Benchmarking

Municipal Corporations of India For reduction in NRW/UFW

By

Satya Chhotalal Mehta 98, MBA, Semester-II Marwadi Education Foundations Group of Institutions, Rajkot

Conducted at:

Wagatech Private Limited Head office, 204, Atlanta Tower, Gulbai Tekra, Panchvati, Ahmedabad-380 006. Gujarat, India

Under the guidance of

Mrs. Niharika. S. Bajeja

Asst. Professor, Faculty of Management,

Marwadi Education Foundations Group of Institutions Rajkot.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Summer Internship Project is compulsory and one of the most challenging part of full MBA course. As I was always interested in Public Policy and Marketing, I would like to thank our Dean Dr. S.C.Reddy Sir who has provided the right and visionary outlook and approach for choosing an organization for SIP. With extreme efforts and network, our placement coordinator KSR Swamy Sir, rightly helped me out for choosing WAGATECH PRIVATE LTD as my destination. Without his efforts, I would not have been here. I would also like to thank my mentor and my coordinator Mrs. Niharika Bajeja Madame for constant guidance and for briefing me out the Economics of Marketing, Strategy making and Public Policy making. At WAGATECH PRIVATE LTD, I would like to thank Companys Director Mr. Vrajesh Kotadia and Miss. Urvi Trivedi Madame for selecting me and giving me a chance to work with one of the leading name in Leak Detection Technologies. But my most sincere thanks giving to Mr. Prem Chandrahas Sastry Sir, who was our mentor at WAGATECH. His sincere commitment, valuable discussions, vast experience in research and acumen of Marketing and Public Policy was phenomenon. I express my hearty gratitude and appreciativeness for guiding me and channelizing my efforts for public welfare. He has made me feel confident and guided me on every dawn of project. I would also like to thank our faculties, Mrs. Meeta Joshi Madame and Mr. Bhavik Panchasara Sir for their guidance. Also hearty thanks to my fellow interns Miss Arti ker and Mr. Chirag Harwani who helped me out in data collection and analysis. At last I would like to thank omnipotent omnipresent, My Lord Swaminarayan for giving me energy and mental focus to outrival my project till end with class.

PREFACE
Today world is shrinking at the speed of light. Unknowingly humans are shifting themselves to the WORLD OF SPIRITS. Laptops, e-books, cloud computing, internet is replacing human in every spheres of life. At one side, it is bringing most luxuries ever but at the other end nature resisting the rapid change. Water being one of the major 5 elements of nature is first and foremost for human existence As we are aware that only the total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion km3. The volume of freshwater resources is around 35 million km3, or about 2.5 percent of the total volume. Of these freshwater resources, about 24 million km3 or 70 percent is in the form of ice and permanent snow cover in mountainous regions, the Antarctic and Arctic regions. Around 30 percent of the world's freshwater is stored underground in the form of groundwater (shallow and deep groundwater basins up to 2 000 meters, soil moisture, swamp water and permafrost). This constitutes about 97 percent of all the freshwater that is potentially available for human use. This project has made an initiation to share the best practices worldwide to reduce NRW/ UFW in public water supply systems. An effort has been made to bridge the gap of knowledge between Indian local Self-governance bodies and Global standards. Municipal corporations of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Rajkot and Jamnagar were approached for the data and little analysis has been drawn from the data. Also a brief look on Governmental Bodies dealing with water has been looked on. To excel in Marketing and Selling, a tentative sales strategy has been drawn for one of the companys product. Thus this project will deal with public policy, its working and know hows of real Marketing. Also will help any common individual to be part of Public system up gradation.

Declaration

I hereby declare that this report on Benchmarking Municipal Corporations of India for reduction in NRW/UFW have been written and prepared by me during the academic year 2010-2011. All the information facts and figures included by me in this report are true, latest and fair as per my knowledge. This project was done under the guidance and supervision of Prof. Niharika Bajeja, Faculty, MARWADI EDUCATON FOUNDATIONS GROUP OF INSTITUTION. Rajkot.

Satya Chhotalal Mehta

INDEX

CHAPTER NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CHAPTER NAME Introduction Research methodology Analysis and findings Suggestions and recommendations Governmental structure Sales strategy: Leak pen Annexure Bibliography

PAGE NO. 1 15 20 30 32 37 42 44

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. NAME OF TABLE PAGE NO.

1 2 3

Land and water resources of India Service level benchmarks Data summary of SLB

5 8 8

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. NAME OF FIGURE PAGE NO.

1 2 3 4 5

Graphical distribution of water on Earth. Water balance in typical Indian cities Suggested frequency and jurisdiction of reporting in water supply Leak pen: Device kit Leak pen

3 10 36 38 39

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SHORT FORM BCM MoUD Lpcd mld NRW UFW GoI GoG ULB SHG SEAWUN UWC SLB PPP OECD FULL FORM BILLION CUBIC METERS MINISTRY of URBAN DEVELOPMENT LITRES PER CAPITA PER DAY MANUAL LYMPHATIC DRAINAGE NON REVENUE WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER GOVERNMENT of INDIA GOVERNMENT of GUJARAT URBAN LOCAL BODIES SELF HELPING GROUPS SOUTH EAST ASIA WATER UTILITIES NETWORK URBAM WATER COUNCILS SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT GWSSB GMFC GUDM GWRDC GUJARAT EATER SUPPLY WAND SEWERAGE BOARD GUJATAT MUNICIPAL FUND CORPORATION GUJARAT URBAN DEVELOPMPENT MISSION GUJARAT WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION WASMO WATER AND SANITATION MANAGEMENT

ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
WATER: SCENARIO IN WORLD AND INDIA WAGATECH PRIVATE LTD.: AN OVERVIEW ASSIGNMENT

Page | 1

1. WATER
Water is a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. Its molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at ambient conditions, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice, and gaseous state (water vapor or steam). Water also exists in a liquid crystal state near hydrophilic surfaces.

Water covers 70.9% of the Earth's surface and is vital for all known forms of life. On Earth, it is found mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation. Oceans hold 97% of surface water, glaciers and polar ice caps 2.4%, and other land surface water such as rivers, lakes and ponds 0.6%. A very small amount of the Earth's water is contained within biological bodies and manufactured products.

The collective mass of water found on, under, and over the surface of a planet is called the hydrosphere. Earth's approximate water volume (the total water supply of the world) is 1,360,000,000 km3 (326,000,000 mi3).Groundwater and fresh water are useful or potentially useful to humans as water resources. Liquid water is found in bodies of water, such as an ocean, sea, lake, river, stream, canal, pond, or puddle. The majority of water on Earth is sea water. Water is also present in the atmosphere in solid, liquid, and vapor states. It also exists as groundwater in aquifers.

Page | 2

CHART-1

Page | 3

2. WATER IN INDIA
Surface Water Indias average annual surface run-off generated by rainfall and snowmelt is estimated to be about 1869 billion cubic meters (BCM). However, it is estimated that only about 690 BCM or 37 per cent of the surface water resources can actually be mobilized. This is because (i) over 90 per cent of the annual flow of the Himalayas Rivers occurs over a four month period and (ii) potential to capture such resources is complicated by limited suitable storage reservoir sites.

Rainfall The average annual rainfall in India is about 1170 mm. This is considerable variation in rain both temporarily and spatially. Most rain falls in the monsoon season (June-September), necessitating the creation of large storages for maximum utilization of the surface run-off. Within any given year, it is possible to have both situations of drought and of floods in the same region. Regional varieties are also extreme, ranging from a low value of 100 mm in Western Rajasthan to over 11,000 mm in Meghalaya in North-Eastern India. Possible changes in rainfall patterns in the coming decade, global warming and climate change and other predicted or observed long-term trends on water Availability could affect Indias water resources.

Ground Water Indias rechargeable annual groundwater potential has been assessed at around 431 BCM in aggregate terms. On an all India basis it is estimated that about 30 per cent of the groundwater potential has been tapped for irrigation and domestic use. The regional situation is very much different and large parts of India have already exploited almost all of their dynamic recharge.

Haryana and Punjab have exploited about 94 per cent of their groundwater resources. Areas with depleting groundwater tables are found in Rajasthan,
Page | 4

Gujarat, most of western Uttar Pradesh and in all of the Deccan states. Occurrence of water availability at about 1000 cubic meters per capita per annum is a commonly threshold for water indicating scarcity (UNDP). Investment to capture additional surface run-off will become increasingly more difficult and expensive in the future. Over time, both for surface and groundwater resources, a situation where resources were substantially underutilized and where considerable development potential existed, has transformed in little more than a generation to a situation of water scarcity and limited development options. India faces an increasingly urgent situation: its finite and fragile water resources are stressed and depleting while various sectorial demands are growing rapidly. Historically

relatively plentiful water resources have been primarily for irrigated agriculture, but with the growth of Indian economy and industrial activities water demands share of water is changing rapidly. In addition increase in population and rapid urbanization also put an additional demand on water resources. Summing up the various sectorial projections reveals a total annual demand for water increasing from 552 billion cubic meters (BCM) in 1997 to 1050 BCM by 2025

TABLE-1

Page | 5

3. WATER SUPPLY IN INDIA

In 2008, 88% of the population in India had access to an improved water sources. In rural areas, where 72% of Indias population lives, the respective shares are 84% for water. In urban areas, 96% had access to an improved water source. Access has improved substantially since 1990 when it was estimated to stand at 72% for water .According to Indian norms, access to improved water supply exists if at least 40 liters/capita/day of safe drinking water are provided within a distance of 1.6 km or 100 meter of elevation difference, to be relaxed as per field conditions. There should be at least one pump per 250 persons. Challenges. None of the 35 Indian cities with a population of more than one million distribute water for more than a few hours per day, despite generally sufficient infrastructure. Owing to inadequate pressure people struggle to collect water even when it is available. According to the World Bank, none have performance indicators that compare with average international standards. A 2007 study by the Asian Development Bank showed that in 20 cities the average duration of supply was only 4.3 hours per day. No city had continuous supply. The longest duration of supply was 12 hours per day in Chandigarh, and the lowest was 0.3 hours per day in Rajkot.[3] In Delhi residents receive water only a few hours per day because of inadequate management of the distribution system. This results in contaminated water and forces households to complement a deficient public water service at prohibitive 'coping' costs; the poor suffer most from this situation. For example, according to a 1996 survey households in Delhi spent an average of 2,182 (US$48.7) per year in time and money to cope with poor service levels. This is more than three times as much as the 2001 water bill of about US$18 per year of a Delhi household that uses 20 cubic meters per month.

