Ecosync
TRANSALTA UTILITIES REPORTING
SYSTEM - A MANAGEMENT TOOL
by Sig Guggenmoos
Abstract. A reporting system which
provides budget status, unit costs and productivity measures can be an
invaluable tool for utility managers. It permits managers to identify cost
effective practises and anomalies occurring at the division level. It can
expose gradations in productivity not detected by field observation. The
savings from one identified poor practise may well pay the annual cost of
operating the reporting system.
TransAlta Utilities is an
investor owned utility located in the province of Alberta. TransAlta provides
two thirds of the province's electric energy requirements. About 300,000
customers are served directly. Our service area covers roughly 83,000 square
miles supported by 57,700 miles of distribution lines and 6,700 miles of
transmission lines. Within TransAlta the responsibility for the maintenance of
distribution and transmission line right of ways is split. The discussion
centers on the Distribution Line Clearance (DLC) group.
In 1984 TransAlta engaged
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ECI) to undertake an inventory of the vegetation
conditions on 38,400 miles of owned overhead distribution lines and 16,900
miles of distribution line owned by 112 Rural Electrification Associations
(REA). The REA's are essentially farmer cooperatives who contract their line
maintenance work to TransAlta. ECI was also asked to review our DLC practises;
organization; staffing requirements and to use the found inventory and growth
rates to make budget projections.
Simply put, ECI found we
had a system of hotspotting which varied in effectiveness with the Division
budget, interest, and commitment to line clearance. They forecast budgets for
the next 12 years categorized under TransAlta owned and REA owned lines.
Specific recommendations regarding organization, staffing and operating
practises were made.
Most of ECI's
recommendations were implemented. Program control was centralized with the
formation of the DLC group. Budgets were substantially increased. Staff were
increased. Work began to be undertaken in grids, the smallest grid unit being a
township of 36 square miles. Grids were chosen over circuits because of
potential future links with our automated drafting and facilities management
system. A couple of significant points were rejected. Rather than to provide
notification of work to landowners, we chose, after a legal review, to contact
each landowner personally to obtain a written consent. Although, the number of
staff and organization was accepted, the educational requirements for the
positions were not.
It had been TransAlta's
intention to accept the recommendation of going on ECI's TRES program. Due to
the decision to obtain written consents and the fact of having to correctly
bill work in accordance with line ownership, we needed to be site specific.
This level of detail necessitated some redesign of the TRES program. TransAlta
time shared this enhanced TRES program for 2 years after which it was purchased
on a permanent lease basis. During the development phase, the cost of the
system was about 2% of the annual budget. The current costs are about 1%.
The database for the
reporting system stems from the daily Line Clearance Reports. On it, crew
activities are coded ie. top trims, removals 6"-12"dbh, consenting,
travel, etc. to the nearest 15 minutes. There are about 45 activity codes. Any
given crew would use about 15 codes of which 6 would be routine.
The reporting system
generates a variety of reports ranging from reverse contractor invoices on a
bi-weekly basis through crew effectiveness ratings to ad hoc reports. A
bi-weekly budget update is used interactively with a PC spreadsheet for
scheduling crews to a zero budget variance. DLC has three budgets to balance.
With this combination of system reports and PC spreadsheets annual budget
variances have been below 0.25%.
The real strength of the
TRES program is the ability to generate unit costs and productivity information
at various levels of detail. This information can be called up by Department,
Division, work order number, contractor, foreman, township and location number.
Although, requests for specific information may result in any given breakdown
being useful, in general, we produce unit cost and productivity reports monthly
at the Department and Division level and quarterly sorted by contractor and
foreman. The Division Coordinator also receives monthly a Detailed Activity
Report Analysis which states by Division and Department, unit costs, ratios
such as cost per manhour, % of trees trimmed vs. % of trees removed, time
utilization, performance and effectiveness. This permits the DLC Coordinator to
compare the current month unit costs and ratios to the past 12 months history,
other Divisions and the Department average. The Coordinators are asked to
consider all possible factors to understand any significant variance. Reasons
for variance have run from weather influences, changes in crew personnel or
equipment, poor or exceptionally good organization on our part, to simply,
inaccurate recording of units by crews. These reports also allow those
responsible for the system level to monitor changes or anomalies occurring at
the Division level. Perhaps more significantly, the Coordinators see on a
timely basis the impact of operational changes they've introduced. This serves
to reinforce the necessity of system wide consistency in practises and activity
code interpretations.
Foreman effectiveness,
which is run quarterly, is graphed and then distributed through the Foresters
to the Coordinators and contractor supervisors. The contractors are seen as
cooperators in working towards our objectives. We believe they can only react
to what they know. All have responded favourably and indicated they view the
effectiveness graphs as a valuable tool.
The following are some
specific observations gleaned from the reporting system, particularly the
effectiveness graphs.
Figure 1. We have noted
that when a new foreman is started his effectiveness is about 70% for the first
3 months. At an average crew cost of $200,000 per year this learning curve
represents additional costs of $15,000. This finding stresses the need to
schedule work in a manner which stabilizes the contractor work force.
Figure 1
Figure 2. The learning
curve was confirmed when a foreman began a new work type we call premow. Premow
is the clearing around obstacles and removal of large trees to prepare the site
for mowing. When the slash crew foreman became a premow foreman, effectiveness
was about 70% for 3 months.
