![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Avanced Asset Management Collaborative Working Session
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view a number of Adobe PDF documents. Click here to read About Portable Document Format Files.
On May 5-6, 2005, the EPA Office Of Wastewater Management convened a Working Session to explore opportunities to enhance collaboration by water and wastewater utilities in advancing asset management. Approximately 140 water and asset management professionals (drawn from the US and from 11 other countries) representing the water/wastewater industry, academics, professional associations, the research community and the consultant engineering and related consultant sector met in intensive collaboration to develop an agenda for advancing asset management throughout the water industry.
- Purpose of the Working Session
- Summary Findings: Top 10 Action Item Recommendations
- Voting Patterns: Summary Overview
- Top 10 Rankings by Industry Sector
- Recommendations of the Four Breakout Stations
- Lists of Action Items by Breakout Station
- Excel Spreadsheet of Voting Results
- How the Working Session Was Organized
- Major Focus Questions for the Four Breakout Sessions
- Agenda and Supporting Handouts
- “State Of The Practice” Presentations (index and links)
- Contacts/Roster of Participants
Meeting Materials from May 2005 Working Session, (PDF) (16pp., 182K, about PDF)
A Summary Overview of the
Working Session Exploring Opportunities to Enhance Collaboration By Water
and Wastewater Utilities in Advancing Asset Management
Sponsored by the USEPA Office of Wastewater
Management Convened on May 5 & 6,
2005 at the Marriott Metro Hotel, Washington DC
The Event On May 5th and 6th, 2005, the USEPA Office Of Wastewater Management convened a Working Session to explore opportunities to enhance collaboration by water and wastewater utilities in advancing asset management. Approximately 140 water and asset management professionals (drawn from the US and from 11 other countries) representing the water/wastewater industry, academics, professional associations, the research community and the consultant engineering and related consultant sector met in intensive collaboration to develop an agenda for advancing asset management throughout the water industry.
Purpose of the Working Session
The intent of the Asset Management (AM) Working Session was to develop consensus among stakeholders in water industry asset management around an agenda for advancing the asset management practices of the US Water industry (potable water, wastewater and stormwater). Specifically, the purpose of the Working Session was to identify a three to five-year action agenda for the advancement of asset management practices in the water industry and in state and local government.
Summary Findings: Top 10 Action Item Recommendations
Several major points emerged from the Working Session:
- The following action items were voted the ten most important action items for the advancement of asset management practices in the water industry:
- Ranked Action Items 1 and 2 are “clusters” of several
closely related action items developed by the Water Industry Breakout
station. These clusters are defined as follows:
- UB - Best Practices:
- U2 - Adopt AM as a best practice standard and develop standard terminology and processes
- U10 - Develop and implement training on O&M best practices
- U12 - Life cycle maintenance - best practices for process, procedure, timing, risk
- U16 - Developing common standards for AM -- focused on the internal environment (condition assessment standards that focus on condition or reliability, e.g. KPI (key performance indicators))
- U17 - Some mechanism for accreditation/certification, e.g., ISO
- U35 - Need some credible authority that develops the standards
- UA: Defining AM/Building Business Cases:
- U1 -Define asset management
- U9 - Definition of AM should have an objective and benefit or business case that can be made with it
- U14 - publish an American version of the International AM manual
- U31 - Get agreement on definition of AM between among the major professional water/engineering associations
- UB - Best Practices:
- The single most prevalent theme among all four breakout groups appears to be that of “knowledge transfer” - the effective and efficient accumulation, organization and dissemination of “best practices” regarding asset management concepts, processes and practices relevant to the US management culture.
The following chart depicts the distribution of votes among the Top Ten as a percentage of total votes for all of the top ten action items. Note that after the third ranked Action Item, the votes are relatively close.
