WOP: CWW and MCWD

ChrisChris   November 09, 2011  
 

wop asia

The WOP aim is to provide the recipient MCWD with better approach, methodologies and practices; improving

GENERAL WOP INFORMATION

July 01, 2008 - December 31, 2010
Was the code of conduct followed?
Yes link
Did the operators sign a formal partnership agreement?
Yes
Mentor motivations
  • Corporate social responsibility
  • New opportunities/challenges for employees
WOPs facilitator
Waterlinks

PARTNERS AND THEIR INPUTS

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

Other supporting organizations
Asian Development Bank (ADB): Facilitation
Total cost of WOP ($)
127,000.00

THEMES AND OBJECTIVES

Themes
  • Asset management
  • Expanding services to low income households
  • Non Revenue Water (NRW) management

Objectives
to provide the recipient MCWD with better approach, methodologies and practices; improving it`s management practices in order to reduce non-revenue-water;

major areas for twinning support:
- NRW reduction
- improving distribution performance through hydraulic modeling and other means
- Data Management ( best use of GIS for effective asset management
- MIS methods and systems

WOPS ACTIVITIES

What types of activities were carried out to help develop operator capacity?
  • Joint planning or work
  • On the job training
  • Site visits

Describe WOPs activities
exchange visits:
WOP activities occurred mostly during the exchange visits of CWW staff to Cebu City and MCWD staff to Melbourne. Visits were usually for a week. From July 2008 to December 2010 there were a total of 8 visits of CWW staff to Cebu City composed mostly of 2-person teams and one visit of 5 MCWD managers to Melbourne. After the initial diagnostic visit, a 4-person CWW team came in August 2008 to start the implementation of the plan and gain more understanding of MCWD operations and practices.

Non revenue water:
The partners concentrated first on the goal of reducing NRW from 39% to 15% in the selected pilot DMA located at Sunrise Village. Visiting CWW staff oversaw the establishment of the DMA and the investigations into water loss within the DMA. Work was carried out over a period of 6 months when assets were checked, meters checked and read regularly, leak detection carried out and malfunctioning assets repaired or replaced. At the end of the pilot study, the CWW team conducted an audit that showed the processes used, the meter readings and NRW calculations were all correct.

Hydraulic modeling of the distribution system:
CWW recommended developing an appropriate water distribution hydraulic model. This would help MCWD deal with the uneven distribution of water supply in MCWD’s service area through about 800 km of distribution mains in the 750 sq km service area. The model would help MCWD in managing its distribution network to create a balance with sufficient pressure throughout the system. In March 2010, CWW conducted a 5-day Water Supply Hydraulics Seminar for 15 MCWD engineers giving practical guidance on applying hydraulics principles to solve local distribution issues and problems.

Workshops:
This was followed four months later by another weeklong workshop on the WaterCAD Hydraulic Modeling and Pumps Systems for 10 engineers who attended the first seminar. This group of engineers was nominated as MCWD’s hydraulic modeling team. This team was then tasked with gathering distribution system data. Further discussions on how to develop and calibrate an appropriate hydraulic model for MCWD were held in November 2010 with guidance from visiting CWW staff but the partners found the problems of inadequate physical data availability impossible to overcome in the given time frame.

Organizational improvement:
While the main tasks were being undertaken, CWW and MCWD had discussion on four areas: (i) organizational reform, (ii) performance management, (iii) key performance indicators (KPIs) and (iv) management reporting. Tutorials for MCWD senior and associated affected personnel managers composed of 2-3 hour sessions with about 8 participants were provided in these subjects as well as in customer service and financial management. These tutorials were found by the participants to be very illuminating. CWW recommended a reformed organization structure for MCWD with no duplication of effort, clear accountabilities and more focus on performance.

Key Performance Indicators and incentives:
CWW encouraged MCWD to tie its management bonus scheme more closely to the achievement KPIs related to its core business. CWW and MCWD reviewed MCWD’s business and came up with a master list of KPIs focusing on outcomes rather than processes. The MCWD board of directors and senior staff should concentrate on these KPIs which could then be cascaded down through the different organization levels.

Reporting:
CWW and MCWD jointly prepared and submitted two formal reports on the twinning to ADB as well as other ad hoc progress reports. The first formal report was submitted at the end of Stage 1 in May 2009. It contained chapters on project administration, project approach, project outcomes, lessons learned and recommendations for an extension of the project. The second formal report was submitted to ADB in December 2009 at the end of the extension period which updated the first report and concentrated on the project outcomes and the reform processes that have been put in place by the MCWD as a result of the WOP. Reports were also submitted on the training events (pipeline hydraulics etc.) held during the second extension under Stage 2 in 2010.

Management and coordination of the WOP activities:
The Manager for Asset Management of CWW and the Manager for Corporate Planning of MCWD were assigned to coordinate the partnership activities. A work plan agreed between CWW and MCWD for each of the one-week exchange visits was prepared before each visit. Every visit began with a review of what had taken place since the last visit. The last day concluded with a review of how the week’s visit had gone and what was to be achieved by the next visit. This continuous joint assessment process enabled the partnership to keep its focus while providing the flexibility to introduce new issues as they arose.

Discussions and managing the work:
One-on-one discussions took place at key times during the partnership between the General Managers from both partner utilities. This enabled underlying issues at the MCWD to be explained and reviewed thus ensuring the effectiveness of the expert advice given. The CWW General Manager was consulted often and the MCWD counterparts regarded him as an exemplary resource person who was able to listen, make suggestions and offer guidance on a wide range of issues


RESULTS

Describe the overall results
Metro Cebu Water District
- The WOP provided an effective and low cost approach to NRW reduction through competency development and use of improved leak detection equipment;
- Insights into new policy approaches and best practices were gained from tutorials and courses in asset management, organizational structure, performance management, key performance indicators, customer service and financial management;
- Staff development took place through interaction/discussion with CWW senior managers and engineers during field activities in Cebu and Melbourne;
- The WOP enabled networking with other utilities in the region through participation in WOP conferences;
- Asset management - fundamental to water utility management worldwide - was introduced;
- MCWD is now better equipped to solve its problems based on its experience of jointly working on the problems with CWW mentoring and guidance.

City West Water
- A WOP is a great way to develop new staff, while also potentially providing a new interest for long-time employees;
- It is an effective way to exercise corporate social responsibility and has been identified as the most efficient way of helping developing countries;
- Partnership is also an inexpensive way to lift a company’s profile internationally and provides those involved with perspectives on the state of the world’s water not available in other ways;
- But most of all, a WOP is simply good fun and the friendships made live on well beyond the close of the partnership.

Which factors had a positive influence on the success of your WOP?
  • Appropriate partner selection
  • Suitable partnership design
  • Training

Which factors impeded the success of your WOP?
  • Lack of follow up financing
  • Other

BEWOP

GWCen