Page | 6

Achievements: Jamshedpur, a city in Jharkhand with 573,000 inhabitants, provided 25% of its residents with continuous water supply in 2009. Navi Mumbai, a planned city with more than 1m inhabitants, has achieved continuous supply for about half its population as of January 2009. Badlapur, another city in the Mumbai Conurbation with a population of 140,000, has achieved continuous supply in 3 out of 10 operating zones, covering 30% of its population Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of Kerala state with a population of 745,000 in 2001, is probably the largest Indian city that enjoys continuous water supply.

Page | 7

4. SERVICE LEVEL BECHMARKS (Issued by MoUD)

TABLE-2

Sr No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Indicator COVERAGE SUPPLY NRW METERING CONTINUITY EFFICIENCY QUALITY RECOVERY COLLECTION

Benchmark Ahmedabad Delhi 100% 135LPCD 15% 100% 24HOURS 80% 100% 100% 90% 85.4 121 31 NIL 2 99.2 94.8 53.9 60.3 71.5 144 52.4 55.3 3 73 99.5 41.6 86.3

Surat 86.6 147 20.4 0.4 3 94.8 100 92.3 94

Chandigrah 87 158 31 73 17.5 100 100 64 89

TABLE-3

Page | 8

Need of service level benchmarks Every sector has a few key performance indicators that are understood by most stakeholders in that sector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there have been a number of performance indicators related to urban management and service delivery that have been defined, measured and reported. However, most initiatives in performance management so far have been observed to have some key limitations: Different sets of performance indicators have been defined under different initiatives; the definition or the assessment method may vary for the same performance indicator, thus inhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons; Most measurement exercises have been externally driven (by agencies external to the agency responsible for delivery against those performance parameters), leading to the key issue of ownership of performance reports; Most performance measurement initiatives have not been institutionalized, limiting the benefits of monitoring trends in performance over time; and The process of performance measurement has not been taken forward into performance management. These limitations mean that systems for measuring performance and taking further action on them have not been institutionalized in urban agencies. It is therefore important that the basic minimum standard set of performance parameters are commonly understood and used by all stakeholders. Depending on the specific need, additional performance parameters can be defined and used.

Page | 9

FIGURE-2

Page | 10

5. WAGATECH PRIVATE LTD: A Brief overview

About Wagatech Wagatech is the operating partner of Wagamet in India. Wagatech are the service provider for water and gas supply utilities in the fields of leak location and loss analysis using smart, modular technology. Wagatech is capitalizing on the expertise and innovative, successful technology envisaged by Wagamet in the areas of leak localization in the bulk drinking water distribution networks since the last 25 years. Its role is to transfer the technology successfully into the Indian Scenario and to foster a culture that believes in the judicious use of water. As there is no other smarter way to monitor a buried water network and be able to predict leakages in the same from the surface itself, we have committed ourselves to draw from the passion of Wagamet (Switzerland ) to conserve and respect water resources in every way we can.

Page | 11

SECTORS WAGATECH WORK Technology upgrade for drinking water networks Technology and knowledge transfer Benchmarking of best practices to save Non Revenue Water Auditing of Water Networks Water Loss Analysis Measurement technology Exact leak location using correlation Noise-level measurement

Water Supplies 1) Locating Water Leakage 2) Water Loss Analysis 3) Locating water mains 4) Locating valves 5) Pressure Measurement 6) GIS 7) Equipment training 8) Infrastructure services 9) Ultrasonic Flow rate measurement 10) Hydrant discharge measurement Gas Supplies 1) Locating Gas leakage 2) Gas Loss Analysis 3) Locating Gas mains 4) Locating Valves
Page | 12

Core Team
Wagatech Mr. Vrajesh Kotadia - Director More than 10 years of experience into the telecom industry project execution. Associated with Wagamet for the last 2 years and trained in Wagamet (Switzerland) in all the leakage detection products and processes in the Swiss Municipal Counties. Mr. Premchandrahas Sastry Business Manager and Technical Head More than 7 years experience into manufacturing plant operations, Utilities and Six Sigma project methodology in General Electric Company. Mr. Anil Solanki Business Manager More 15 years of hands on experience into executing telecom industry projects. Associated with Wagatech for the last 2 years.

Wagamet Mr. Hugo loetcher CEO Associated with Wagamet more than 25 years and played an active role along with the inventor in the innovation of Wagamet leakage detection technology and products. Mr.Thomas Puaschitz - Sales Manager & Technical Head Looking after the export activities of Wagamet worldwide. Installation, commissioning of Wagamet Products worldwide and training of personnel to detect leakages using the technology.
Page | 13

6. SUMMER INTERNSHIP ASSIGNMENT

Carrying out a survey in Municipal Corporations of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Rajkot, Jamnagar as an initiative to share the best practices worldwide to reduce NRW/ UFW in public water supply systems Drawing out Sales strategy of Leak Pen in Vadodara, as a part of understanding and experiencing: Institutional Sales, market Segmentation, Sales Plan, Real Demos and Presentations Understanding the flow chart detailing about hierarchical structure in GoI, GoG, and ULB and its finances

Page | 14

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE RESEARCH DESIGN LITERATURE REVIEW LIMITATIONS

Page | 15

1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
A survey of Indian Municipal Corporation as an Initiative to share the best practices worldwide to reduce NRW / UFW in public water supply systems Tries to find out current benchmark status in Indian Municipalities Exposure of ULBs policy makers with global standards Type of awareness and efforts for fulfilling SLBs Technological Savviest approach of Indian municipalities.

2. RESEARCH DESIGN
Target population Municipal Corporation wards corporator Water Departments of municipality

Sample Size 45 (15 from Ahmedabad, 15 from Rajkot, 12 from Jamnagar, 3 from Vadodara)

Sampling technique A combination of Convenient and Judgment Sampling. (Samples were selected such as, 4 per cities; each city includes 5 administration personnel 5 engineers and 5 corporators from each city. Sample size for each city was small as firstly, it was a pilot study and secondary almost every feedback from each city would be similar as they belong to same Organizational structure. As due to busy schedule, only 3 feedbacks was available from Vadodara) Sources of Data Survey via questionnaire (contact method) containing 12 different questions

Page | 16

Statistical Tool Online survey portal: www.esurveypro.com Personal Project Management through Microsoft Excel 2010 Analysis and data interpretation through generated with help of esurveypro and various charts and graphs using Microsoft Excel and Word

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
SEAWUN Water Supply Benchmark Survey, (2003) Within the World water supply service provider community, there have been many benchmark surveys undertaken including within individual water supply companies over a period of years, between sister water supply companies in relatively close proximity, a number of regional initiatives and on a more global scale such as the recent IBNET initiative. Benchmarking is a recognized method of explicitly documenting performance of individual companies and promoting not only comparative awareness between companies but also indirect competition as companies seek to improve their service delivery, their financial viability and achieve sustainable management of their resources and infrastructure. As the regional association for water supply and wastewater organizations in South East Asia, SEAWUN is committed to encouraging sharing of information, experiences and development of its member companies and organizations. Benchmarking of water supply companies is seen as a key aspect of this mutual support. The attached survey is SEAWUNs first survey of a selection of water supply companies in South East Asia. A key objective of the SEAWUN benchmark survey is to give useful results back to the participants as well generally raise the awareness in South East Asia of the usefulness of benchmarking water supply companies and encouraging others to participate in coming years.

Page | 17

National City Water Survey, Washington D.C (2005) Traditional water meters remain the most common conservation technique, employed by 72.5 percent of the survey cities. However, 68.8 percent of the cities indicated they would consider modernizing with automated water meters if they could save water or money. While the number of cities altering water rate structures is fairly constant over the three population size categories, the proportion of cities employing the technique is clearly related to increasing population size. Almost half of the larger cities use the technique, while only about 40 percent of medium size cities and about 30 percent of smaller size cities do. Urban Water Council (UWC) is a Task Force of The U.S. Conference of Mayors. It is open to all Mayors, and its purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of issues impacting how cities provide and protect community water and wastewater services. Some of the issues that the UWC focuses on include: development and rehabilitation of surface and subsurface water infrastructure; water infrastructure financing; watershed management; water supply planning; water conservation; wetlands construction and education programs; and water system program management and asset management. Additionally, the UWC serves as an educational clearinghouse for cities by compiling and disseminating water resources Best Practices. Mayors were asked to identify which of 24 water resources issues is either a current or future problem for their cities. The list of 24 water resources issues was derived from discussions with Mayors and their staffs, as well as consultation with federal agencies. The list was not intended to be comprehensive. An other response category was included to allow cities to identify issues that were not on the pre-selected list. Mayors were also asked to rank the five most pressing water resources issues on the list. This convention was intended to distinguish priorities among the problem issues, providing invaluable information for federal policy discussions.

