When I was growing up in Upstate New York in the 1950s there was a program that came on our (black-and-white) TV on Sunday afternoons called, The Big Picture. It was all about World War II, and we watched it religiously every week. You see, my dad was a B-29 gunner in the Army Air Corps and flew 24 missions over the Himalaya Mountains (“The Hump” in WWII vernacular), but unlike some veterans that simply wanted to bury those memories along with their fallen comrades, he maintained an avid interest in trying to understand the parts of the war he had not personally experienced. So every week we watched, and I got an invaluable history lesson.
By the time I got to world history in high school I had a pretty good idea of what happened, when and where (and sometimes even why), throughout those war years, thanks
to those Sunday afternoon tutorials.
My understanding and perceptions were helped greatly by those programs since they were all narrated footage of the war itself; not some Hollywood production created exclusively for entertainment value. Sure, one could argue – probably correctly – that there was some propaganda angle to it, but for the most part, it was far more factual than anything I’ve seen on TV since.
In any case, it was quite educational for me. It gave me a sense of perspective that I don’t believe I would have ever gotten just from reading about it. What it provided – besides the dramatic visuals – was just what the program promised: The Big Picture.
These days we constantly hear and read about The Enterprise: Enterprise solutions, enterprise applications, enterprise integration, and so on. But who is it that actually possesses this all important enterprise view; you know, the big picture? Well, I’ve actually pondered this quite a bit lately, and the answer is still unclear. Indeed, over the past five years, InfoNetrix research analysts have surveyed literally thousands of utilities across a wide range of types, sizes and locations throughout North America, and I cannot say that there are many of those surveyed who claim to be what one would call an enterprise expert.
On the contrary, what we hear more often than not is that there is almost always someone else – or several someone else’s in the larger utilities – that you have to reach if you want to get a true idea of the big picture. And, because our surveys address a broad spectrum of utility automation and information technology products, systems and services, we are hard pressed to get a complete enterprise view from any one individual, or even from several. It turns out that people who have the big picture and can articulate it are in seriously short supply.
“Oh, you probably didn’t go high enough in the organization,” you might opine. On the
contrary, although we are often speaking with VPs and other senior-level managers, we find that many of the lower level staff often have a better idea of what’s going on in other departments than their department heads. Frankly, this doesn’t surprise me. Just look at how projects are planned, designed and budgeted at most utilities; it’s all based on each department doing its own thing. That is, the SCADA folks worry about SCADA; the AMR folks worry about AMR; and so forth.
So, back to the question at hand: Who actually has this Big Picture? While I’ll admit that some utilities are beginning to take a more holistic view of their automation and information technology needs, their numbers are few; most continue to zero in on just one or two specific project areas each year. In many cases, how those projects will impact – or be impacted by – related initiatives is only given lip service or, absent from the process altogether. Let me offer some real-world examples of what I mean…
A few years back I was involved in an AMR (automatic meter reading) assessment for a municipal utility. Part of our analysis involved a broad view of how communications figured into their AMR plan. What we found was that the utility needed to provide a reliable communications backbone before any AMR project would be viable. When we ran the cost-benefit numbers, the cost of the requisite communications system put the project well below the utility’s ROI benchmark, spelling doom for the AMR plan. However, by also looking at other automation needs across the enterprise (not part of our official mission; just a little common sense) we made an interesting discovery that dramatically changed the financial and operational dynamics of the project.
Apparently the utility had been trying for years to justify a load management project that was also not able to meet financial muster. Again, the problem was primarily the communications infrastructure needed to support the project. More specifically, the cost to provide the outbound connectivity to carry the load shedding signals simply could not be justified with the benefits accrued from the load management system alone.
When we looked over our investigative notes, it quickly became apparent that there was a potential correlation between the AMR and LM projects, the common denominator being the communications cost hurdle that was implicit in both projects. However, upon further scrutiny, we found that the AMR project was designed around providing a one-way inbound communications facility; the LM project around an outbound network. Each project carried 100% of the costs of planning, design, selection, deployment and support of the new comms network. Even though each project needed a one-way path, a substantial majority the costs were completely redundant, and providing a two-way link had
only nominal incremental cost over a single, one-way link.
Upon arrival at this revelation, we all looked at each other in disbelief. How could it have not been evident to the utility that by combining the projects – one needing inbound and the other needing outbound connectivity – that both could be easily justified while also adding an invaluable, multi-use asset to strengthen the utility’s overall infrastructure? The answer, we decided, would have to be carefully researched before presenting our recommendations since we didn’t want to be suggesting what seemed to be an obvious approach, especially if it had already been evaluated and rejected earlier for reasons perhaps unknown to us.
We started our investigation by asking the various department heads about their individual budgeting plans; what we learned was fairly shocking. It seems that the load management project analyses had been done at least twice previously on a biannual basis prior to the AMR project ever being floated as a possibility. Because two full years separated the project initiatives each time they were brought to the budgeting table, no one involved had the visibility to identify the potential benefits of combining the projects.
