Whenever I make fundamental changes to a word processor document – i.e., changes that affect the basic structure; not just content changes – and get ready to quit the application, I sometimes get a message that says, “Do you want to replace the existing Normal?” This query refers to the template that defines the style and format of the document I’m currently working on and gives me the opportunity to redefine those rules if I wish to do so. That’s actually a pretty cool feature, but I’m always a little apprehensive about making an affirmative reply since that means a lot of the familiar characteristics of the document will disappear and cannot be easily retrieved should I change my mind later on.

Any time we’re faced with making permanent changes like that I guess it’s always at least a little bit scary. It’s usually that fear of the unknown that intimidates us; the uncertainty of what this ‘New Normal’ might foist upon us that we didn’t anticipate when we agreed to accept it. It seems to me that we’re facing a similar dilemma with respect to the grid and the pervasive changes that will need to be made over the next many years if we are to meet the challenge of creating a viable 21st century Smart Grid. (See my interview with ABB executives in this issue for details, insights and discussion about Smart Grid.)

So, I thought it might be interesting to consider some of the changes we might be asked to accept for this New Normal to become a reality. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but rather a tickler to help kick-start the massive transition that will be needed if a New Normal is to ever be realized…

1. Budgeting (You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.) As regular readers know, I’ve written about the archaic compartmentalized process that most utilities still use for budgeting automation/IT projects quite a bit in the past, but for the benefit of those who might be new on the scene (and there are many, thanks to aging workforce issues), I feel it bears repeating. Specifically, the notion that projects in the various dimensions of automation/IT – whether it be GIS, CIS, SCADA, Substation Automation AMR, Outage and Work Management, or backbone platform issues like communications and databases – can be planned, specified and procured on an annualized basis and often in total isolation from one another, is in my mind profoundly out of step with today’s largely standardized and increasingly interoperable automation/IT environment. Yet most utilities continue dogmatically down this same path year after year. The good news is that we are beginning to see some utilities breaking away from that mold, albeit under duress. With competition for budget dollars being at an all-time crescendo, a lot of folks are finding their budgets crashed by higher priority – yet directly or indirectly related – projects, most often AMI. So get used to the idea of sharing your ideas and plans with people in other departments. You might think that what you do in the GIS department doesn’t affect other dimensions of the automation/IT landscape but – let’s see, how can I say this gently? Um, YOU’RE WRONG! It’s time to stop being so parochial and start including your peers and counterparts in your budgeting processes. This includes formal meetings as well as those discussions at the water cooler. Stop thinking that your project is the universe – it isn’t. And, no matter how much money you’re spending (or not spending) you WILL impact other automation/IT projects – and THEY will impact YOU, so start talking to each other!

2. Supplier Relationships (Suppliers, Vendors or Partners?) At the very beginnings of my research and consulting career, I had a special mentor who quickly railed against anyone referring to system companies as vendors. He maintained that companies that sell commodities are vendors; companies that provide solutions are suppliers. Today, however, I think we can take that to a new level. Companies that consistently provide solutions that work and upon which users routinely rely for technological direction and business guidance are partners. As such, it is passé to perpetuate the adversarial relationship that many users (and some consultants) seem to think is still the proper way to deal with the very same companies that are arguably among their most important strategic relationships.

3. Financial Metrics (Price vs. Cost: The definitions are different.) The budget preparation process is certainly not considered by most to be rocket science. However, there is a subtlety that is often lost in the process. That is, the difference between Price (i.e., initial purchase price) versus Cost, as in Total Cost of Ownership or Life Cycle Costs. How many utilities take these latter factors into account when budgeting, and how many use purchase price as the sole basis for setting budget amounts? Life Cycle Costs are real, and never before have they been as much in focus as they will be over the next decade as thousands of assets reach the end of their useful operating lives. If you pay more for a system that supports closer asset monitoring and allows you to operate those assets beyond their depreciation and/or performance curves safely and reliably, is going strictly for the lowest initial purchase price really the most prudent alternative? Sure, it will take some additional time and effort to make those determinations, but the payoff for doing so can be substantial.

4. Automation (It’s not just for breakfast anymore!) As I’ve said many times before, it’s time to stop thinking about automation as a luxury or an afterthought that only gets attention when there is clearly no other way out. The reality is, however, that even though old habits die hard, the aging work force and declining infrastructure this industry is facing now will only intensify over the next 7-10 years, making automation an operational imperative. So get on board now, and avoid the last minute rush…

5. Regulatory Mandates (They CAN make you do it!) And just in case you think you can escape automating by simply ignoring it, a wave of new regulations and legislation dealing with everything from security enhancement to energy conservation and demand response to vegetation management will soon directly or indirectly mandate automation at numerous levels of utility operations. Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, smart grid initiatives, rigorous new state estimation requirements and more sophisticated energy management and settlement systems are but a few areas that will require automation enhancements, much of which will be on a broad scale.

It all sounds good when we talk about change in the abstract, but when it comes down to actually changing; a fundamental shift in planning, policy and practice is in order. Are YOU ready to replace the existing normal?

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 co-founder and Director of Research & Consulting for InfoNetrix LLC, a New Orleans-based market inteligence firm focused on Utility Automation and IT markets. Inquiries or comments about this column may be directed to Mike at MAM@InfoNetrix.com

©2008 Jaguar Media, Inc. & InfoNetrix LLC., All rights reserved.