Page | 18

4. LIMITATIONS
Time constraints, as only 10days per assignment were allotted. Lack of Secondary Data, as it was the first ever project of such type in Indian Municipalities. Budget constraint, data collection among 4 cities from authorities was extremely costly, including appointments, conveyance, boarding and lodging leading, Convenient and Judgment sampling, and sampling size of 45 in total from 4 cities.

Page | 19

CHAPTER - 3 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Data Analysis Data Sheet Findings

Page | 20

1. ANALYSIS The pattern of water supply (Hours/ day) in my area is as follows.

Respondents
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Less then 1 1-2hours 2-4hours 4-6hours 6 or more Respondents

The pattern of water supply (No of times / Day) in my area is

Respondents
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 >3 Respondents

Page | 21

The pattern of water supply (No of days / week ) in my area is

Respondents
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Respondents

The following problems occur because of leakage in water pipelines. (Tick one or more options)
traffic jams 5% accidents 7% Un availability of water 8%

roas collapsing 10% water loss 22% water logging 7%

increased operations and maintenance cost 29%

water contamination 12%

Page | 22

The following leak detection techniques are used (Tick one or more options.)
Observing water logging 14% others 10%

regular audit 24% Digging network 41% noise logging technology real time 0% measurement 4% GIS 7% pressure management 0%

The measures taken to reduce Non Revenue Water (tick one or more options)

carrying water audits 18% real time monitoring of network 14%

Network inspection 32%

reducing illlegal thefts and connections 22%

Preventive maintenance 14%

Page | 23

We are planning to fulfil the following service level benchmarks issued by government of India (tick one or more options)

80%complaint redressals 30%

100% connections 47%

24*7 water supply 10%

100% metering 13%

The following steps can lead me to fulfil the service level benchmarks

using advance leak detection technologie s 23%

Incresing redressal efficiency 20%

monitoring performance indicators 6%

continuous network monitoring 34%

water audits 17%

Page | 24

A continuous water supply (24 by 7) will require the following (Tick one or more options)
others 5% huge amount of water 14%

real time monitoring of network 22%

100% metering 28% advance leak detection technologies 31%

I have attended the following international programs.

world waterweek 7%

world water day 7%

others 57%

water and sanitation programme of WB 29%

Page | 25

I understand that getting access to the best practices with respect to managing the public water utilities via international programs world facilitate to effectively implement the following.
real time monitoring of water networks 14% 100% collection efficiency 2%

Advance leak detection technological know-how 19%

24*7 water supply 31%

100% water connections 17% 100%metereing 17%

I wish to attend an international program to experience

others 4% real time monitoring of water networks 26% Managing 24*7 water supply 41%

Reduction in leakages 29%

Page | 26

Experiencing the technology and management of worlds best municipalities will help me in improving efficiency of my area.

Respondents
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 definitely probably may be

Respondents

Experiencing leak detection technology in motion in countries where it is practiced will enable the evolution of water distribution networks handled by the municipalities.

Respondents
25 20 15 Respondents 10 5 0 definitely probably may be

Page | 27

Data Sheet Option 1 Q.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 36 0 9 12 27 42 21 15 3 39 33 24 21 18 9 0 27 36 12 12 6 30 3 21 24 18 21 9 0 0 15 0 18 9 18 33 12 21 21 3 3 3 0 0 36 6 12 27 36 24 24 24 3 18 3 24 6 0 9 3 15 12 12 0 33 6 21 9 9 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Page | 28

2. FINDINGS
Water supply is intermittent in nature. Still conventional approaches for solving water leakages are used. 24*7 water supply, still a distant dream due to, no 100% metering, no 100% connections. Need of technological up gradation in ULBs Policy makers and implementers need global exposure to know best international water management practises.

Page | 29

CHAPTER 4 SUGGESTIONS AND OPINIONS

Page | 31

1. SUGGESTIONS AND OPINIONS Advance leak detection technology usage should be considerably increased in
ULBs

Water management consultancy should be taken by ULBs, dignifying

fund received from Centre and State for system up gradation.

ample

People are the part of Local self-governance; henceforth they should be invoked and involved in managing water. More awareness among people via campaigns should be propagated regarding SLBs. SHGs should be formed among societies and cooperatives who take care of water and its usage in respective areas. PPP propaganda should be on top of ULBs agenda in area of water management system. Water programs at local level for common citizen should be held. Policy implementers should be given chance to gain access and experience Internationally reputed and acclaimed Municipalities for knowledge sharing and technical know-how of various aspects of managing public water utilities.

Programs even on rain water, storm water and re-processing of water should be carried out at a peak level, as OCED reports of water scarcity in Indian subcontinent by 2030.

Page | 31

CHAPTER 5 GOVERMENTAL STRUCTURE

(Bodies working on Water on Central & State level) CENTRAL BODIES STATE BODIES INSTITUTITONAL FRAMEWORK

32 | P a g e

1. CENTRE
Ministries

Ministry of Water Resources Ministry of Urban Development

Attached Offices

Central Soil And Materials Research Station Central Soil and Materials Research Station (CSMRS) Central Water Commission (CWC) Subordinate Offices

Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) Ganga Flood Control Commission (GFCC), Patna Sardar Sarovar Construction Advisory Committee (SSCAC) Upper Yamuna River Board Autonomous Bodies, Boards & Corporations

National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Roorkee Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation National Water Development Agency (NWDA) Boards / Undertakings

Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) Central Ground Water Board North Western Region Chandigarh National Projects Construction Corporation Limited (NPCC) National Water Academy, Central Water Commission, Pune, Maharashtra Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Limited (WAPCOS) Water Quality Assessment Authority
33 | P a g e

Statutory Bodies, Commissions & Councils, Statutory / Constitutional Bodies Central Ground Water Board, Kerala Region, Trivandrum Central Ground Water Board, Middle East Region, Patna Central Ground Water Board, North Central Region, Bhopal Central Ground Water Board, Northern Region, Lucknow Central Ground Water Board, South Western Region, Bangalore Central Ground Water Board, Western Region, Ahmedabad Central Ground Water Board, Western Region, Jaipur Task Force on Interlinking of Rivers Public Sector Undertakings Water and Power Consultancy Services Ltd (WAPCOS) Introduction National Projects Construction Corporation Limited Narmada Control Authority Betwa River Board Tungabhadra Board Brahmaputra Board

34 | P a g e

2. GUJARAT
Ministries Ministry, Water Supply and Water Resources

Attached Offices Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, Gujarat Autonomous Bodies, Boards & Corporations GWSSB GMFB GUDM GWRDC Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited

Boards / Undertakings WALMI ( Water and Land Management Institute ) WASMO Sardar Sarovar Construction Advisory Committee (SSCAC)

35 | P a g e

3. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN URBAN WATER SUPPLY IN GUJARAT

Capital Works GWSSB, Municipal Body Operations & Maintenance Municipal body Revenue Function Municipal body

Suggested frequency and jurisdiction of reporting

36 | P a g e

CHAPTER 6 SALES STRATEGY FOR Leak Pen

PRODUCT INTRODUCTION SALES STRATEGY

37 | P a g e

1. PRODUCT INTRODUCTION
Leak PEN - Leak location made easy! Mobile, on-site leak-location unit for acoustic leakage detection in pressurized piping with outstanding measurement characteristics. Fittings, fire-hydrants, house connections etc. can be checked out in simple way during maintenance and inspection work, when reading meters or during the on-site location of leakage.

38 | P a g e

The Leak PEN is attached by means of test probe or magnetic clamp to the point of measurement. The noise level is immediately optically dis played and can be read off by means of a linear LED display. Additionally, the leakage noise can be listened to using wireless headphones. Basically, the stronger the measured noise levels the closer the leakage location. If no leakage noises are heard, the section of piping can be considered to be intact. Background noise is automatically suppressed by predefined frequency filters. Normally, leaks can be detected up working

to a distance of 200 m. This is dependent on piping material and pressure. Price: 75000 INR Approx.

39 | P a g e

2. Sales Strategy
A good sales strategy includes: Clarifying your sales objectives. Deciding how to reach target customers. Planning and supporting your sales effort. Monitoring and improving effectiveness. It basically answers, to whom I am selling, what am I selling, why are they buying? So in order to fix a tentative sales strategy for leak pen, looking at the functionality, plumbers were the most suitable target user for the product. So our sales strategy (tentatively) goes as under: Potential market segment Builders Plumbers Hardware stores Water management consultancies Municipalities and local bodies Now out of all possible segments, Hardware stores seemed most potential as reasons for it were as follows: Dealing in wholesale with Builders and Real Estate. Deals with small & big plumbers for retail sales. Potential investment capacity Possibility of dealing with Local Governance Bodies Contact with a huge pool of people, including customer of different available accessories apart of water utilities available at hardware store.

40 | P a g e

How to reach Segment (it could be direct, joint and by using channels): The most effective, in terms of its cost and impact on customer, live product demos were arranged at various Hardware Stores. Products functionality, usage and effectiveness to solve the real world problem were mapped. Technical team visited various sites with the Hardware Store owners and leaks were detected from the leaked network. Even product leaflets were provided to the hardware stores that had mixed reviews.