Voting Patterns: Summary Overview
Votes were tracked by industry sector (see “How the Session Was Organized” below for a discussion of the industry sectors) and by US versus non-US residency (11 foreign countries were represented). The following graphic depicts the distribution of votes by industry sector (column percentages represent the votes cast for a given Action Item by a sector divided by total votes cast for the Top Ten Action Items by that sector).
Clearly, the voting for specific Action Items varied rather widely based on the sector represented. However, except for the Education Sector, the Top Ten list is a rather consistent percentage of total votes cast by each sector (while the order varied somewhat by sector, the group making the top 10 was rather consistent across all sectors except education). Subsequent analysis will examine more closely the voting patterns by industry sector and by US versus international residency.
Top 10 Rankings by Industry Sector
The final vote for the top 10 Action Items was based on a ballot integrating the top 10 Action Items as ranked by each of the four Breakout stations (see “How the Session Was Organized” below for description of the process). The following tables present the Top 10 (from the integrated ballot list of 40 - 10 from each Breakout Group) by each of the five industry sectors.
Recommendations of the Four Breakout Stations
The following table lists the recommended “ten most important action steps” for each of the four breakout stations (a total of approximately 40 Action Items). Clearly, the perspectives of the four different stations were distinctly different, consistent with the design of the breakout groups (see “How the Session Was Organized” below). Yet the prevalent theme of knowledge transfer is again dominant. (View the list of Top 10 from each Breakout Group (PDF) (1p., 40Kb, about PDF))
Lists of Action Items by Breakout Station
Listed below are links to the lists of Action Items generated at each of the four Breakout stations.
- Utilities (Microsoft Excel, 91K)
- Education (Microsoft Excel, 130K)
- Research (Microsoft Excel, 117K)
- Government/Regulatory (Microsoft Excel, 97K)
Excel Spreadsheet of Voting Results
Voting workbook (Microsoft Excel, 162K)
How the Working Session Was Organized
To accomplish this consensus, the agenda for the Working Session was organized around three major, sequentially staged elements:
1. A brief overview of the state of the practice in AM
This overview was accomplished through brief, highly focused PowerPoint presentations from 32 practitioners representing four major groups:
- The Water Industry (the US particularly)
- Educational Trainers (universities and professional organizations)
- Research Agencies (professional and academic), and
- Government Institutions
2. Break-out sessions for group collaboration
The heart of the consensus process was organized around four “breakout” sessions with each session focusing on developing a working agenda from the perspective of one of the four groups listed above. Four breakout groups or stations were defined; each attendee was randomly assigned to one of the four groups. Each group rotated through all four of the breakout “stations”. The four stations and their home facilitators were:
| 1. The Water Industry | Duncan Rose |
| 2. Educational Trainers | Eileen O’Neill |
| 3. Research Agencies | Linda Blankenship |
| 4. Government/Regulators | Roger Byrne |
The purpose of the group sessions was to develop an action agenda (a list of specific tasks or projects) for advancing AM practices from the perspective of each of the four groups. Each station reported out a listing of what was felt were the 10 most important action items, along with notes and comments that the group deemed pertinent in support of those action items.
3. Convergence and consensus in a final plenary session
Final prioritization was reached in a session of the whole following
the four breakout
sessions, where the listing of (up to) forty action items was divided
into two groups - ten Initial Focus action items (these were prioritized)
and the remaining action items. Initial focus items are not necessarily
more important that the second list, but are items that should be implemented
before certain “downstream” tasks can be initiated.
Major Focus Questions for the Four Breakout Sessions
As outlined above, the purpose of the Working Session was to identify a three-to-five-year action agenda that reflects the coordinated efforts of
- The water industry,
- The industry’s training stakeholders (both professional organization and academic based),
- It’s research stakeholders (private and public) and
- Its regulators and related governmental institutions
in the advancement of asset management practices throughout the industry and, where practical, in state and local government in general.
