- 1.Comparative Assessment of ServiceStandards of Utilities Service Providersin Water and Wastewater managementAbhishek Sarkar10BM60004
2. Background Industries started being setup post independence Obsolete water supply/drainage system Post 1991, more industries hence more townships aroundSEZs (EG: DMIC) Rising standards of living Govt of India realized need and many initiatives are beingtaken: JNNURM PPP in infrastructure projects 3. Objective 3 main types of players: Urban local bodies(municipalities) Township administrative division of industrialtownships Private Players providing township managementservices Objective of this project: Assess service standards of the different parties Make a comparative analysis based on theirperformance with regards to nationally acceptedService 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 connections100% Extent of Non-Revenue Water (NRW)20% Continuity of water supply 24 x 7 Quality of water supplied100% Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints80% Cost recovery in water supply services 100% Efficiency in collection of water supply related charges90% 5. Service Level Benchmarks Sewerage services Coverage of Toilets100% Coverage of sewage network services100% Collection efficiency of sewage network 100% Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity 100% Quality of sewage treatment100% Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage 20% Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints80% Extent of cost recovery in sewage management100% Efficiency in collection of sewage charges90% 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 customeraccount 7. Key Performance IndicatorsContd.. Per capita supply of water Continuity of water supply Coverage of water supply connections Overall Performance Efficiency (OPE): Thisindicator measures the overall performance efficiencyof the utility as a factor of Quality of WaterProvided, Loss of Water put into the DistributionSystem 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 JUSCOIndicatorCoverage100%86.98%Per Capita supply 135 lpcd232 lpcdExtent of 100 % 32.96%meteringNon revenue 20% 9.56%waterContinuity24*724*7Quality of water100%100%Customer80% 98.35%complaintredressalCost recovery 100%100% 10. How they fared (Water supply)Name of the Benchmark Bokaro SteelIndicator plantCoverage100%100%Per Capita supply 135 lpcd253.6lpcdExtent of 100 % 0%meteringNon revenue 20% NAwaterContinuity24*76 hrs a dayQuality of water100%100%Customer80% 100%complaintredressalCost recovery 100%0 11. How they fared (Water supply)Name of the Benchmark Rourkela SteelIndicator PlantCoverage100%100%Per Capita supply 135 lpcd225 lpcdExtent of 100 % 0%meteringNon revenue 20% NAwaterContinuity24*74 hrs a dayQuality of water100%100%Customer80% 90%complaintredressalCost recovery 100%0 12. How they fared (Water supply)Name of the Benchmark DSPIndicatorCoverage100%100%Per Capita supply 135 lpcd272 lpcdExtent of 100 % 0%meteringNon revenue 20% NAwaterContinuity24*78 hrsQuality of water100%100%Customer80% 75 %complaintredressalCost recovery 100%0% 13. How they fared (Water supply)Name of the Benchmark KGPIndicator MunicipalityCoverage100%26.94%Per Capita supply 135 lpcd17.6 lpcdExtent of 100 % 0%meteringNon revenue 20% NAwaterContinuity24*72 hrsQuality of water100%100%Customer80% Not divulgedcomplaintredressalCost recovery 100%Not divulged 14. How they fared (Water supply)Name of the Benchmark MidnaporeIndicatorCoverage100%21.82%Per Capita supply 135 lpcd29.65 lpcdExtent of 100 % 0%meteringNon revenue 20% NAwaterContinuity24*72hrsQuality of water100%100%Customer80% Not divulgedcomplaintredressalCost recovery 100%0% 15. How they fared (Sewerage)Name of theBenchmark JUSCOIndicatorCoverage of toilet 100%0Coverage of100%75%sewage networkservicesCollection 100 % 75%efficiencyQuality of 100%100%treatmentExtent of20% 30%recyclingCustomer 80% 99.8%complaintredressalCost recovery100%0% 16. How they fared (Sewerage)Name of theBenchmark KGPIndicatormunicipalityCoverage of toilet 100%0Coverage of100%NAsewage networkservicesCollection 100 % NAefficiencyQuality of 100%NAtreatmentExtent of20% NArecyclingCustomer 80% NAcomplaintredressalCost recovery100%NA 17. Comparative assessment onKPIsTraining Hours per employee 18. Comparative assessment onKPIsCustomer accounts per employee350300250200 Customer accounts per employee150100 500JUSCO BOKARO Rourkela Durgapur Kharagpur Midnapore 19. Comparative assessment onKPIsDistribution system water loss 35 30 25 20 15 Distribution system water loss 1050 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 0.10 21. Comparative assessment onKPIs Continuity Of water supply 22. Comparative assessment onKPIs Overall performance efficiency 90 80 70 60 50 40Overall performance efficiency 30 20 100JUSCO BOKARO Rourkela Durgapur Kharagpur Midnapore 23. Analysis of findings Customer accounts handling load inefficiency issuesin KGP & Midnapore Difference in training of employees of the differentbodies Per capita supply of water in KGP & Midnapore is notat all adequate Very low distribution system water loss leads to highefficiency in JUSCOs operations Planned maintenance ratio shows lack of adequateplanning for ULBs Continuity of water supply is a big issue for all entitiesother than JUSCO High OPE value for JUSCO makes it a clear winnerwith regards to water supply services over itscompetition 24. Suggestions Arrange for proper training of employees forincreased customer service quality. Setting up proper sewerage and sewagetreatment facilities for the sake of hygiene. Timely maintenance and renewal of water supplyequipments to be followed to minimize distributionsystem 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, GOvernmentof India. Retrieved September 2011, from http://urbanindia.nic.in/ Perez, B. (2008). INDICATORS FOR PERFORMANCEBENCHMARKING OF WATER UTILITIES. PWC. (2011). Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure andServices. HPEC.