Cost-benefit Analysis for Acquirer COST Price of product: 75000 INR Approx.(one time) BENEFITS No digging of full network. No additional manual work No cost of having a mansion to repair. No cost of replacing full pipe, if damaged in maintenance and operations Can rent\lease out product for commercial users. Can start a new business of Water Audits. Can charge, extra margins for accuracy Can go in lieu of local bodies for public water maintenance. Can target occasional but elite customers like interior designers, swimming pools and water parks. Long life with proven Swiss technology.
41 | P a g e

CHAPTER 7 BIBILIOGRAPHY

Page | 42

1. BIBILIOGRAPHY

Bhattacharyya D K, Research methodology, first edition (2003). pp.56-70 Luck David J. & Ronald S. Rubin, Marketing Research. Seventh Edition, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi (1998). pp. 31-253 Malhotra Naresh, Marketing Research. Fifth Edition, Pearson Education (2007). pp.64-416 Kotler Philip, Keller Kevin Lane, Koshy Abraham, Zha Mithileshwar,Marketing Management, Thirteenth Edition, Pearson Education Ltd(2009) Official websites of:

1. Ministry of Urban Development. 2. National Portal of India 3. State Portal of Gujarat 4. Wagatech Private Ltd. 5. Google 6. Wikipedia 7. Municipal Corporations of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Rajkot, Jamnagar. 8. Esurveypro 9. Gujarat Technological University 10. Wagamet

Page | 43

CHAPTER 8 ANNEXURE
Questionnaire Handbook extracts of SLB

44 | P a g e

INITIATIVE TO SHARE THE BEST PRACTICES WORLDWIDE TO REDUCE NRW/ UFW IN PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

An initiative to save water, save life!

Dear sir/madam, Though 70% of earths surface is covered by water, the usable water on earth is only 0.1%. The cost of converting saline water into usable water is extremely high. Reducing the amount of water loss and unaccounted for water in municipal water use has been identified as an opportunity for conservation of usable water. We the students of GTU have initiated programme to share the best practices in world to reduce NRW/ UFW in public water supply systems. Kindly spare some time from your busy schedule and share your views about this initiative with us.

NAME: _______________________________________________

DESIGNATION _________________________________________

WARD NUMBER: _________________CITY _________________

PHONE NUMBER: (M) ________________(R) _________________

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Its only good till the last drop, then What?

Conserve now, Use Water Smartly!

1) The pattern of water supply (Hours/ day) in my area is as follows. <1 1-2 2-4 4-6 >6 Hours / Day 1 No of times a day 7 No of days / Week 2) The following problems occur because of leakage in water pipelines. ( Tick one or more options) Unavailability of water supply Water loss Increased operations and maintenance cost Water logging Road collapsing Traffic Jams Accidents 6 4-5 3 <3 2 3 4 >4

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Do one thing each day that will save water,

Even if savings are small, every drop counts!

3) The following leak detection techniques are used (Tick one or more options.) By observing water logging Digging the entire network to detect leakage Pressure management of pipeline Geographic Information System Real time measurement Use of Noise Logging Technology By regular audit approach

4) The measures taken to reduce Non Revenue Water (tick one or more options) Preventive network inspection Preventive maintenance of distribution network Reducing illegal connections and water theft Real time monitoring of network Carrying on water audits Use of Noise Logging Technology Others

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Use water economically today,

To get economic water tomorrow!

5) We are planning to fulfil the following service level benchmarks issued by government of India (tick one or more options) 100% coverage of water supply connections 100% metering of all water connections 24 hours continuous water supply 80% efficiency n addressing customer complaints

6) The following steps can lead me to fulfil the service level benchmarks Increasing efficiency in addressing customer complaints Monitoring the performance indicators Carrying on water audit Continuous monitoring of water distribution network Using advanced leak detection technique

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Save water,

Noting can replace it!

7) A continuous water supply (24 by 7) will require the following (Tick one or more options)

Huge amount of water Metering of all connections Advanced leak detection technology Real time monitoring of water distribution network Using advanced leak detection technique

8) I have attended the following international programs. World water week World water day Water and sanitation program Other Please specify

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Its only good till the last drop, then What?

Conserve now, Use Water Smartly!

9) I understand that getting access to the best practices with respect to managing the public water utilities via international programs world facilitate to effectively implement the following. Continuous ( 2 4 by 7 ) water supply 100 % coverage of water supply connections 100% metered water connections Advanced leak detection technology Real time monitoring of water distribution network 100% efficiency in collection of revenues Other Please specify

10) I wish to attend an international program to experience Management of continuous ( 24 by 7 ) Water supply Reduction in leak time using advanced technology Real time monitoring of water supply networks Other Please specify

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Its only good till the last drop, then What?

Conserve now, Use Water Smartly!

11) Experiencing the technology and management of worlds best municipalities will help me in improving efficiency of my area. Definitely Probably May be

12) Experiencing leak detection technology in motion in countries where it is practiced will enable the evolution of water distribution networks handled by the municipalities. Definitely Probably May be

Thank you for spending your valuable time and sharing your views with. We ensure you that the above information will be strictly used for educational purpose. Place: ______________ Sign: ________________ Date: ___/07 / 2011

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2.

WATER SUPPLY Indicator Coverage of Water Supply connections Per Capita Supply of Water Extent of Non-revenue Water Extent of Metering Continuity of Water supplied Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Quality of Water Supplied Cost Recovery Efficiency in Collection of Water Charges SEWERAGE Coverage of Toilets Coverage of Sewerage Network Collection efficiency of Sewerage Network Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Capacity Quality of Sewage Treatment Extent of Reuse and Recycling of Sewage Extent of cost recovery in waste water management Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Efficiency in Collection of Sewage Water Charges SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Household Level Coverage Efficiency in Collection of Solid Waste Extent of Segregation of MSW Extent of MSW Recovered Extent of Scientific Disposal of MSW Extent of Cost Recovery Efficiency in Collection of SWM Charges Efficiency in Redressal of Customer Complaints STORM WATER DRAINAGE Coverage Incidence of water logging

Benchmark 100% 135 lpcd 15% 100% 24 Hours 80% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 80% 90% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 90% 80% 100% 0 numbers

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

HANDBOOK OF

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India

HANDBOOK OF

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES

BENCHMARKS AT A GLANCE
2.1 S. No. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.1.8 2.1.9 2.2 S. No. 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.2.9 2.3 S. No. 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8 2.4 S. No. 2.4.1 2.4.2 Water Supply Services Proposed Indicator Coverage of water supply connections Per capita supply of water Extent of metering of water connections Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) Continuity of water supply Quality of water supplied Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Cost recovery in water supply services Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges Sewage Management (Sewerage and Sanitation) Proposed Indicator Coverage of toilets Coverage of sewage network services Collection efficiency of the sewage network Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity Quality of sewage treatment Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Extent of cost recovery in sewage management Efficiency in collection of sewage charges Solid Waste Management Proposed Indicator Household level coverage of solid waste management services Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste Extent of municipal solid waste recovered Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Extent of cost recovery in SWM services Efficiency in collection of SWM charges Storm Water Drainage Proposed Indicator Coverage of storm water drainage network Incidence of water logging/flooding Benchmark 100% 0 Benchmark 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 80% 100% 90% Benchmark 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 80% 100% 90% Benchmark 100% 135 lpcd 100% 20% 24 hours 100% 80% 100% 90%

10

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES

1.0
1.1 NEED FOR SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

INTRODUCTION TO SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

Every sector has a few key performance indicators that are understood by most stakeholders in that sector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there have been a number of performance indicators related to urban management and service delivery that have been defined, measured and reported. However, most initiatives in performance management so far have been observed to have some key limitations: a Different sets of performance indicators have been defined under different initiatives; a The definition or the assessment method may vary for the same performance indicator, thus inhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons; a Most measurement exercises have been externally driven (by agencies external to the agency responsible for delivery against those

performance parameters), leading to the key issue of ownership of performance reports; a Most performance measurement initiatives have not been institutionalised, limiting the benefits of monitoring trends in performance over time; and a The process of performance measurement has not been taken forward into performance management (Figure 1). These limitations mean that systems for measuring performance and taking further action on them have not been institutionalised in urban agencies. It is therefore important that the basic minimum standard set of performance parameters are commonly understood and used by all stakeholders. Depending on the specific need, additional performance parameters can be defined and used.

12

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES

1.2 PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FOR BASIC URBAN SERVICES

Service level performance parameters have been identified for four basic urban services: a Water Supply; a Sewage; a Solid Waste Management (SWM); and a Storm Water Drainage These parameters have been defined primarily from a utility managers/planners perspective. In other words, the parameters highlight the performance as would be monitored by the leadership/management of ULBs or other civic agencies. These performance measurements will need to be carried out by the service delivery agencies themselves, reported to higher levels of management and also disseminated widely. Clear definitions and methodologies are expected to eliminate bias in measurement and reporting. Performance from a citizens or consumers point of view is better measured by capturing their perception, rather than data from the delivery agency. Measuring citizens perception can be supplemented by reporting by the agencies themselves, and can offer interesting insights when compared with one another. Performance parameters should be applied across all cities and regularly used by all stakeholders. Practical considerations will drive frequency of measurement and reporting; and the jurisdiction of measurement and reporting, both critical aspects in performance measurement. Performance will need to be measured at a frequency higher than or at least equal to the frequency at which it will need to Also, to the extent practical, performance should be measured at the smallest geographic jurisdiction as possible. Typically, performance measurements at the electoral ward level will be of significant value to decision-makers, especially elected representatives. Administrative jurisdictions for service delivery departments should ideally be co-terminus with ward boundaries. Service delivery performance at ward levels, when laid out spatially on the city map, may also offer interesting insights. Also from a citizens perspective, ward boundaries are the sub-ULB level jurisdictions that they can possibly relate to. However, on the other hand, in case of network utilities such as water supply and sewage, all network management data are ideally reported by the Zone/District Metering Area (DMA), which typically represents major branches in the network. It will therefore be relevant to examine network management-related performance indicators by Zone/sub-jurisdictions of the network (for example, continuity of water supply), while service delivery as experienced by the citizen is measured by civic wards as the smallest jurisdiction (for example, coverage of water supply connections). For purposes of internal management of the ULB/utility, performance should be reported at the lowest level of jurisdiction and at maximum frequency possible. However, frequency may reduce and city-wide level performance may be reported to the higher levels of government and other external stakeholders. be reported. Frequency should be determined at such an interval at which the variables driving the performance parameter will undergo visible change, and thereby reflect change in performance over different time periods.