To be successful in this purpose, the 1) mission, 2) organizational composition and 3) agenda of such an organizational effort must be determined. This Working Session focused on the building of an initial action agenda; it is anticipated that this agenda will subsequently inform the defining of the mission and in determining the composition of some form of “Coordinating Steering Committee”. The mission and composition of the “Committee” will be addressed at a subsequent, separate Working Session.
Major questions of focus for the Working Session included (but were not limited to):
Utility Coordination and Collaboration:
- What specific assistance is most needed to advance the AM efforts currently underway and to support those contemplating moving forward?
- What systemic “inhibitors” to the deployment of AM need to be removed and what assistance, if any, can entities outside a specific agency effectively render in removing those inhibitors?
- How best to build on the AM efforts underway in various utilities so that “lessons learned” are readily available to peers and interested parties?
- How best to share data, techniques, examples of “deliverables”,
training
materials, etc.?
Education and Training:
- How best to educate university level students who wish to develop competence in the management of infrastructure (undergraduate and graduate levels, engineering and non-engineering students)?
- How to provide systematic, integrated and staged training for working
professionals (people already in the industry)? - What about competency certification?
Research:
- What kind of research activities would most effectively further AM
Best
Practices? - What kind of research collaboration should be encouraged and how?
- How to foster efforts to improve the effective staging of research that advances the body of knowledge through a wider base of application?
- How to avoid duplication of effort and most effectively leverage the general body of effort (nationally and internationally)?
Institutional Relationships, Including Regulatory considerations:
- What institutional relationships among the various levels of government (federal, state, local) inhibit the efficient deployment of AM practices?
- What actions, if any, can be taken to support and improve the practice of AM by making innovative adjustments in the institutional relationships among the various levels of government?
- How to improve “bottom up” intergovernmental processes to better define service levels and the impact on cost and risk of providing sustainable services (environmental, social and economic) at the community level.
Each of the four groups reported out its “top 10” actions list to a plenary session by a group spokesperson (to assure thorough knowledge of the discussions among the four groups relative to a specific station, the spokesperson was assigned to a specific “home station” and did not rotate with the group). Each group report was thoroughly discussed in open session in a question and answer format, followed by extensive discussion.
Ranking of the proposed action items occurred through a marking of a physical ballot. Each participant was given 10 index card ballots, with the exception of the Water Industry representatives; these participants were given 20 ballots each to assure a substantial emphasis of Water Industry interests in the final voting.
Each participant could vote for any of the listed action items. Participants were only limited in their voting by the number of ballots they were allocated - they could, if they wished, vote all of their ballots for one action item.
Agenda and Supporting Handouts
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view a number of Adobe PDF documents. Click here to read About Portable Document Format Files.
- Agenda, (PDF) (4pp., 21K)
- Focus of Asset Management Collaboration Working Session, (PDF) (1p., 28K)
- America's Pathway to Sustainable Water and Wastewater systems, (PDF) (6pp., 486K)
"State Of Practice” Presentations
Session 1 – Moderator: Duncan Rose