Satisfied that the obvious had been overlooked (and after triple-checking all of the project justification numbers to make sure the ROI was calculated properly), we made the combined project the focal point of our recommendations. Lo and behold, the utility was amazed by our virtuosity, seemingly having elevated project justification to an art form! The fact is, all we really did was apply a little common sense by stepping back far enough to see the bigger picture and the greater good for all concerned. No rocket science was involved at all!
In another exercise a couple of years later, we were asked to develop a Technology Strategy Plan (TSP) for three utilities in the Northwest. In this case, the central theme of the project was to take a broader view of enterprise technology planning, implementation and integration rather than simply addressing a single set of narrowly focused automation/IT objectives. Even more important was the balance between internal and external factors. While at first this might seem obvious, standard utility project planning had never taken customer wants, needs or expectations specifically into the project planning process before.
This bilateral (i.e., internal-external) approach yielded many benefits, key among them the light it shined on what the utilities’ key commercial, industrial and institutional customers expected from their provider. When we asked some of their most important C&I customers what they would like to see in terms of automation/IT measures that would have tangible benefits for them, many of them were quite surprised to even be asked since no one had ever done that before.
Indeed, by simply asking that question, new doors to improved customer relations and customer services that simply did not exist prior to the TSP initiative flew open for both the utilities and their customers. The C&I response was exceptionally positive as expressed by interest in new and creative initiatives such as SCADA and metering information sharing; web access to their hourly, daily and seasonal usage patterns; and more detailed billing information, to name just a few. Arguably the most profound impact of these exercises, however, is that they redefined the enterprise to be inclusive of not only other departments within the utility, but also the inclusion of customers in the automation/IT planning process.
The do more with less mantra foisted upon us all well over a decade ago has placed most utility enterprises on a collision course with formidable new challenges including aging infrastructure/workforce, security, customer satisfaction and service reliability issues. So, the next time you’re planning or budgeting a new project, you might want to start by rethinking the dimensions of your enterprise. In the midst of an increasingly resource-constrained industry those lines might need to be drawn differently now, and the picture might need to be bigger –
perhaps a lot bigger. - Mike
Behind the Byline
Mike Marullo has been active in the automation, controls and instrumentation field for more than 35 years and is a widely published author of numerous technical articles, industry directories and market research reports. An independent consultant since 1984, he is President and Director of Research & Consulting for InfoNetrix LLC, a New Orleans-based market intelligence firm focused on Utility Automation and IT markets. Inquiries or comments about this column may be directed to Mike at MAM@InfoNetrix.com.
©2006 Jaguar Media, Inc. &
Michael A. Marullo. All rights reserved.
By the time I got to world history in high school I had a pretty good idea of what happened, when and where (and sometimes even why), throughout those war years, thanks
to those Sunday afternoon tutorials.
My understanding and perceptions were helped greatly by those programs since they were all narrated footage of the war itself; not some Hollywood production created exclusively for entertainment value. Sure, one could argue – probably correctly – that there was some propaganda angle to it, but for the most part, it was far more factual than anything I’ve seen on TV since.
In any case, it was quite educational for me. It gave me a sense of perspective that I don’t believe I would have ever gotten just from reading about it. What it provided – besides the dramatic visuals – was just what the program promised: The Big Picture.
These days we constantly hear and read about The Enterprise: Enterprise solutions, enterprise applications, enterprise integration, and so on. But who is it that actually possesses this all important enterprise view; you know, the big picture? Well, I’ve actually pondered this quite a bit lately, and the answer is still unclear. Indeed, over the past five years, InfoNetrix research analysts have surveyed literally thousands of utilities across a wide range of types, sizes and locations throughout North America, and I cannot say that there are many of those surveyed who claim to be what one would call an enterprise expert.
On the contrary, what we hear more often than not is that there is almost always someone else – or several someone else’s in the larger utilities – that you have to reach if you want to get a true idea of the big picture. And, because our surveys address a broad spectrum of utility automation and information technology products, systems and services, we are hard pressed to get a complete enterprise view from any one individual, or even from several. It turns out that people who have the big picture and can articulate it are in seriously short supply.
“Oh, you probably didn’t go high enough in the organization,” you might opine. On the
contrary, although we are often speaking with VPs and other senior-level managers, we find that many of the lower level staff often have a better idea of what’s going on in other departments than their department heads. Frankly, this doesn’t surprise me. Just look at how projects are planned, designed and budgeted at most utilities; it’s all based on each department doing its own thing. That is, the SCADA folks worry about SCADA; the AMR folks worry about AMR; and so forth.