Figure 2
Figure 3. TransAlta was
approached by a contractor to add a fifth man to their premow crews. This was
introduced gradually but expanded to other crews based on the positive feedback
both from our staff and the contractor. Both were convinced that the additional
man more than paid for himself. Our first run of effectiveness graphs indicated
otherwise.
Figure 3
When the fifth man was
dropped there was a 20 to 40% increase in effectiveness. Since both our staff
and the contractor believed the fifth man to be justified, it must be concluded
that changes of 20 to 40% in effectiveness are not readily identifiable by
visual assessment in the field. Had we not seen the below average effectiveness
of these crews on the graphs we would have approved all 6 of the contractor's
premow crews to run indefinitely with a fifth man. The cost of these crews over
1 year would be $200,000 X 6 = $1,200,00. At 70% effectiveness the cost of an
equivalent volume of work would be ($100/hr)/.70 = $143/hr; $143/hr X 2000hrs X
6crews = $1,716,000. This difference of $516,000 represents about 4% of our
annual budget.
Figure 4. As would be
expected, the quality of contractor supervision also impacts on effectiveness.
A Coordinator's concern about inadequate supervision was responded to in
October 1987 by the appointment of a new supervisor. The impact on productivity
was immediate with the crew in the example reaching the Department standard
effectiveness in 2 months. What the numbers don't show is that there was also a
marked improvement in the quality of the work. The fact that good or poor
supervision can be, to a degree, quantified is a lever in ensuring good
supervision is provided. The contractor supervisors eagerly await the
effectiveness graphs because the graphs identify or confirm for them problem
crews and show the improvements in crews chosen for focused attention in the
last quarter. The fact that the graphs can make the supervisors look good to us
and their management is a point not missed by them.
Figure 4
Figure 5. With the
introduction of the grid program, we quickly grasped some benefits such as
decreased travel, increased productive time and more supervision time. The
effectiveness graphs show a marked difference between grid crews and hotspot
crews. Figure 5 represents a crew which works on a hotspot list submitted by
districts until complete. The crew then switches to grid work until another
substantial list of hotspots is compiled. The effectiveness of 70% appears to
be typical of hotspot work on our system. It is rather frightening to think
what the cost of our program was previously when all crews were essentially
hotspotting. If we examine the trim crews alone we find the following:
20 trim crew yrs X
$160,000/crew yr = $3,200,000 hotspot 3.5 trim crew yrs @ 70% Effectiveness + $
240,000 Current effective cost $3,440,000
Before grid program
effective cost: (20 trim crew yrs X $160,000/crew yr)/.7 = $4,571,429
Figure 5
The additional cost of the
trim crews alone on a hotspot system would be $1.1 million per year. Since the budget
is set there would really be $1.1 million less trees trimmed. Should we fall
off the grid program and revert to hotspotting, in 3 years we would be fully
one year behind. It is apparent with such a progression that hotspotting
perpetuates itself.
Figure 6. This graph shows
all trim crews in a Division to be 30% below the Department average. The
Coordinator questioned TransAlta's contribution to this effectiveness rating.
Upon discussing operational practises with his Forester it was found there was no
comprehensive hotspot list submitted by districts. Rather, hotspots trickled in
on an almost daily basis. Crews were pulled off the grid weekly to do hot spots
but no single crew was identified as the hotspot crew.
Figure 6
Hence, time utilization was
below 70% whereas the norm is 80 to 85%. Further, the trim crews were doing all
necessary slashing. The impact of this does not show in effectiveness but can
be seen in the unit costs. On a trim crew equipment costs of $44/hr are spread
over 2 men. On a 4 man slash crew equipment costs are only $8/manhr. Obviously
trees removed by a trim crew are going to be more expensive. Following the
discussion a slash crew was assigned, hotspots were accumulated until there was
at least one week of work and one crew was designated as the hotspot crew. The
effectiveness of the Division's trim crews rose to 95%.
Figure 7. For the reporting
system to be useful it is imperative that the input be accurate. When the
effectiveness graphs were introduced, a concern raised by the Foresters about
wide variability around the Department standard became graphically evident. A
concerted effort was made by the Foresters between March 1987 and March 1988 to
ensure all TransAlta and contractor staff used one and the same interpretation
for activity codes and that the units were accurately reported. This effort was
rewarded by a substantial reduction in variability. Since that time, other
priorities have emerged. Without the Foresters' guidance, restricting
interpretations of codes to one standard, ensuring operational differences are
identified and standardized and that regular inspections to verify the accuracy
of unit counts are carried out, the variability has re-surfaced. For the
measurements to be truly comparable variability needs to be minimized. Figure 7
implies this requires centralized control. Further, there is an ongoing
requirement to exercise this control as variability spread widely 4 months
after the Foresters left the field.
Figure 7
We see the reporting system
as an invaluable tool. It has permitted the quantification of a hotspotting
program; the impact of poor supervision, turning a work force on and off,
operational variations, utility supervision; contractor strengths. It has
highlighted the need for centralized control. Generally, it has put information
into our hands on a timely basis. We are thereby empowered to make decisions
which mean more trees handled per dollar, advancing the first cycle towards
completion.
____________________________________________________________________________
Forester, Distribution Line
Clearance, TransAlta Utilities Corporation, 100 Chippewa Road Sherwood Park, AB
T8A 2A6