on implementing appropriate water pricing policy, network upgrading measures and public awareness activities | 458 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 458 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 459 | ||
| 2 THE CASE STUDY OF ATHENS | 460 | ||
| 2.1 The water saving attempts of 1990 | 461 | ||
| 2.2 The water saving attempts of 1992 and 1993 | 463 | ||
| 3 THE CASE STUDY OF THESSALONIKI | 464 | ||
| 3.1 Environmental Aspect | 465 | ||
| 3.2 Economical (Financial) Aspect | 466 | ||
| 3.2.1 Costs vs. Benefits | 466 | ||
| 3.2.2 Cost-Benefit analysis | 467 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 468 | ||
| 4.1 Principles of a water-pricing based conservation project | 468 | ||
| 4.2 Network upgrading projects can be viable | 468 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 470 | ||
| Participatory institutional assessment for improved performance: experiences from the Swazi water sector | 472 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 473 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 473 | ||
| 2 INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY SETTING | 475 | ||
| 3 PARTICIPATORY INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT | 476 | ||
| 4 CONCLUSIONS | 480 | ||
| 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT | 480 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 481 | ||
| Measuring the Performance of Portuguese Solid Waste Services | 482 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 483 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 483 | ||
| 2 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE | 484 | ||
| 3 EFFICIENCY OF PORTUGUESE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES | 485 | ||
| 3.1 Methodology | 485 | ||
| 3.2 Case-study | 487 | ||
| 3.2.1 Sample and data | 487 | ||
| 3.2.2 Specification of the model | 487 | ||
| 3.2.3 Results | 488 | ||
| 3.2.4 Results analysis | 489 | ||
| 3.2.5 Adjusting for environment | 490 | ||
| 3.2.6 Some policy considerations | 491 | ||
| 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS | 491 | ||
| 5 REFERENCES | 492 | ||
| Development and Application of the Decision-Making Support System for Planning Sewer Rehabilitation | 494 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 495 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 495 | ||
| 2 PRINCIPLES | 496 | ||
| 3 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT | 499 | ||
| 3.1 Design | 499 | ||
| 3.2 Database Setup | 501 | ||
| 3.3 Computation | 501 | ||
| 3.4 Decision -Making | 502 | ||
| 3.5 Weight factors according to AHP | 505 | ||
| 4 VERIFICATION | 506 | ||
| 4.1 Target areas and database setup | 506 | ||
| 4.2 System Verification | 508 | ||
| 4.2.1 Selection of Target Pipes | 508 | ||
| 4.2.2 Selection of Rehabilitation Methods and Costs Estimation | 508 | ||
| 4.2.3 Determination of Project Priority | 510 | ||
| 5 CONCLUSION | 512 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES: | 513 | ||
| Performance indicators implemented in the city of Larissa water distribution network | 514 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 514 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 515 | ||
| 2 IWA WATER BALANCE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (PIS) | 515 | ||
| 3 THE CASE STUDY NETWORK | 517 | ||
| 4 IWA WATER BALANCE AND PIS IMPLEMENTED IN LARISSA WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK | 519 | ||
| 4.1 IWA water balance | 519 | ||
| 4.2 IWA PIs | 521 | ||
| 5 CONCLUSIONS | 522 | ||
| 6 REFERENCES | 525 | ||
| Performance Indicators for analysing the water supply and wastewater services: The case of Portugal | 526 | ||
| ABSTRACT | 527 | ||
| 1 INTRODUCTION | 527 | ||
| 2 OBJECTIVES | 529 | ||
| 3 SECTOR STRUCTURE AND CONTEXT INFORMATION | 531 | ||
| 4 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PI SYSTEM | 532 | ||
| 5 RESULTS AND DETAILS OF ANALYSIS, SYNTHESIS AND INTERPRETATION METHODS | 537 | ||
| 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS | 539 | ||
| 7 REFERENCES | 540 |