So, back to the question at hand: Who actually has this Big Picture? While I’ll admit that some utilities are beginning to take a more holistic view of their automation and information technology needs, their numbers are few; most continue to zero in on just one or two specific project areas each year. In many cases, how those projects will impact – or be impacted by – related initiatives is only given lip service or, absent from the process altogether. Let me offer some real-world examples of what I mean…
A few years back I was involved in an AMR (automatic meter reading) assessment for a municipal utility. Part of our analysis involved a broad view of how communications figured into their AMR plan. What we found was that the utility needed to provide a reliable communications backbone before any AMR project would be viable. When we ran the cost-benefit numbers, the cost of the requisite communications system put the project well below the utility’s ROI benchmark, spelling doom for the AMR plan. However, by also looking at other automation needs across the enterprise (not part of our official mission; just a little common sense) we made an interesting discovery that dramatically changed the financial and operational dynamics of the project.
Apparently the utility had been trying for years to justify a load management project that was also not able to meet financial muster. Again, the problem was primarily the communications infrastructure needed to support the project. More specifically, the cost to provide the outbound connectivity to carry the load shedding signals simply could not be justified with the benefits accrued from the load management system alone.
When we looked over our investigative notes, it quickly became apparent that there was a potential correlation between the AMR and LM projects, the common denominator being the communications cost hurdle that was implicit in both projects. However, upon further scrutiny, we found that the AMR project was designed around providing a one-way inbound communications facility; the LM project around an outbound network. Each project carried 100% of the costs of planning, design, selection, deployment and support of the new comms network. Even though each project needed a one-way path, a substantial majority the costs were completely redundant, and providing a two-way link had
only nominal incremental cost over a single, one-way link.
Upon arrival at this revelation, we all looked at each other in disbelief. How could it have not been evident to the utility that by combining the projects – one needing inbound and the other needing outbound connectivity – that both could be easily justified while also adding an invaluable, multi-use asset to strengthen the utility’s overall infrastructure? The answer, we decided, would have to be carefully researched before presenting our recommendations since we didn’t want to be suggesting what seemed to be an obvious approach, especially if it had already been evaluated and rejected earlier for reasons perhaps unknown to us.
We started our investigation by asking the various department heads about their individual budgeting plans; what we learned was fairly shocking. It seems that the load management project analyses had been done at least twice previously on a biannual basis prior to the AMR project ever being floated as a possibility. Because two full years separated the project initiatives each time they were brought to the budgeting table, no one involved had the visibility to identify the potential benefits of combining the projects.
Satisfied that the obvious had been overlooked (and after triple-checking all of the project justification numbers to make sure the ROI was calculated properly), we made the combined project the focal point of our recommendations. Lo and behold, the utility was amazed by our virtuosity, seemingly having elevated project justification to an art form! The fact is, all we really did was apply a little common sense by stepping back far enough to see the bigger picture and the greater good for all concerned. No rocket science was involved at all!
In another exercise a couple of years later, we were asked to develop a Technology Strategy Plan (TSP) for three utilities in the Northwest. In this case, the central theme of the project was to take a broader view of enterprise technology planning, implementation and integration rather than simply addressing a single set of narrowly focused automation/IT objectives. Even more important was the balance between internal and external factors. While at first this might seem obvious, standard utility project planning had never taken customer wants, needs or expectations specifically into the project planning process before.
This bilateral (i.e., internal-external) approach yielded many benefits, key among them the light it shined on what the utilities’ key commercial, industrial and institutional customers expected from their provider. When we asked some of their most important C&I customers what they would like to see in terms of automation/IT measures that would have tangible benefits for them, many of them were quite surprised to even be asked since no one had ever done that before.
Indeed, by simply asking that question, new doors to improved customer relations and customer services that simply did not exist prior to the TSP initiative flew open for both the utilities and their customers. The C&I response was exceptionally positive as expressed by interest in new and creative initiatives such as SCADA and metering information sharing; web access to their hourly, daily and seasonal usage patterns; and more detailed billing information, to name just a few. Arguably the most profound impact of these exercises, however, is that they redefined the enterprise to be inclusive of not only other departments within the utility, but also the inclusion of customers in the automation/IT planning process.
The do more with less mantra foisted upon us all well over a decade ago has placed most utility enterprises on a collision course with formidable new challenges including aging infrastructure/workforce, security, customer satisfaction and service reliability issues. So, the next time you’re planning or budgeting a new project, you might want to start by rethinking the dimensions of your enterprise. In the midst of an increasingly resource-constrained industry those lines might need to be drawn differently now, and the picture might need to be bigger –
perhaps a lot bigger. - Mike
Behind the Byline
Mike Marullo has been active in the automation, controls and instrumentation field for more than 35 years and is a widely published author of numerous technical articles, industry directories and market research reports. An independent consultant since 1984, he is President and Director of Research & Consulting for InfoNetrix LLC, a New Orleans-based market intelligence firm focused on Utility Automation and IT markets. Inquiries or comments about this column may be directed to Mike at MAM@InfoNetrix.com.
©2006 Jaguar Media, Inc. &
Michael A. Marullo. All rights reserved.