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

13

1.3 ROLES OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS

For the service level performance parameters to be accepted as a standard, all stakeholders will need to play their parts. The roles of different stakeholders and the next steps they will need to pursue are: a Central Government: MoUD, Government of India, will take the lead in disseminating these service level performance parameters and building wider acceptance. SLBs will also be institutionalised through the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and other programmes initiated by MoUD: SLBs will be an integral part of City Development Planning processes, both for assessment of the current situation, and for setting targets under their plans; Wherever appropriate, SLBs will be dovetailed with the commitment on reforms, and the subsequent process of appraisal of reforms; The relevant SLBs should be part of Detailed Project Reports for concerned sectors, indicating both the current situation and changes the project will bring about. Subsequent processes of implementation monitoring of the project will also evaluate these SLBs; and Under the JNNURM, support may be extended to enable ULBs and other civic agencies to establish systems in their respective institutions for periodic measurement, reporting and analysis of SLBs. a State Governments and their Agencies: State governments and their nodal agencies in the urban sector have a critical role in driving the performance of ULBs and city level civic agencies. State governments will need to periodically evaluate the SLBs as an input for its decisions related to policy, resource allocations, providing incentives and penalties, channelising technical and manpower support, and regulatory considerations, among others. The Directorate of Local Bodies/Department of Municipal Administration will need to play a key role in this process through constant inter-city comparisons. These departments should leverage the power of information technology to build and operate systems that periodically capture and report on SLBs. Web-based technologies should be leveraged to manage information flow. For other nodal State level agencies, the SLBs will provide specific inputs for their programmes and interface with the ULBs and other civic agencies. SLBs will also be an important input to the State Finance Commissions in the course of their work. a Urban Local Bodies: ULBs are the most important stakeholders for the institutionalisation of Service Level Benchmarking. As service delivery institutions, ULBs will find it useful to institutionalise systems for performance management using SLBs. Performance data at the sub-ULB level (Zone or ward level) are particularly useful for the ULB for making appropriate decisions and monitoring performance of the various field units. Benchmarking with other cities within the State, or with similar cities, facilitates a healthy competitive environment for continuous improvement; and As the principal elected institution for self-governance in the city, ULBs will need to examine performance of other

14

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES

parastatal civic agencies, even if the ULBs are not directly responsible for service delivery in those areas. Performance management data using SLBs should be included in the set of information disseminated under mandatory public disclosure, as required by the reforms mandate under JNNURM. The key next steps for ULBs are to generate performance reports on SLBs periodically beginning financial year (FY) 2008-09. Data can be captured either regularly through systems on the ground (for example, weighbridges at the composting plant or landfill site, water meters capturing flow at designated points, demand collection registers for water charges, etc.), or through specific surveys carried out at defined intervals. In parallel, the ULBs will also need to institutionalise systems for the entire cycle of performance management, as depicted in Figure 1. This would imply: Systems for capturing data: Design and implement data collection systems for data to be captured at the most disaggregated level. Such data will typically be from field level staff such as sanitary supervisors, water pump operators, accounts clerks, etc. Simple data

formats should be designed and provided to them to capture the data and report it upwards within the organisation for collation and determination of the service level performance; Systems for collation and analysis of performance indicators: Specific persons should be designated with the mandate to collate the data received from the field and generate the performance reports. Working directly under supervision and guidance from officers at the head of department level, young professionals with good analytical skills and moderate levels of technical skills should be able to execute these tasks; Systems for assessment and evaluation of performance: In most cases, multiple indicators need to be examined to obtain a holistic picture of service levels in a particular sector. Performance indicators reported by the department level should be closely examined at the management level of the ULB. Such reviews by the Mayor/ Municipal Commissioner should take place at a defined frequency, say monthly;

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

15

Systems for decision-making: All ULBs do have systems for decision-making; however, many decisions end up being considered in the absence of quality data. To address such gaps, systems such as periodically tabling the performance reports in the Council/to the Standing Committees should be instituted. Typically, reporting ward level performance parameters, wherever applicable, will be useful; Systems for operational decisions and plans: Decisions and plans will need to be periodically reviewed in light of the performance achieved and follow-on decisions taken up. Additional capital or revenue expenditure may be needed, contracting decisions made, and remedial action taken with respect to deployment of staff, etc. A process of monthly review and follow-up decisions will need to be instituted; and Systems to take corrective action for performance improvement: To enable the operational staff implement corrective action on the ground, they will need to be adequately empowered to implement the decisions taken without lengthy approval processes. For networked infrastructure services, as in most urban services, significant efficiency improvements can be brought about through operational improvements without significant capital investment. A system of incentives and penalties must be instituted to attain targeted performance levels. This is critical for the field functionaries to respond in making quick operational improvements. Similarly, the system of penalties for errant staff that has lead to poor performance should be institutionalised. a Other Parastatal Agencies: The significance of Service Level Benchmarking and the next

steps parastatal agencies need to undertake are very similar to that for ULBs. Parastatal agencies too need to put systems in place for performance management as mentioned above. The need for periodic reporting of SLBs to ULBs concerned and its public disclosure is further highlighted in this case, thereby bringing in higher intensity of accountability of parastatal agencies to elected bodies and the public at large. a Bi-lateral/Multi-lateral Aid Agencies and Other Stakeholders: Various urban governance and infrastructure improvement programmes initiated by bi-lateral and multi-lateral aid agencies can dovetail with and further strengthen this initiative, mainly in two ways: Enabling State governments and cities in design and implementation of performance management systems, with a focus on the SLBs defined; and Extensively using the SLBs defined in the design, implementation and monitoring of the urban programmes supported by them. Benchmarking service levels and achieving targets for each of these SLBs can be built into the design of these programmes. Organisations such as City Managers Associations, public administration training institutions, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, other external and internal audit agencies, financial institutions and a whole range of external stakeholders should examine these SLBs in the course of their interactions with the ULBs. a Citizens and Civil Society: While the SLBs have not been defined from the citizens perspective as such, the parameters considered provide reasonable indication of performance of the ULB/civic agency. Citizens should engage with ULBs through Area Sabhas, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and other such civil society organisations, in examining the SLBs and suggesting remedial actions.

16

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USING SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS
It is recognised that this initiative to implement performance management systems using SLBs has a number of limitations. Performance management in ULBs is being catalysed by the Central Government; however, it is acceptance and capacity at the State and city levels that will sustain this initiative. While this Handbook has attempted to address issues of definition and methodology for Service Level Benchmarking, it is anticipated that a number of complexities will arise in the course of actual implementation. Field level experience in implementing service delivery performance management systems may also throw up the need for monitoring additional parameters. This experience should then provide feedback for improving the SLBs and preparing the second version of this Handbook. Challenges involved in implementing performance management systems using SLBs will be many. They will include: a Systems for capturing key data elements identified for Service Level Benchmarking are not present in many cases at the field level. Ideally data are always captured at the lowest level. Interpreting and understanding performance is always easier at an aggregate level; this is not possible at the disaggregated level, if data have not been captured at that level. Also the data at city/ULB level can be credible and reasonably accurate, only if they have been captured at the lower levels, such as the ward level. For example, if ward level data are captured on hours of water supply, they can be aggregated at a ULB level. However, if the number of hours is only assessed and reported at the city level, ward-wise variances cannot be examined; a To measure input parameters for a performance indicator, there may be a tendency to measure through ad hoc systems, which can be a one-off exercise. However, to generate data from the field level on a regular basis to sustain periodic performance measurement, sustainable systems need to be put in place; a In some cases, there may be resistance of field staff or other stakeholders to collect and report correct information, as vested interests may be involved. Such vested interests may also want to prevent transparent disclosure of the performance measured. Such hurdles will need to be overcome; a As mentioned earlier, definition and measurement methodology issues will continue to exist, though they will be refined with experience. Also, some other indicators may seem important or more SLBs may seem to be necessary for interpreting performance; and a Performance management will be sustainable only if disclosure, reporting, monitoring and performance management feedback, incentives and disincentives are also brought into the cycle. Else the system of measurement and disclosure of SLBs may not sustain itself.

