Comparative analysis for various service providders in water and waste water management
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Comparative analysis for various service providders in water and waste water management

on

  • 406 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
406
Views on SlideShare
406
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Comparative analysis for various service providders in water and waste water management Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Comparative Assessment of ServiceStandards of Utilities Service Providersin Water and Wastewater management Abhishek Sarkar 10BM60004
  • 2. Background Industries started being setup post independence Obsolete water supply/drainage system Post 1991, more industries hence more townships around SEZs (EG: DMIC) Rising standards of living Govt of India realized need and many initiatives are being taken:  JNNURM  PPP in infrastructure projects
  • 3. Objective 3 main types of players:  Urban local bodies(municipalities)  Township administrative division of industrial townships  Private Players providing township management services Objective of this project:  Assess service standards of the different parties  Make a comparative analysis based on their performance with regards to nationally accepted Service level benchmarks
  • 4. Service Level Benchmarks Water Supply  Coverage of Water Supply Connections 100%  Per Capita supply of water 135 lpcd  Extent of metering of water connections 100%  Extent of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) 20%  Continuity of water supply 24 x 7  Quality of water supplied 100%  Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80%  Cost recovery in water supply services 100%  Efficiency in collection of water supply related charges 90%
  • 5. Service Level Benchmarks Sewerage services  Coverage of Toilets 100%  Coverage of sewage network services 100%  Collection efficiency of sewage network 100%  Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity 100%  Quality of sewage treatment 100%  Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage 20%  Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80%  Extent of cost recovery in sewage management 100%  Efficiency in collection of sewage charges 90%
  • 6. Key Performance Indicators forQuality Of Service Measure of Employee Efficiency  Customer accounts per employee  MLD water delivered per employee Training Hours per Employee Customer Service Complaints Technical Quality Complaints Distribution system water loss Planned maintenance ratio Total O&M cost incurred per year per customer account
  • 7. Key Performance IndicatorsContd.. Per capita supply of water Continuity of water supply Coverage of water supply connections Overall Performance Efficiency (OPE): This indicator measures the overall performance efficiency of the utility as a factor of Quality of Water Provided, Loss of Water put into the Distribution System and the Availability of Water Supply. Quality Of Water (%) x [100%-NRW] (%) x Availability System renewal/replacement rate
  • 8. Townships Surveyed Tatanagar (JUSCO) Bokaro Steel Plant Rourkela Steel Plant Durgapur Steel Plant Kharagpur municipality Midnapore municipality
  • 9. How they fared (Water supply) Name of the Benchmark JUSCO Indicator Coverage 100% 86.98% Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 232 lpcd Extent of 100 % 32.96% metering Non revenue 20% 9.56% water Continuity 24*7 24*7 Quality of water 100% 100% Customer 80% 98.35% complaint redressal Cost recovery 100% 100%
  • 10. How they fared (Water supply) Name of the Benchmark Bokaro Steel Indicator plant Coverage 100% 100% Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 253.6lpcd Extent of 100 % 0% metering Non revenue 20% NA water Continuity 24*7 6 hrs a day Quality of water 100% 100% Customer 80% 100% complaint redressal Cost recovery 100% 0
  • 11. How they fared (Water supply) Name of the Benchmark Rourkela Steel Indicator Plant Coverage 100% 100% Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 225 lpcd Extent of 100 % 0% metering Non revenue 20% NA water Continuity 24*7 4 hrs a day Quality of water 100% 100% Customer 80% 90% complaint redressal Cost recovery 100% 0
  • 12. How they fared (Water supply) Name of the Benchmark DSP Indicator Coverage 100% 100% Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 272 lpcd Extent of 100 % 0% metering Non revenue 20% NA water Continuity 24*7 8 hrs Quality of water 100% 100% Customer 80% 75 % complaint redressal Cost recovery 100% 0%
  • 13. How they fared (Water supply) Name of the Benchmark KGP Indicator Municipality Coverage 100% 26.94% Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 17.6 lpcd Extent of 100 % 0% metering Non revenue 20% NA water Continuity 24*7 2 hrs Quality of water 100% 100% Customer 80% Not divulged complaint redressal Cost recovery 100% Not divulged
  • 14. How they fared (Water supply) Name of the Benchmark Midnapore Indicator Coverage 100% 21.82% Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 29.65 lpcd Extent of 100 % 0% metering Non revenue 20% NA water Continuity 24*7 2hrs Quality of water 100% 100% Customer 80% Not divulged complaint redressal Cost recovery 100% 0%
  • 15. How they fared (Sewerage)Name of the Benchmark JUSCOIndicatorCoverage of toilet 100% 0Coverage of 100% 75%sewage networkservicesCollection 100 % 75%efficiencyQuality of 100% 100%treatmentExtent of 20% 30%recyclingCustomer 80% 99.8%complaintredressalCost recovery 100% 0%
  • 16. How they fared (Sewerage)Name of the Benchmark KGPIndicator municipalityCoverage of toilet 100% 0Coverage of 100% NAsewage networkservicesCollection 100 % NAefficiencyQuality of 100% NAtreatmentExtent of 20% NArecyclingCustomer 80% NAcomplaintredressalCost recovery 100% NA
  • 17. Comparative assessment onKPIs Training Hours per employee
  • 18. Comparative assessment onKPIs Customer accounts per employee350300250200 Customer accounts per employee150100 50 0 JUSCO BOKARO Rourkela Durgapur Kharagpur Midnapore
  • 19. Comparative assessment onKPIs Distribution system water loss 35 30 25 20 15 Distribution system water loss 10 5 0
  • 20. Comparative assessment onKPIs Planned maintenance ratio 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 Planned maintenance ratio 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
  • 21. Comparative assessment onKPIs Continuity Of water supply
  • 22. Comparative assessment onKPIs Overall performance efficiency 90 80 70 60 50 40 Overall performance efficiency 30 20 10 0 JUSCO BOKARO Rourkela Durgapur Kharagpur Midnapore
  • 23. Analysis of findings Customer accounts handling load inefficiency issues in KGP & Midnapore Difference in training of employees of the different bodies Per capita supply of water in KGP & Midnapore is not at all adequate Very low distribution system water loss leads to high efficiency in JUSCO’s operations Planned maintenance ratio shows lack of adequate planning for ULBs Continuity of water supply is a big issue for all entities other than JUSCO High OPE value for JUSCO makes it a clear winner with regards to water supply services over its competition
  • 24. Suggestions Arrange for proper training of employees for increased customer service quality. Setting up proper sewerage and sewage treatment facilities for the sake of hygiene. Timely maintenance and renewal of water supply equipments to be followed to minimize distribution system water loss A public private model should be adopted  Remedy for budgetary constraints  Better efficiency in operations  Central regulation to avoid over commercialization practices
  • 25. References Center, N. I. (n.d.). Ministry of urban Development, GOvernment of India. Retrieved September 2011, from http://urbanindia.nic.in/ Perez, B. (2008). INDICATORS FOR PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING OF WATER UTILITIES. PWC. (2011). Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services. HPEC.