Business Case

As more utilities apply MultiSpeak to solve their integration challenges, there is a gathering volume of data demonstrating the cost savings that can result from MultiSpeak use.  Savings can be either direct or indirect, and in either case are often hard to visualize prior to the implementation with MultiSpeak.  The experience of one utility is provided here as an illustration of the kinds of benefits that can accrue from MultiSpeak use. 

Background

Four MultiSpeak interfaces were implemented.  These are shown below.

four MultiSpeak interfaces

 

The interfaces were:

Prior to implementing MultiSpeak integration each of these applications was a stand-alone system.  Any exchange of information was done manually; an employee would have to look up information in one program and, if possible, copy and paste the information into the other system; at other times it was necessary to re-type the data into the second application.  It was difficult to correlate information about customers, meters and outages in an effective manner. 

In order to be effective in his job, a dispatcher needed to be trained in the use of multiple software systems and be able to move fluidly between the diverse user interfaces.  The requirement for additional training and the potential for confusion due to conflicting software environments further reduced the dispatcher’s efficiency.

Furthermore, a dispatcher had to have a monitor in his work space for each of the systems in order to have access to all of the data necessary to perform his work.  This added to the clutter and potential confusion associated with “information overload”, as well as potentially adding to the cost for hardware and software licenses.

Capabilities Added by the MultiSpeak Integration

The following capabilities were added by the MultiSpeak Integration

Details of Changed Business Processes and Benefits for Each

Six different business process changes and the resulting benefits were identified by the utility.  For each, (i) a brief description is given of the process prior to integration, (ii) how the process has been improved using the capabilities provided by the MultiSpeak interfaces, and (iii) benefits of the change, are presented.

I.  Entering customer outages into the OMS.

Before Integration:Prior to integrating the AMR and the OMS it was necessary to copy and paste the affected meter number from the AMR system manually into the OMS.  Since this method was inefficient, the utility typically would minimize this inefficiency by waiting until customers called in to report outages.  The dispatcher would then enter the outage manually into the OMS.

After Integration: Now customer outages detected by the IVR automatically show up in the OMS and the dispatcher can begin outage prediction even before a significant number of customer calls have been taken.  It is no longer necessary to cut and paste the meter numbers from the AMR system since the AMR and OMS are integrated directly. The SCADA system monitors all breaker status and analog values and reports that information to the OMS.  With a little more database building the utility will have outages reporting automatically from the SCADA to the OMS for the devices the SCADA system monitors.

Direct Cost Savings: Avoiding copy and paste operations. 
Estimated savings = $6,083
Calculated as follows: 2 minutes each occurrence; 10 occurrences each day; dispatcher wage rate (with overheads) of $50/hour

“Soft” Benefits:

II.  Finding which meter is out of power when a customer has multiple meters.

Before Integration:  In the case where a customer had multiple meters and didn’t know the meter number of the service that was out of power, the crew would either check all of the possible locations or meet the customer on site to be led to the problem location.  Often the outage was eventually found to be part of an existing outage and did not need to be handled individually.  In such cases, lack of adequate information from the customer resulted in a wasted crew trip.

After Integration: All of the customer’s meters can be located using the OMS, and the AMR system can be instructed to ping all possible meters, directly from the OMS application.  The AMR system returns the status of all of the meters and the crew can be dispatched directly to the correct outage location if necessary without delay, saving wasted crew trips and time spent sending the crew to the wrong location.  Using the OMS, the utility can perform group pings on all the meters a customer owns, and have meter status results back within seconds.  This was virtually impossible before the integration because it took too much time to hunt down each meter individually and perform a ping within the AMR. 

Direct Cost Savings: Avoiding wasted trips and reducing crew “windshield time”.  Estimated savings = $2,100./year. 
Calculated as follows: 2 hours minimum per trip; 5 occurrences each year; crew costs (with overheads) = $210/hour

“Soft” Benefits:

III.  Pinging meters so that the utility does not re-dispatch crews to outages that have been restored.

Before Integration: In some cases, customers reported an outage from their car or work location and were unaware that service had already been restored.  The dispatcher, unaware that the outage being reported was the same one that had been fixed, re-dispatched a crew to the service location.

After Integration: The dispatcher knows the customer’s service location and can have the OMS application request that the AMR system ping the meter to detect outage status prior to disconnecting the customer call.  If the outage has already been restored, no crew need be dispatched and the customer can be reassured as to their outage status before the call ends.

Savings: Avoiding wasted trips. 
Estimated savings = $63,000/year. 
Calculated as follows: 2 hours minimum per trip; 150 occurrences each year; crew costs (with overheads) = $210/hour

“Soft” Benefits:

IV.  Pinging meters so that crews can be released to work other outages.

Before Integration: The line crew working an outage would stand by at the outage location while the dispatcher called the affected customers to ensure that all customers had been restored prior to releasing the crew to work another outage.

After Integration: The dispatcher pings all of the affected meters to ensure that all customers have been restored and releases the crew to perform other work.  The utility can then call back affected customers as desired without delaying the line crew. 

Savings: Avoiding crew standby time:
Estimated savings: $36,750/year
Calculated as follows:  15 minutes average per outage; 700 occurrences in 2006; crew costs (with overheads) = $210/hour

Soft Benefits:

V.  Pinging meters to avoid late-night customer call backs.

Before Integration: The dispatcher would call back every customer affected by an outage to ensure that power was restored to all customers, regardless of time of day.

After Integration: The dispatcher pings all of the meters to ensure that service has been restored; the decision to call customers can be separated from the need to check power restoration.  Late night calls can be eliminated, thus reducing customer inconvenience.

Savings: Not Applicable

Soft Benefits:

VI.  Not dispatching crews to customer-side outages or recovering trip charges for customer problems.

Before Integration: Any customer call was treated as a potential outage.  In some cases, service was intact to the meter and the problem lay on the customer side of the meter.

After Integration: The dispatcher can ping the affected meter to determine whether the meter is receiving service prior to dispatching a crew to the outage.  If service has been confirmed to the meter, the customer can be given the option of checking out the problem himself or paying for a trip charge so that a utility serviceman could check out a problem on the customer side of the meter.

Savings: Avoiding wasted trips or recovering customer trip charges. 
Estimated savings: $3,600/year
Calculated as follows: Trip charge = $120 per occurrence; 30 trips per year

Soft Benefits:

Lessons Learned in this Business Case

The installation and commissioning of MultiSpeak interfaces at the utility required little time and effort beyond that necessary to install the application software updates that supported the web service interfaces.  For each application it was necessary to input the network location of the software product(s) with which it was to communicate.  Once network communication was confirmed, the applications began exchanging information with no further modifications being required.  No additional hardware or software was required to implement the interfaces and no upgrade was required to network infrastructure to handle the web service messaging traffic.

It will be necessary for the utility to make minor changes in the SCADA database before device lockout status information can be exchanged with the OMS, but no other database changes were necessary in any application to accomplish the integration described in this case study.

The utility has seen significant improvements in business processes, improved levels of customer service and enhanced employee efficiency by integrating previously stand-alone software applications. Quantifiable benefits of $111,533/year have been  identified in the outage management processes alone. The changes required to existing software, network infrastructure and application databases to achieve these improvements have been minimal.