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

17

1.5 STANDARDISATION OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

Each indicator has been detailed out in a standardised template in the following pages to present the definition and computation methodology of the selected SLBs (performance indicators). For each selected indicator, the following details have been provided: a Title, units and definition: The specific name, the unit of measurement in which the performance is to be measured, and definition for the indicator is provided; a Data requirements: The specific elements of data that need to be captured are identified, along with the corresponding unit of measurement. Each data element is described, and point and frequency of data capture are mentioned. The specific formulae that should be used to arrive at the performance indicator are mentioned; a Rationale for the indicator: For each performance indicator, the overall significance and rationale for assessing and monitoring the performance indicator have been provided. The benchmark value has been specified in most cases; a Reliability of measurement: The performance measurement is only as reliable for meaningful management decisions as the systems that generate the data to compute the performance. Typically, four levels of reliability of data systems have been specified: A, B, C, and D, with A being of highest reliability and D being lowest. Reliability of measurement highlights a hitherto ignored aspect in performance management of urban servicesthe need to design, implement and institutionalise robust systems and processes that will provide data of high reliability, on a repeat basis, and in a consistent manner. ULBs/ urban utilities are advised to institute systems corresponding to the level A specified. Such a transition will not happen in a short time period. Thus, while performance levels are improved over time, so should the data systems through which data are captured. The goal, therefore, is to reach the benchmark performance level of A level reliability of measurement; a Frequency of measurement: Frequency of measurement of the performance indicator refers to the frequency at which the performance level will be assessed and not the frequency at which the data elements will be measured. For each indicator, the minimum frequency at which the performance should be measured is mentioned. It can then be reported at the same frequency or a lower frequency. The frequency at which performance is measured is critical since: There should ideally be visible change or potential for changing the performance level between two consecutive time periods. (For example, it may not be possible to change the availability of treatment plant capacity in a few months; therefore it should be measured and reported on an annual basis. However, hours of water supply may vary with seasons and can be improved during the year, therefore it should be reported at a quarterly and an annual frequency.); If the time period is set too long, the performance measured cannot effectively feed back into making operational improvements; If the time period is set too short, significant time will be lost in only measuring and reporting performance; and Performance cannot be reported at a frequency higher than at which it has been measured.

18

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES

Performance should be reported more frequently within the organisation, and at a lower frequency to higher levels of government, for example, performance reports should be tabled to the Standing Committees and Municipal Councils at monthly or quarterly frequencies. However, they may be reported at annual frequency to State and Central governments; and a Jurisdiction of measurement: This refers to the geographic jurisdiction for which performance should be measured, and not the point of data collection. Typically, measuring urban service delivery performance at a sub-city level makes more sense for city level stakeholders, than only city level performance indicators. For instance, for an urban citizen or municipal councillor, it would be useful to know the performance of a particular service in that ward, especially in relation to other wards. Also measuring performance only at the city level will disguise huge differences in service levels that exist between different localities in one city, a phenomenon common in most Indian cities. Similarly, for stakeholders at the State and Central level, it is useful to have city level performance indicators, as they would be useful to compare and contrast cities. Such information will then be useful for the formulation of State level and national strategies and policy responses. Measuring performance at a lower level jurisdiction enables aggregation of the data to indicate performance at a larger jurisdiction. Thus, if ward level performance is known for all wards, ULB level performance can also be reported.

Please note that, with respect to geographic jurisdictions for the performance indicators, the terms ULB and city have been used inter-changeably. This has been done since, in larger cities/urban agglomerations, there are multiple ULBs within the city while in smaller cities, the ULBs typically cover the entire urban boundaries. In many cities, certain services such as water supply and waste water management may be provided and/or managed by a parastatal utility for a larger urban jurisdiction, rather than the limits of the ULB/s. In such cases, the data and performance indicators may pertain to the jurisdictions of the parastatal utility. Therefore, the unit of ULB/city should be interpreted as appropriate to the given context.

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE HANDBOOK

Section II of the Handbook provides details regarding each selected SLB. The list of indicators has been chosen after taking into account experiences in pilot initiatives in implementing Service Level Benchmarking across ULBs/utilities. The quality of available data, effort required in data collection and the significance of the indicator has been considered in arriving at this set of indicators. Section III of the Handbook provides guidance on how Service Level Benchmarking can be operationalised. Samples of performance reports of SLBs that ULBs/civic agencies can use to set and track their performance improvement are provided.

20

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.0
Lists of SLBs have been chosen so as to reflect the multiple facets of service delivery performance. SLBs for which detailed data sheets are provided are: a 2.1 Water Supply Services: As water is a basic need, emphasis has been laid on performance related to reach and access to quality service, and prevalence and effectiveness of the systems to manage the water supply networks. As financial sustainability is critical for continued effectiveness in service delivery, performance is measured on this aspect too. Indicators selected are: 2.1.1 Coverage of water supply connections 2.1.2 Per capita supply of water 2.1.3 Extent of metering of water connections 2.1.4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) 2.1.5 Continuity of water supply 2.1.6 Quality of water supplied 2.1.7 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 2.1.8 Cost recovery in water supply services 2.1.9 Efficiency in collection of water supplyrelated charges a 2.2 Sewage Management (Sewerage and Sanitation): For sewage management, performance related to reach and access of the service, effectiveness of the network and environmental sustainability have been emphasised, apart from financial sustainability of operations. Indicators selected are:

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.2.1 Coverage of toilets 2.2.2 Coverage of sewage network services 2.2.3 Collection efficiency of sewage network 2.2.4 Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity 2.2.5 Quality of sewage treatment 2.2.6 Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage 2.2.7 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 2.2.8 Extent of cost recovery in sewage management 2.2.9 Efficiency in collection of sewage charges a 2.3 Solid Waste Management: Performance related to reach and access, effectiveness of network operations and environmental sustainability have been considered, apart from financial sustainability of operations. Indicators selected are: 2.3.1 Household level coverage of solid waste management services 2.3.2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste 2.3.3 Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste 2.3.4 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered 2.3.5 Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

21

2.3.6 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 2.3.7 Extent of cost recovery in SWM services 2.3.8 Efficiency in collection of SWM charges a 2.4 Storm Water Drainage: Extent of the network and effectiveness of the network are

emphasised to assess storm water drainage system performance. As this service does not yield any direct revenues, financial sustainability is not considered. Indicators selected are: 2.4.1 Coverage of storm water drainage network 2.4.2 Incidence of water logging/flooding

22

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1
2.1.1 COVERAGE OF WATER SUPPLY CONNECTIONS

WATER SUPPLY SERVICES

Performance Indicator
Indicator Household level coverage of direct water supply connections Unit % Definition Total number of households in the service area that are connected to the water supply network with direct service connections, as a percentage of the total number of households in that service area. Service area implies a specific jurisdiction in which service is required to be provided.

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of households in the service area Unit Number Remarks The total number of households (not properties) in the service area should be calculated. The service area refers to either the ward or ULB limits. Cadastre maps supplemented through actual ground level surveys (carried out once in four to five years) should provide these data. Exclusive surveys need not be carried out, and data can be collected during other surveys carried out for property tax, or other such purposes. This will include households which receive municipal water supply at one common point, from where it is stored and distributed to all households (for example, as in apartment complexes). Households supplied water through public standposts or tankers should be excluded. Households completely dependent on other water sources such as borewells, open wells, etc., should not be included. Coverage = [(b/a)*100]

b. Total number of households with direct water supply connection

Number

Household coverage for water supply connections

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

23

Rationale for the Indicator

The minimum level acceptable standard for water supply service should be a household level water supply connection, that is, a direct piped connection for water supply within the household. Water provision to households (urban poor or otherwise), at common public standposts cannot be considered as an acceptable/long-term permanent service provision standard. The social costs of not having access to a piped water connection at the household level are significant. Innovative service delivery options may be adopted for delivery of piped water connections to properties with inappropriate tenure rights (as in many urban slums). It is therefore important to measure this performance indicator, the benchmark value for which should be 100 percent.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method Estimation of households covered on the basis of geographical area of the city covered with the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicator for water supply coverage. Estimation of households covered on the basis of road length in the city covered by the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicator for water supply coverage. Estimation of households covered computed as the total number of connections (for which data are maintained) as a percentage of the estimated number of households on the basis of population (total population divided by average household size). Calculation based on the actual number of households with direct service connections (for which data are maintained); and the total number of households as revealed in ground level surveys. Data are periodically updated on the basis of building units approved, and new household level water connections provided. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level

Intermediate level (C)

Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Quarterly

24

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.2 PER CAPITA SUPPLY OF WATER

Performance Indicator
Indicator Per capita quantum of water supplied Unit Definition

litres per Total water supplied to consumers expressed by capita per population served per day. day (lpcd)

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Water supplied to the distribution system Unit litres per month Remarks Daily quantities should be measured through metering, and records maintained. The total supply for the month should be based on an aggregate of daily quantum. Only treated water input into the distribution system should be measured. If water is distributed from multiple points, the aggregate of that quantity should be considered. The quantum should exclude bulk water transmission and distribution losses, as measured through water audit tests. This quantum should include water purchased directly from any other sources and put into the distribution system, if any. Water may have been purchased from neighbouring ULBs, Cantonment Boards, etc. Water supplied in bulk to large water intensive industries/industrial estates should be excluded. The number of people in the service area served by the utility. While typically the number of residents are considered, if the city has a significant floating population of tourists who temporarily reside in the city, such a population should be included. Tourist population estimates can be reasonably computed on the basis of bed capacity of hotels, and occupancy rates. The number of days in the specific month.

b. Population served

Number

c. Number of days in the month d. Additional information on areas where water is supplied at a rate less than 70 lpcd

Number

litres per The number of people in these service areas served capita per by the utility. The quantity of water supplied to these day (lpcd) areas measured through bulk meters or by scientific calculation using flow velocity and head. lpcd Per capita water supplied = [(a/c) /b]

Water supplied

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

25

Rationale for the Indicator

This frequently used performance indicator provides an overall indication of the adequacy of the water supply to meet the needs of the citizens in the city. Per capita water supplied, expressed in lpcd, indicates the adequacy of the municipal water supply system in being able to source, treat water to potable standards and supply it into the distribution system. Therefore, this indicator should be periodically measured and monitored. Monitoring this on a monthly basis will reveal seasonal variations. The benchmark value for this indicator is 135 lpcd. However, the additional information in respect of the areas where water is supplied at the rate of 70 lpcd should also be indicated. The key limitation of this indicator is that it provides information on a city-wide basis, and does not reveal intra-city variations.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumed pump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours of operation. The population served is calculated on the basis of past census figures, extrapolated to current levels. Reliable estimates of the floating population are not available. The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of measurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at all bulk production points. Reliable estimates of transmission losses and industrial water consumption are available. The population served is calculated on the basis of past census figures, extrapolated to current levels. Reliable estimates of the floating population are not available. Not applicable. The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of measurement by bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant and/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of losses and bulk industrial consumption are periodically monitored. The population served is known with reasonable accuracy. Any expansion of municipal limits and other significant factors are measured and factored into the current population computation. The floating population is estimated with reasonable accuracy. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level

Intermediate level (C)

Intermediate level (B) Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Quarterly

26

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.3 EXTENT OF METERING OF WATER CONNECTIONS

Performance Indicator
Indicator Extent of metering of water connections Unit % Definition The total number of functional metered water connections expressed as a percentage of the total number of water supply connections. Public standpost connections should also be included.