In this session, attendees will be provided with brief overviews of major
projects and activities underway through the auspices of several organizations
(maximum of 10 minutes per topic)
- Asset Management Program Learning Environment (AMPLE) - WERF (Roger Byrne) (PowerPoint, 10,5Mb)
- Condition Assessment Measures, Matrices and Protocols - WERF (Tony Urquhart) (PowerPoint, 3,8Mb)
- Process to Assess and Prioritize Multi-risk for Wastewater Facilities - WERF (Ken Rubin)
- Open Source Asset Mgt. Software for Small Communities - MCET (Doug Abbot & Peter LeVoir) (PowerPoint, 421K)
- CARE S / CARE W undertakings - Polytechnic University (Annie Vanrenterghem-Raven) (PowerPoint, 11Mb)
- The Global Water Global Water Research Coalition (GWRC) efforts (Frans Schulting) (PowerPoint, 719K)
- The Evaluation of Pipe Performance and Durability - CSIRO (Stewart Burn) (PowerPoint, 9,5Mb)
- The Infrastructure Management Learning Community - Canada (Mark Damm) (PowerPoint, 1,5Mb)
- Water and Wastewater Security Initiatives – USEPA (James Wheeler) (PowerPoint, 1,3Mb)
- Environmental Management Systems – USEPA (Jim Horne) (PowerPoint, 25K)
- The Advance Asset Management Training Initiative – USEPA (Steve Allbee) (PowerPoint, 214K)
Session 2 – Moderator: John Griffin
Utility presentations on lessons learned in implementing asset management
undertakings (Maximum of 12 minutes per presenter)
- Orange County Sanitation District (Doug Stewart) (PowerPoint, 207K)
- Seattle Public Utilities (Scott Haskins) (PowerPoint, 801K)
- NEORSD (Frank Greenland) (PowerPoint, 366K)
- Jacksonville, JEA (Jens Sapin) (PowerPoint, 3,5Mb)
- Saskatoon, Canada (Jan-Mark Gustafson) (PowerPoint, 155K)
Session 3 – Moderator: Roger Byrne
Learning from other experiences, the strategies to improve coordination
and collaboration. (12 minutes each)
- New Zealand – Tony Wilson (PowerPoint, 127K)
- UK – Chris Royce (PowerPoint, 1Mb)
- National Research Council Canada (Leo Gohier) (PowerPoint, 1,5Mb)
- Netherlands – Jan Vreeburg (Kiwa Water Research) (PowerPoint, 2,7Mb)
- U.S. – Doug Stewart (PowerPoint, 137Kb)
Session 4 – Moderator: Scott Haskins
Education, Communication & Prof. Development Initiatives (Max 8 minutes
per presenter)
- AWWA (John Cromwell) (PowerPoint, 102K)
- WEF (Eileen O’Neill) (PowerPoint, 366K)
- NSF (Jesus M. de la Garza) (PowerPoint, 733K)
- BAMI-I (Tom Iseley) (PowerPoint, 55K)
Session 5 – Moderator: Paul Causey
A Panel on Setting a Coordinated and Collaborative Asset Management Research
Agenda
- WERF (Linda Blankenship)
- AWWARF (Jennifer Warner)
- National Research Council Canada (Leo Gohier)
- UKWIR (Steve Whipp)
- CSIRO (Stewart Burn)
Session 6 – Moderator: Steve Allbee
Three views of the future governmental and institutional challenges for
asset management
- The Whole of Government Viewpoint (Penny Burns - Asset Management Quarterly Int’l.)
- An Environmental Regulators View of the interface between Asset Management and Environmental Regulation (Mick Bourke, Chairman /CEO EPA Victoria, Australia)
- A U.S. Viewpoint (Tracy Mehan – The Cadmus Group & former USEPA Assistant Administrator)
Contacts/Roster of Participants
For further information about the Working Session contact:
Ad Hoc NAMS Committee:
| Doug Stewart Paul Causey |
John Griffin Scott Haskins |
Working Session Host:
Steve Allbee
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Room 7119-B Mail Code 4204M
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-0581
Allbee.steve@epa.gov
Contract Support:
| GHD LLC Roger Byrne 18201 Von Karman Avenue Suite 650 Irvine, CA 92612 949-250-0501 roger_byrne@ghd.us.com |
Duncan Rose 180 S. Cherry Street Suite D Monticello, Fl 32344 850-997-5333 Duncan_rose@ghd.us.com |
Special thanks to the following:
Eileen O’Neill Water Environment Federation
Linda Blankenship Water Environment Research Foundation
Brenton Marshall GHD LLC
Sherry Sato GHD LLC
Click here to link to the roster of participants (Microsoft Excel, 50K)
For more information contact:
Steve Allbee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C 20460
(202) 564-0581,
email: Allbee.Steve@epa.gov.