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of direct service connections Unit Remarks

Number

This will include households and establishments which receive municipal water supply at one common point, from where it may be stored and distributed for all households (for example, as in apartment complexes). Households completely dependent on other water sources such as bore wells, open wells, etc., should not be included. The total number of public standpost connections, which are currently in use, should be considered. Of the total number of direct service connections (to all categories of consumers), the number of connections which have functional meters, and metered quantities is the basis for billing of water charges. Typically, public standposts are not metered. However, if some are metered, they should be included. Extent of metered connections = [(c + d)/ (a + b)]*100

b. Total number of public standposts c. Number of metered direct service connections

Number

Number

d. Number of metered public standposts

Number

Extent of metering of water connections

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

27

Rationale for the Indicator

While water is a basic need, the supply of potable water to citizens at their doorstep involves significant costs in building, operating and maintaining a system to do so. In a water supply system, the quantum of service provided to citizens is directly measurable, and therefore it is necessary that all the water supplied to all categories of consumers should be metered. Metering will also induce efficiency in use of water, reveal physical and administrative leakages in the system, and enable high-end consumers to be charged for consuming more. Therefore, to introduce a volumetric-based tariff structure for water charges, metering all connections is essential. It is, therefore, important to monitor this indicator, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method A few meters have been installed. All installed meters are assumed to be functional and used as the basis for billing water charges. Meters are installed for only certain categories of consumers. It is assumed all consumers of these categories have meters installed which are functional and used as the basis for billing. Records do not reveal the exact number of connections which are metered. Water is charged on the basis of average readings for the consumer category or on the basis of past trends in most cases. Databases/records reveal the list of consumers that have meters installed in their water connections. However, there are no clear data on functioning of meters, and no linkage with the billing system that may or may not use metered quantity as the basis for billing. Billing records and databases clearly identify consumers with meters (against specific meter serial number). Billing processes reveal regular reading of meters and meter readings are the basis for charging consumers. Records on standposts are available. Databases of water connections and meters are complete, and spatially referenced with a geographic information system (GIS) database. There is a mechanism in place to repair meters if found faulty. Processes for installation of new water connections, installation of meters and generation of water bills based on this are interlinked, and the data systems enable such continuity of data flow regarding these. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level

Intermediate level (C)

Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Quarterly

28

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.4 EXTENT OF NON-REVENUE WATER (NRW)

Performance Indicator
Indicator Extent of NRW Unit % Definition This indicator highlights the extent of water produced which does not earn the utility any revenue. This is computed as the difference between the total water produced (ex-treatment plant) and the total water sold expressed as a percentage of the total water produced. NRW comprises: a) Consumption which is authorised but not billed, such as public standposts; b) Apparent losses such as illegal water connections, water theft and metering inaccuracies; and c) Real losses which are leakages in the transmission and distribution networks.

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total water produced and put into the transmission and distribution system Unit Remarks

million litres per day (or) month

Daily quantities should be measured through metering, and records on the transmission and distribution system should be maintained. The total supply for the month should be based on the aggregate of the daily quantum. Only treated water input into the distribution system should be measured. If water is distributed from multiple points, the aggregate of that quantity should be considered. This quantum should include water purchased directly from any other sources and put into the distribution system, if any. Water may have been purchased from neighbouring ULBs, Cantonment Boards, etc. The actual volume of water supplied to customers who are billed for the water provided. Ideally, this should be the aggregate volume of water consumed as per which consumers have been billed. However, in the absence of a complete and functionally effective metering regimen, alternate methods of measurement need to be evolved, with lower but acceptable levels of reliability. NRW = [((a - b)/a)*100]

b. Total water sold

million litres per day (or) month

NRW

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

29

Rationale for the Indicator

The reduction in NRW to acceptable levels is vital for the financial sustainability of the water utility. NRW can be reduced through appropriate technical and managerial actions, and therefore monitoring NRW can trigger such corrective measures. The reduction of real losses can be used to meet currently unsatisfied demand or to defer future capital expenditures to provide additional supply capacity. The reduction of NRW is desirable not just from a financial standpoint, but also from the economic and environmental benefits point of view. The benchmark value for NRW may be considered at 20 percent, the levels achieved by most well-performing utilities in developed countries. NRW is also influenced by factors outside the control of the water utility such as the topography of the city, age of the network, length of the network per connection and water use per capita.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumed pump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours of operation. A few meters have been installed in the distribution system and at the consumer end. The quantity of water sold to the category of consumers to whom bills are raised is estimated on the basis of assumed average consumption in that category and the number of consumers in that category. The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of measurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at all bulk production points. Meters are installed for a select category of consumers, such as commercial and bulk consumers. For other categories of consumers, such as domestic consumers, the number of such consumers and the average consumption per consumer are considered, to arrive at the quantum of water sold. The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of measurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant and/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of water sold is based on the metered quantity for bulk and commercial consumers. For households, ferrule size (the size of the distribution pipe outlet at the consumer end) of each consumer connection as well as the hours of supply are known, to compute the quantum of water sold. The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of measurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant and/or at all bulk production points. Metering is undertaken at all key distribution nodes (entry to DMAs) and at the consumers end for all categories of consumers. Billing records and databases clearly reveal regular reading of meters and, therefore, the total quantum of water billed to consumers in the given time period (month/bi-monthly). Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level

Intermediate level (C)

Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Quarterly

30

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.5 CONTINUITY OF WATER SUPPLY

Performance Indicator
Indicator Continuity of water supply Unit Hours per day Definition Continuity of supply is measured as the average number of hours of pressurised water supply per day. Water pressure should be equal to or more than a head of 7 metre (m) at the ferrule point/meter point for the connection (7 m head corresponds to the ability to supply to a single-storey building).

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator Average hours of pressurised supply per day Unit Remarks

Hours

The number of hours of supply in each operational zone (or DMA) should be measured continuously for a period of seven days. The average of the seven days should be considered for that month. Measurement should exclude hours of supply where the pressure is less than the minimum standards for piped water supply. The zone-wise figures should be averaged out to get city-wise data.

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

31

Rationale for the Indicator

Almost no Indian city has a continuous (24x7) water supply system, the norm for all cities in the developed world. From a citizens perspective, it is desirable to have round-the-clock water supply daily, as it eliminates the need to provide and manage household/establishment level storage, and other resultant inconveniences. Water utilities in most Indian cities provide intermittent and limited number of hours of supply, as a means to manage inadequate supply. A number of studies have demonstrated the negative fallouts of designing and operating a system for intermittent water supply. A number of cities are undertaking substantial investments to improve this service level. It is, therefore, critical to monitor this indicator on a city-wide basis and move towards the benchmark value of 24 hours.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method Estimation of the number of hours based on feedback from field level engineers. Zone-wise data are not available. Not applicable. The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of the valve operating points. Pressure availability at the consumers end is assumed to be adequate and meeting the stated norms. The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of the valve operating points. Pressure adequacy and the number of hours of supply at the consumers end are assessed on the basis of a statistically valid sample survey, across all zones in the city. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level

Intermediate level (C) Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Monthly

32

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.6 QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIED

Performance Indicator
Indicator Quality of water supplied Unit % Definition The percentage of water samples that meet or exceed the specified potable water standards, as defined by the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO). The sampling regimen should meet standards and norms laid down.

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of water supplyrelated complaints received per month Unit Remarks

Number The actual number of water samples that are taken per month for testing in the month. Samples should be drawn at both pointsoutlet of the treatment plant and at the consumer end. The sampling regimen should meet laid down standards and norms. Number Of the total number of samples drawn in the month, per month the number of samples that have met or exceeded the specified potable water standards. All parameters of the quality standards should be met. Even if one standard is not met, the sample cannot be assumed to have met the standards. % Quality of water supply = [(b/a)*100]

b. Number of samples that meet the specified potable water standards in the month

Quality of water supply

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

33

Rationale for the Indicator

The quality of water supplied is as important a performance indicator as other service delivery indicators. Poor water quality can pose serious public health hazards. Water-borne diseases are quite common in Indian cities, particularly among the urban poor. Although, in most cases, the source of water that causes such diseases/epidemics is not the municipal piped water supply, it is very important to monitor the supply. Therefore, this performance indicator must be regularly monitored, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method Sampling is done only at treatment plant outlets. There is absence of a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, and only very basic tests are carried out. Sampling is done at production and intermediate points along the distribution network, but only for residual chlorine. There is absence of a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, and tests are intermittently carried out through a third party. Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet and consumption points. Consumption points are spatially spread across the city. The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriological tests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access to accredited testing centres. Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet and consumption points. The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriological tests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access to accredited testing centres. A periodic, independent audit of water quality is carried out. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level

Intermediate level (C)

Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Monthly

34

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.7 EFFICIENCY IN REDRESSAL OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS

Performance Indicator
Indicator Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Unit % Definition The total number of water supply-related complaints redressed within 24 hours of receipt of complaint, as a percentage of the total number of water supplyrelated complaints received in the given time period.

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of water supplyrelated complaints received per month Unit Remarks

Number The total number of all supply-related complaints per month from consumers received during the month. Systems for receiving and logging in complaints should be effective and easily accessible to the citizens. Points of customer contact will include common phone numbers, written complaints at ward offices, collection centres, drop boxes, online complaints on the website, etc. Number The total number of water supply-related complaints per month that are satisfactorily redressed within 24 hours or the next working day, within that particular month. Satisfactory resolution of the complaint should be endorsed by the person making the complaint in writing, as a part of any format/proforma that is used to track complaints. % Efficiency in redressal of complaints = [(b/a)*100]

b. Total number of complaints redressed within the month

Efficiency in redressal of complaints

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

35

Rationale for the Indicator

It is important that, in essential services such as water supply, the ULB/water utility has effective systems to capture customer complaints/grievances, escalate them internally for remedial action and resolve them. While many ULBs/utilities have put in place systems to capture complaints, much more work needs to be done to put in place back-end systems for satisfactory resolution of those complaints on time. As water supply is an essential service, the benchmark time for redressal is 24 hours or the next working day. It is, therefore, important to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for this indicator will depend on a number of factors such as the size of the city, age of the network, etc. The benchmark value for this indicator may be set at 80 percent.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Intermediate level (C) Description of method Complaints data are not maintained either at the ward or city level. There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers can register their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail. All complaints received are assumed to be resolved quickly. There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers can register their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail. However, systems do not exist for aggregating, sorting and tracking the complaints. Data available for some months have been used as a trend to report the figures for some other months. There are multiple mechanisms by which consumers can register their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail. Complaints are segregated into different categories. They are collated through the computer network or other systems, and tracked on a daily basis. The status of redressal of complaints is maintained. Consumers endorse complaints being addressed on the municipal proforma. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level

Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Monthly

36

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.8 COST RECOVERY IN WATER SUPPLY SERVICES

Performance Indicator
Indicator Cost recovery in water supply services Unit % Definition The total operating revenues expressed as a percentage of the total operating expenses incurred in the corresponding time period. Only income and expenditure of the revenue account must be considered, and income and expenditure from the capital account should be excluded.

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total annual operating expenses Unit Remarks

Rs crore Should include all operating expenses (for the year) per quarter such as electricity, chemicals, staff, outsourced operations/staff related to water supply, bulk water purchase costs and other operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Should exclude interest payments, principal repayments and other capital expenses. Rs crore Should include all water supply-related revenues per quarter (billed) during the corresponding time period, including taxes/cess/surcharges, user charges, connection charges, sale of bulk water, etc. This should exclude capital income such as grants, loans, etc. % Cost recovery = [(b/a)*100]

b. Total annual operating revenues

Cost recovery in water supply services

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

37

Rationale for the Indicator

Financial sustainability is critical for all basic urban services. In services such as water supply, benefits received by the consumers are more direct and can be quantified. Therefore, through a combination of user charges, fees and taxes, all operating costs may be recovered. Therefore, this indicator is critical for measuring overall cost recovery, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent. Cost recovery objectives provide a basis for tariff fixation, enable setting targets for revenue mobilisation and cost control in the delivery of water supply services.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method There is no segregation of budget heads related to water supply services and sanitation from the rest of the functions of the agency. A cash-based accounting system is practiced. There are no clear systems for reporting unpaid expenditure, or revenues that are due. Disclosures and reporting are not timely. Audits have a time lag and are not regular. Not applicable. Budget heads related to water and sanitation are segregated. Key costs related to water and sanitation are identifiable, although complete segregation is not practiced (for example, electricity costs for water supply services are not segregated from overall electricity costs of the ULB). Key income and expenditure are recognised based on accrual principles. Disclosures are complete and are timely. In case of multi-function agencies such as municipal corporations, the budget heads related to water and sanitation are clearly separated. Cost allocation standards for common costs are in place. An accrualbased double entry accounting system is practiced. Accounting standards are comparable to commercial accounting standards with clear guidelines for recognition of income and expenditure. Accounting and budgeting manuals are in place and are adhered to. Financial statements have full disclosure and are audited regularly and on time. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level

Intermediate level (C) Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Quarterly

38

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

2.1.9 EFFICIENCY IN COLLECTION OF WATER SUPPLY-RELATED CHARGES

Performance Indicator
Indicator Efficiency in collection of waterrelated charges Unit % Definition Efficiency in collection is defined as current year revenues collected, expressed as a percentage of the total operating revenues, for the corresponding time period

Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Current revenues collected in the given year Unit Remarks

Rs crore Revenues collected for bills raised during the year. per annum This should exclude collection of arrears as inclusion of arrears will skew the performance reflected. Collection efficiency is in fact an indicator of how many arrears are being built up, and therefore only current revenues should be considered. Rs crore The total quantum of revenues related to water per annum supply services that is billed during the year. This should include revenues from all sources related to water such as taxes, charges, cess, surcharges, sale of bulk water, etc. % Collection efficiency = [(a/b)*100]

b. Total operating revenues billed during the given year

Collection efficiency

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

45

Rationale for the Indicator

While the performance indicator for coverage provides an idea of infrastructure available for access to sewage networks, the effectiveness of the system in capturing the sewage may not be adequate. Therefore, the performance indicator related to collection efficiency signifies the effectiveness of the network in capturing and conveying it to the treatment plants. Thus, it is not just adequate to have an effective network that collects sewage, but also one that treats the sewage at the end of the network. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method Water production is based on D category systems for measuring NRW. There are no meters at sewage treatment plants (STPs), intake is estimated on the basis of flow or treatment plant capacity. No estimates are available for water consumed from other sources. Water production is based on C category systems for measuring NRW. Sewage intake is estimated on the basis of flow or treatment plant capacity. No estimates are available for water consumed from other sources. Water production is based on B category systems for measuring NRW. Periodic measurement of wastewater collection is based on flow assessment methods at the STPs. There are no estimates for water consumed from other sources. Water production is based on A category measurement systems for measuring NRW. Estimates are available for water consumed from other sources. Measurement of wastewater collection occurs at all inlets of STPs by flow assessment methods. Process control automation provides accurate data, for both water production and distribution and for sewage intake and treatment. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level

Intermediate level (C)

Intermediate level (B)

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Monthly

HANDBOOK OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

49

Rationale for the Indicator

For sustainable sewage management, it is not just enough to have the infrastructure to collect and convey the sewage, or the installed capacity to treat it. It is important that the treated water that is discharged back into water bodies, or used for other purposes such as irrigation, meets the laid down environmental standards. It is therefore important to monitor this indicator. Its benchmark value is 100 percent.

Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Description of method

Lowest level of reliability (D) There is an absence of a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment. Irregular tests are carried out. Not all parameters are tested. Intermediate level (C) Intermediate level (B) Not applicable. The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced on most occasions. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access to accredited testing centres. Only a few key parameters are assessed. The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced completely. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access to accredited testing centres. There is periodic independent audit of wastewater quality. All parameters are assessed. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level

Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)

Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Monthly

82

MAKING SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING OPERATIONAL

TABLE 1: SUGGESTED FREQUENCY AND JURISDICTION OF REPORTING

SLB No. Urban Service Frequency Frequency of Measure- of Reportment by ing within ULB/Utility ULB/Utility Frequency of Reporting to State/ Central Govt. Jurisdiction for Measurement by ULB/Utility Jurisdiction for Reporting within ULB/Utility Jurisdiction for Reporting to State/ Central Govt.

1. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5

WATER SUPPLY Coverage of water supply connections Per capita supply of water Extent of metering of water connections Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) Continuity of water supply Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Zone/DMA Zone/DMA Zone/DMA ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Zone/DMA Ward Ward Ward ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Ward ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB

2.1.6 2.1.7

Quality of water supplied Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Cost recovery in water supply services Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges

Monthly Monthly

Monthly Monthly

Annually Annually

ULB ULB

2.1.8 2.1.9

Quarterly Annually

Quarterly Annually

Annually Annually

ULB ULB

2. 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

SEWAGE MANAGEMENT (SEWERAGE AND SANITATION) Coverage of toilets Coverage of sewage network services Collection efficiency of sewage network Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity Quality of sewage treatment Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Extent of cost recovery in sewage management Efficiency in collection of sewage-related charges Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Annually Annually Annually Ward Ward ULB Ward Ward ULB ULB ULB ULB

2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6

Annually Monthly Annually

Annually Monthly Annually

Annually Annually Annually

ULB ULB ULB

ULB ULB ULB

ULB ULB ULB

2.2.7

Monthly

Monthly

Annually

Zone/ DMA ULB

Zone/ DMA ULB

ULB

2.2.8

Annually

Annually

Annually

ULB

2.2.9

Annually

Annually

Annually

Zone/DMA

Ward

ULB